PDA

View Full Version : Say I wanted to debate one of the smart people



Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 09:57 AM
It's fun having a go at all the threads, naturally, but say I wanted to debate one of the smart people, am I allowed to make a call out thread to Ethereal Alyosha Peter1469 Dr. Who Green Arrow @Codename (I can't believe I'm saying this) Section Adelaide or Chris ?

Just curious if it's allowable. :engel017:

Cthulhu
03-05-2014, 10:38 AM
It's fun having a go at all the threads, naturally, but say I wanted to debate one of the smart people, am I allowed to make a call out thread to @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) @Codename (I can't believe I'm saying this) Section @Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=473) or @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) ?

Just curious if it's allowable. :engel017:

Totally, just keep it quasi civil and not retarded. The only thing people don't like is negative call outs. Have at it. Out of curiosity, what would the topic be?

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 10:40 AM
Totally, just keep it quasi civil and not retarded. The only thing people don't like is negative call outs. Have at it. Out of curiosity, what would the topic be?

Anything. Voluntarism, socialised health. Knocking off low hanging fruit has its place but there comes a time when a lad requires a challenge.

Cthulhu
03-05-2014, 10:58 AM
Anything. Voluntarism, socialised health. Knocking off low hanging fruit has its place but there comes a time when a lad requires a challenge.

Problem is that many of them would agree with you - because they are smart. You search for that which is in rare supply. Intelligent adversaries championing that which you oppose always are a rare find.

Let me know when you find one, that way I can watch it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rc8k_D3yYoE/Tw4IyOKMysI/AAAAAAAAAls/awgasVzJMfA/s320/Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 11:17 AM
I'm not a voluntarist.

Chris
03-05-2014, 12:15 PM
And I'm not smart though I do like to discuss and debate.

Calling people out for discussion ought to be fine. Calling people out to insult, attack or harass them is not.

Back when I was a mod here we redesigned the forum to have a lighter side and a serious side. Idea was leave the topical political stuff as is, lightly moderated, but allow two areas away from that. At the top level, http://thepoliticalforums.com/forum.php, you can still see that structure. But it got tiresome keeping riffraff from distracting and disrupting serious discussion. So you can start discussion with invited people, but not be able to keep the riffraff out.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 12:21 PM
There's a huge difference between being smart and knowing a lot of things but not knowing what to do with them. There really are very few "smart" people in this sense. I don't claim to be one of them either.

Polecat
03-05-2014, 12:25 PM
Just why in da hell was my name not in that list?

Cthulhu
03-05-2014, 12:43 PM
I'm not a voluntarist.

Why not?

6213

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 12:44 PM
There's a huge difference between being smart and knowing a lot of things but not knowing what to do with them. There really are very few "smart" people in this sense. I don't claim to be one of them either.

Right.

Cthulhu
03-05-2014, 12:56 PM
Of course another perfectly acceptable option to me is this -

6215

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 01:03 PM
When I think "voluntarist" I think of either the hopelessly naive or the completely self-reliant Behemoth that is Codename who could live in the wilderness and fight angry bears, neither of which am I.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 01:04 PM
I'm not even sure what a voluntarist is.

Someone explained it to me, all I comprehended was "blah blah blah".

Everyone wants to be something special, something new, something that sounds smart.

Yeah... ok

Chris
03-05-2014, 01:05 PM
Question: Do you really want smart people or people who want to make an effort to discuss a topic? Problem I see more and more on this forum is an overwhelming number of people whose only efforts are to distract, disturb and dissemble.

Cthulhu
03-05-2014, 01:06 PM
When I think "voluntarist" I think of either the hopelessly naive or the completely self-reliant Behemoth that is Codename who could live in the wilderness and fight angry bears, neither of which am I.

Eh for the most part you are right. I think most of the self described voluntarism adherents are superficially so. It requires a certain personality type with a common moral code among its members. In order for voluntarism to work, you need others. Cooperation with your neighbors goes a long way.

Codename may be an self reliance guru - which has great merit, but if his appendix gets moody, or if he gets tape worm out in the woods, he'll need the assistance of another. Voluntarism to my limited understanding creates socialism, it just isn't forced upon you at the barrel of a gun.

Cigar
03-05-2014, 01:07 PM
Question: Do you really want smart people or people who want to make an effort to discuss a topic? Problem I see more and more on this forum is an overwhelming number of people whose only efforts are to distract, disturb and dissemble.

... and Deny :wink:

So why be serious when you're dealing with this ...

http://hq-wall.net/wall_preview/149094/5ef02706/See-no-evil,-hear-no-evil,-speak-no-evil.jpg

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 01:10 PM
Question: Do you really want smart people or people who want to make an effort to discuss a topic? Problem I see more and more on this forum is an overwhelming number of people whose only efforts are to distract, disturb and dissemble.

You have a very robotic way of thinking and are very anti-abstract.

I don't mean that as a knock on you either, that's your personality so I think you're sensitive to stuff that colors outside the lines.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 01:10 PM
Question: Do you really want smart people or people who want to make an effort to discuss a topic? Problem I see more and more on this forum is an overwhelming number of people whose only efforts are to distract, disturb and dissemble.

If it were Christmas and I had one wish it would be to debate Ethereal in voluntarism versus a philosopher king, but he is ethereal so the chances of that happening are 1 and a cat's arse.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 01:13 PM
If it were Christmas and I had one wish it would be to debate @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) in voluntarism versus a philosopher king, but he is ethereal so the chances of that happening are 1 and a cat's arse.

That guy is one of the biggest morons on the forum.

I wouldn't waste a wet fart on that schmuck.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 01:26 PM
That guy is one of the biggest morons on the forum.

I wouldn't waste a wet fart on that schmuck.

On the contrary, Ethereal is quite intelligent. He is the Moriarty to my Holmes.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 01:27 PM
It's fun having a go at all the threads, naturally, but say I wanted to debate one of the smart people, am I allowed to make a call out thread to @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) @Codename (I can't believe I'm saying this) Section @Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=473) or @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) ?

Just curious if it's allowable. :engel017:


...what's smart to you, being in front of the herd so you have fresh air?...

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 01:27 PM
On the contrary, Ethereal is quite intelligent. He is the Moriarty to my Holmes.

Yeah, the brat pack says the same thing about him.

Sure, whatever.

... kids

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 01:34 PM
Yeah, the brat pack says the same thing about him.

Sure, whatever.

... kids
Captain Obvious

we all have our good qualities. Chaps like myself have more than they rightly ought to have. I'm intelligent, well-educated, handsome, athletic, and a musician. All that I'm missing is modesty and humility or I'd be perfect.

Though I am robustly blessed in all ways I do acknowledge those who are my equal or superior. For example, I will admit that perhaps Codename Section could quite possibly, in his own way, be as good looking as myself and will begrudgingly call him my athletic superior. His guitar skills are also, perhaps, equal to my own. Luckily, I'm smarter or I'd have to hate him.

Intellectually, I must look to Ethereal or Alyosha for those pursuits that require knowledge and abnormal, ie superior, brain function else I get bored.

While it is fun from time to time poking at the Cigar's of this world you can only do that so much without feeling as though you've taken candy from a baby.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 01:36 PM
...what's smart to you, being in front of the herd so you have fresh air?...

Not this ^

Chris
03-05-2014, 01:39 PM
... and Deny :wink:

So why be serious when you're dealing with this ...

http://hq-wall.net/wall_preview/149094/5ef02706/See-no-evil,-hear-no-evil,-speak-no-evil.jpg



Prime example of what I mean.

Anyone with any semblance of sincerity can contribute to discussion imo, but there are those without it.

Chris
03-05-2014, 01:40 PM
You have a very robotic way of thinking and are very anti-abstract.

I don't mean that as a knock on you either, that's your personality so I think you're sensitive to stuff that colors outside the lines.



Well my point went over the old noggin.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 01:40 PM
Prime example of what I mean.

Anyone with any semblance of sincerity can contribute to discussion imo, but there are those without it.

True. There are many who are sincere and do make a good argument and then there is Cigar.

Chris
03-05-2014, 01:41 PM
If it were Christmas and I had one wish it would be to debate Ethereal in voluntarism versus a philosopher king, but he is ethereal so the chances of that happening are 1 and a cat's arse.

Philosopher Kings are men and men are not angels.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 01:44 PM
Philosopher Kings are men and men are not angels.

Neither are voluntarists and some of them are large and have good aim. I like Codename Section but I'd be cautious were I to live in a community populated with he and his friends. Rather like shacking up with a friendly lion. What happens when there is a scarcity?

The Xl
03-05-2014, 01:47 PM
Voluntarism is nothing more than a pipe dream on anything other than a small scale in todays day and age.

Chris
03-05-2014, 01:48 PM
Neither are voluntarists and some of them are large and have good aim. I like Codename Section but I'd be cautious were I to live in a community populated with he and his friends. Rather like shacking up with a friendly lion. What happens when there is a scarcity?

But what good is a flawed PK talking to himself compared to a group of Vs discussing and discovering solutions? There's something to be said of the wisdom of the crowd.

Cigar
03-05-2014, 01:50 PM
:rollseyes: It's cloudy ... but they're not falling

Ravi
03-05-2014, 01:51 PM
You have a very robotic way of thinking and are very anti-abstract.

I don't mean that as a knock on you either, that's your personality so I think you're sensitive to stuff that colors outside the lines.Prove that with philosophy, history, psychology, and example.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 01:52 PM
Prove that with philosophy, history, psychology, and example.

http://userimages05-akm.imvu.com/productdata/stickers_b3b4efa0d14fa3a67c4d9759534129b6.jpg

Chris
03-05-2014, 01:58 PM
Paperback Writer, you do see the problem you've created by including some by name and excluding others. Egos abound on a forum.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:00 PM
@Paperback Writer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=862), you do see the problem you've created by including some by name and excluding others. Egos abound on a forum.

Yes. :)

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 02:01 PM
Not this ^


...not this either...answer the question...

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:02 PM
...not this either...answer the question...

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 02:04 PM
True. There are many who are sincere and do make a good argument and then there is Cigar.


...good argument under the guidelines of western thought OR common sense?...just because you are a good western drone and you have the western ideal down pat doesn't make you smart...there's a difference between book smart and common sense...

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:05 PM
@Paperback Writer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=862), you do see the problem you've created by including some by name and excluding others. Egos abound on a forum.

Not sure what "problem" you're referring to, maybe you're just stuffing straw into an old shirt but I do find it fascinating who considers who/what intelligent.

I could care less TBH who thinks what of me for what it's worth, but I tend to draw a comparison of people I know firsthand (including online forums) and society in general and I think for the most part there are many parallels.

Society has very, very few really intelligent people - exceptional people. Very few. It also has a lot of "smart" people who sell themselves as smart people and society has a huge amount of gullible, naive people.

And a couple of realists like me.

That's all I'm doing.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:06 PM
The whole faux worship of the Pauls and Palins of the world support my theory, btw.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:11 PM
...good argument under the guidelines of western thought OR common sense?...just because you are a good western drone and you have the western ideal down pat doesn't make you smart...there's a difference between book smart and common sense...

...intelligent commentary...is hard to find...usually the same people who talk about common sense over book smarts...are the same people who self-label themselves "nice guys" when they are dismissed by attractive women looking for a man of equal beauty and stature...women don't want nice guys they want bad boys...?

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:12 PM
The whole faux worship of the Pauls and Palins of the world support my theory, btw.

So you believe their worship is fake?

Chris
03-05-2014, 02:13 PM
Not sure what "problem" you're referring to, maybe you're just stuffing straw into an old shirt but I do find it fascinating who considers who/what intelligent.

I could care less TBH who thinks what of me for what it's worth, but I tend to draw a comparison of people I know firsthand (including online forums) and society in general and I think for the most part there are many parallels.

Society has very, very few really intelligent people - exceptional people. Very few. It also has a lot of "smart" people who sell themselves as smart people and society has a huge amount of gullible, naive people.

And a couple of realists like me.

That's all I'm doing.


I said from the start I'm not smart.

But you tell good jokes. Realist, lol.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:14 PM
I said from the start I'm not smart.

But you tell good jokes. Realist, lol.

Who said I was referring to you in any way?

What were you saying about egos again?

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:15 PM
So you believe their worship is fake?

I think the whole circle is fake. Fake to the extent that you have phony people "selling" a snake oil product to gullible consumers who want to believe the snake oil works.

Chris
03-05-2014, 02:15 PM
Who said I was referring to you in any way?

What were you saying about egos again?

Yours knows no bounds. Why'd you need that repeated?

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:16 PM
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Mr-Burns-Saying-Excellent.gif

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:17 PM
Yours knows no bounds. Why'd you need that repeated?

Hardly. I'm probably one of the least ego sensitive members of the forum.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 02:18 PM
...I don't know where Capstain Oblivious posted this:

"You have a very robotic way of thinking and are very anti-abstract.

I don't mean that as a knock on you either, that's your personality so I think you're sensitive to stuff that colors outside the lines."


...but this is my problem on the forums, they can't grasp my ideas...they are so stuck in an emotional rut created by our society that they can't get past being offended by something outside the lines...there's a whole wide world out there and teeny-tiny US of A, and that's the reason we go out and bully everyone that's different into being like us...but it's not working because there are cultures/societies that have been doing what they do, with relative success mind you, for more then a thousand years...very few people in the US can push aside their personal emotional bias and really try to understand something completely offensive to them on all levels...that's intelligence, being able to grasp and understand all concepts, no matter how foreign or offensive, and understand them...and accept them...A's and B's in the cookie cutter US "mind control" education system is not intelligence it's just a good little student...

The Xl
03-05-2014, 02:20 PM
I can't understand why some people would be concerned with what anonymous people on the internet think of themselves and others.

Who cares? Everyone has their own opinion. Sometimes, it's more agenda than anything. Why fall into that potential trap?

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:23 PM
...I don't know where Capstain Oblivious posted this:

"You have a very robotic way of thinking and are very anti-abstract.

I don't mean that as a knock on you either, that's your personality so I think you're sensitive to stuff that colors outside the lines."


...but this is my problem on the forums, they can't grasp my ideas...they are so stuck in an emotional rut created by our society that they can't get past being offended by something outside the lines...there's a whole wide world out there and teeny-tiny US of A, and that's the reason we go out and bully everyone that's different into being like us...but it's not working because there are cultures/societies that have been doing what they do, with relative success mind you, for more then a thousand years...very few people in the US can push aside their personal emotional bias and really try to understand something completely offensive to them on all levels...that's intelligence, being able to grasp and understand all concepts, no matter how foreign or offensive, and understand them...and accept them...A's and B's in the cookie cutter US "mind control" education system is not intelligence it's just a good little student...


Tell us more about how the world doesn't understand your intellect.

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/finger_roll_dr_horrible.gif

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:23 PM
I can't understand why some people would be concerned with what anonymous people on the internet think of themselves and others.

Who cares? Everyone has their own opinion. Sometimes, it's more agenda than anything. Why fall into that potential trap?

They can't help themselves.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 02:25 PM
@Captain Obvious (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3)

we all have our good qualities. Chaps like myself have more than they rightly ought to have. I'm intelligent, well-educated, handsome, athletic, and a musician. All that I'm missing is modesty and humility or I'd be perfect.

Though I am robustly blessed in all ways I do acknowledge those who are my equal or superior. For example, I will admit that perhaps @Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) could quite possibly, in his own way, be as good looking as myself and will begrudgingly call him my athletic superior. His guitar skills are also, perhaps, equal to my own. Luckily, I'm smarter or I'd have to hate him.

Intellectually, I must look to @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) or @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) for those pursuits that require knowledge and abnormal, ie superior, brain function else I get bored.

While it is fun from time to time poking at the Cigar's of this world you can only do that so much without feeling as though you've taken candy from a baby.


...that's what I love about the net, being able to say whatever you want and there's no way of proving otherwise, "you go gurl!!!"...

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:25 PM
...I don't know where Capstain Oblivious posted this:

"You have a very robotic way of thinking and are very anti-abstract.

I don't mean that as a knock on you either, that's your personality so I think you're sensitive to stuff that colors outside the lines."


...but this is my problem on the forums, they can't grasp my ideas...they are so stuck in an emotional rut created by our society that they can't get past being offended by something outside the lines...there's a whole wide world out there and teeny-tiny US of A, and that's the reason we go out and bully everyone that's different into being like us...but it's not working because there are cultures/societies that have been doing what they do, with relative success mind you, for more then a thousand years...very few people in the US can push aside their personal emotional bias and really try to understand something completely offensive to them on all levels...that's intelligence, being able to grasp and understand all concepts, no matter how foreign or offensive, and understand them...and accept them...A's and B's in the cookie cutter US "mind control" education system is not intelligence it's just a good little student...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l1btfBkHiLo/UIGacWB4wVI/AAAAAAAAYBA/zt4fVaFqEG4/s1600/tumblr_lmp9fvHokd1qchzcgo1_500.png

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:26 PM
I can't understand why some people would be concerned with what anonymous people on the internet think of themselves and others.

Who cares? Everyone has their own opinion. Sometimes, it's more agenda than anything. Why fall into that potential trap?

Insecurity

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:27 PM
I think the whole circle is fake. Fake to the extent that you have phony people "selling" a snake oil product to gullible consumers who want to believe the snake oil works.

So then their worship is not fake, their beliefs are fake? We can go back and revise your earlier assessment to better grammatically correlate to your meaning. :D

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 02:27 PM
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm


...are you going to answer the question or keep striving for a gold star?...

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:30 PM
...that's what I love about the net, being able to say whatever you want and there's no way of proving otherwise, "you go gurl!!!"...

I love it, too. It drags out people like you who are so insecure about your own looks, intellect, and prowess that you cannot help but comment that someone might be lying about their own perfection.

The best bit is that this entire thread is a Noel Fielding and you're too much the simpleton to get it.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 02:30 PM
Tell us more about how the world doesn't understand your intellect.

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/finger_roll_dr_horrible.gif


...you're the gifted one not me, tell me something new?...

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:31 PM
So then their worship is not fake, their beliefs are fake? We can go back and revise your earlier assessment to better grammatically correlate to your meaning. :D

Nah, I'd still call it fake worship.

Most people only go through the intellectual motions in this respect, they don't really give a lot of intelligent investment into decisions.

So yeah, it's fake.

Chris
03-05-2014, 02:31 PM
Hardly. I'm probably one of the least ego sensitive members of the forum.

http://userimages05-akm.imvu.com/productdata/stickers_b3b4efa0d14fa3a67c4d9759534129b6.jpg

The Xl
03-05-2014, 02:32 PM
I love it, too. It drags out people like you who are so insecure about your own looks, intellect, and prowess that you cannot help but comment that someone might be lying about their own perfection.

The best bit is that this entire thread is a Noel Fielding and you're too much the simpleton to get it.

I always knew that you were baiting the fuck out of people with half the shit you said. I'm surprised that most didn't pick up on it, it's fairly obvious.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:32 PM
http://userimages05-akm.imvu.com/productdata/stickers_b3b4efa0d14fa3a67c4d9759534129b6.jpg

You wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it kicked you in the ball.

It's too abstract for you.

Chris
03-05-2014, 02:32 PM
...I don't know where Capstain Oblivious posted this:

"You have a very robotic way of thinking and are very anti-abstract.

I don't mean that as a knock on you either, that's your personality so I think you're sensitive to stuff that colors outside the lines."


...but this is my problem on the forums, they can't grasp my ideas...they are so stuck in an emotional rut created by our society that they can't get past being offended by something outside the lines...there's a whole wide world out there and teeny-tiny US of A, and that's the reason we go out and bully everyone that's different into being like us...but it's not working because there are cultures/societies that have been doing what they do, with relative success mind you, for more then a thousand years...very few people in the US can push aside their personal emotional bias and really try to understand something completely offensive to them on all levels...that's intelligence, being able to grasp and understand all concepts, no matter how foreign or offensive, and understand them...and accept them...A's and B's in the cookie cutter US "mind control" education system is not intelligence it's just a good little student...

:huh:

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:33 PM
http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luwhbbhFGG1r6aoq4o1_500.gif

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:33 PM
I always knew that you were baiting the fuck out of people with half the shit you said. I'm surprised that most didn't pick up on it, it's fairly obvious.

Yeah, I nibbled a little at first then sort of started to like the guy.

I can see him casting that line out now.

Chris
03-05-2014, 02:34 PM
You wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it kicked you in the ball.

It's too abstract for you.

And there rears that ego again.

The Sage of Main Street
03-05-2014, 02:34 PM
...I don't know where Capstain Oblivious posted this:

"You have a very robotic way of thinking and are very anti-abstract.

I don't mean that as a knock on you either, that's your personality so I think you're sensitive to stuff that colors outside the lines."


...but this is my problem on the forums, they can't grasp my ideas...they are so stuck in an emotional rut created by our society that they can't get past being offended by something outside the lines...there's a whole wide world out there and teeny-tiny US of A, and that's the reason we go out and bully everyone who's different into being like us...but it's not working because there are cultures/societies that have been doing what they do, with relative success mind you, for more than a thousand years...very few people in the US can push aside their personal emotional bias and really try to understand something completely offensive to them on all levels.....and accept it.

You're just repeating some Hate Whitey multicultie drivel, because some media-created clowns say it is the Wave of the Future. If it is, that wave will be a tsunami.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:35 PM
You're just repeating some Hate Whitey multicultie drivel, because some media-created clowns say it is the Wave of the Future. If it is, that wave will be a tsunami.

Mongo a bigot?

Say it ain't so...

:biglaugh:

Ethereal
03-05-2014, 02:36 PM
If it were Christmas and I had one wish it would be to debate @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) in voluntarism versus a philosopher king, but he is ethereal so the chances of that happening are 1 and a cat's arse.

I don't think they necessarily have to be adversarial systems if you endorse a decentralist paradigm wherein local or regional majorities are allowed to retain their autonomy. In other words, I see the possibility of these systems coexisting alongside one another. I think it would be to the advantage of all people if instead of maintaining a few dozen mega-states (US, UK, Germany, China, Russia, etc.), we decentralized political power to the point where the world consists of hundreds, if not thousands, of micro-states like Luxembourg and Monaco. Naturally, these micro-states would recognize the utility of entering into loose regional and even global confederations that permitted free trade to occur between them largely unmolested.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:36 PM
You're just repeating some Hate Whitey multicultie drivel, because some media-created clowns say it is the Wave of the Future. If it is, that wave will be a tsunami.

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/finger_roll_dr_horrible.gif

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:37 PM
And there rears that ego again.

You do have this one thing - I see the girls talk about it and they're exactly right. You just make up situations along the way.

My comment had nothing to do with ego - mine or yours and you make this... bizarre from-left-field totally irrelevant comment.

You get more credibility when you hit the ball square with the bat, not when you take the base by letting it hit you in the mouth.

The Xl
03-05-2014, 02:37 PM
You're just repeating some Hate Whitey multicultie drivel, because some media-created clowns say it is the Wave of the Future. If it is, that wave will be a tsunami.

If you're part of the allegedly superior white race, then why the fuck are you a nobody constantly whining and bitching about the 1% and minorities on the internet? Go out there and make some cheddah, brotha.

The Sage of Main Street
03-05-2014, 02:38 PM
...that's what I love about the net, being able to say whatever you want and there's no way of proving otherwise, "you go gurl!!!"...

The Brit twit thinks he is educated, yet he uses Cigar's as the plural of Cigar.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:39 PM
The Brit twit thinks he is educated, yet he uses Cigar's as the plural of Cigar.

Clearly the sign of severe mental retardation.

:rollseyes:

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:39 PM
I don't think they necessarily have to be adversarial systems if you endorse a decentralist paradigm wherein local or regional majorities are allowed to retain their autonomy. In other words, I see the possibility of these systems coexisting alongside one another. I think it would be to the advantage of all people if instead of maintaining a few dozen mega-states (US, UK, Germany, China, Russia, etc.), we decentralized political power to the point where the world consists of hundreds, if not thousands, of micro-states like Luxembourg and Monaco. Naturally, these micro-states would recognize the utility of entering into loose regional and even global confederations that permitted free trade to occur between them largely unmolested.

<proper use of ellipsis to follow>

...and in the middle of chaos and absurdity rides in a champion.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm3ekrT42M1qd1y2a.gif


Well played, well played.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 02:42 PM
I love it, too. It drags out people like you who are so insecure about your own looks, intellect, and prowess that you cannot help but comment that someone might be lying about their own perfection.

The best bit is that this entire thread is a Noel Fielding and you're too much the simpleton to get it.


...if you need to say this then it's not true...basic psychology...



I'm intelligent, well-educated, handsome, athletic, and a musician.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:43 PM
Captain Obvious

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Are-You-Not-Entertained-Gladiator.gif

The Xl
03-05-2014, 02:44 PM
...if you need to say this then it's not true...basic psychology...

Whether it's true or not, he's saying it to get a rise out of you.

Wake up.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 02:45 PM
http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luwhbbhFGG1r6aoq4o1_500.gif


...you are using a gay feller to represent yourself?...there's a message here...

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:45 PM
...if you need to say this then it's not true...basic psychology...

Oh, Kabuki So-So

http://25.media.tumblr.com/97a263a621f092a430f5c8f67d122971/tumblr_mk12fkdSWw1s378g0o1_500.gif


Ocean knows me and even posted my photograph on her favourite things about Great Britain thread. Go look and weep.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:45 PM
@Captain Obvious (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3)

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Are-You-Not-Entertained-Gladiator.gif

This thread is fucking awesome!

Most awesome thread outside the hole besides the legendary Hitler thread.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:45 PM
Whether it's true or not, he's saying it to get a rise out of you.

Wake up.

Stop that at once!

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:46 PM
This thread is fucking awesome!

Most awesome thread outside the hole besides the legendary Hitler thread.


I do what I can. What's better still is that Joe's still going.

The Xl
03-05-2014, 02:46 PM
Stop that at once!

I'm sorry, picking on the mentally retarded is wrong.

For shame, Paperback.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:47 PM
...you are using a gay feller to represent yourself?...there's a message here...

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i49/5/5/8/frabz-HOMOPHOBE-RACIST-Thats-not-true-I-love-chocolate-ice-cream-78cb24.jpg

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:47 PM
I do what I can. What's better still is that Joe's still going.

Mongo's a total fail machine.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:47 PM
I'm sorry, picking on the mentally retarded is wrong.

For shame, Paperback.

I did feel bad for a bit when Cthulhu and Chris were so sincere, but then I remembered I'm British.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:49 PM
I did feel bad for a bit when @Cthulhu (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=872) and @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) were so sincere, but then I remembered I'm British.

Chris is gullible like that.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 02:51 PM
Oh, Kabuki So-So

http://25.media.tumblr.com/97a263a621f092a430f5c8f67d122971/tumblr_mk12fkdSWw1s378g0o1_500.gif


Ocean knows me and even posted my photograph on her favourite things about Great Britain thread. Go look and weep.


...are you hitting on me?...

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:53 PM
...are you hitting on me?...
Paperback Writer


You really need to change your avatar, all the creepy old men are getting all pedophile on you.

The Xl
03-05-2014, 02:53 PM
...are you hitting on me?...

You'd probably like it if he was, don't lie.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:53 PM
...are you hitting on me?...

In boxing matches the trainer usually is the one who knows when to throw in the towel because the boxer has been beaten so severely that he cannot think clearly.

...when you resort to unfunny (versus funny) homosexual humour...you're done.

Cthulhu
03-05-2014, 02:54 PM
I did feel bad for a bit when @Cthulhu (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=872) and @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) were so sincere, but then I remembered I'm British.

So now I'm mentally retarded? Meh. I've been called worse. Life soldiers onward.

I'm sure I am just as smart or as stupid as people think I am. I'm sure they all know they are right too.

Many social nuances are utterly lost on me. There is a reason I go to forums for social interaction. I am a socially awkward creature at best.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 02:54 PM
In boxing matches the trainer usually is the one who knows when to throw in the towel because the boxer has been beaten so severely that he cannot think clearly.

...when you resort to unfunny (versus funny) homosexual humour...you're usually done.


...I'm pointing out what you are doing and I'm done?...

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:54 PM
@Paperback Writer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=862)


You really need to change your avatar, all the creepy old men are getting all pedophile on you.


I love that Cigar didn't recognise Paul McCartney. It was brilliant of him, actually.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:55 PM
So now I'm mentally retarded? Meh. I've been called worse. Life soldiers onward.

I'm sure I am just as smart or as stupid as people think I am. I'm sure they all know they are right too.

Rubbish. Never called you retarded. I, in my own special way, implied you were nice.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 02:56 PM
I love that Cigar didn't recognise Paul McCartney. It was brilliant of him, actually.

Right, but he could probably name every member of the Jackson 5 from pictures.

The stereotype is so fucking delicious.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 02:57 PM
...I'm pointing out what you are doing and I'm done?...

https://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/wsg/image/1356/76/1356761977407.gif

Cthulhu
03-05-2014, 02:59 PM
Rubbish. Never called you retarded. I, in my own special way, implied you were nice.

See updated post-


So now I'm mentally retarded? Meh. I've been called worse. Life soldiers onward.

I'm sure I am just as smart or as stupid as people think I am. I'm sure they all know they are right too.

Many social nuances are utterly lost on me. There is a reason I go to forums for social interaction. I am a socially awkward creature at best.

Ethereal
03-05-2014, 03:02 PM
<proper use of ellipsis to follow>

...and in the middle of chaos and absurdity rides in a champion.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm3ekrT42M1qd1y2a.gif


Well played, well played.

Sir.

*bows gracefully*

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 03:03 PM
I don't think they necessarily have to be adversarial systems if you endorse a decentralist paradigm wherein local or regional majorities are allowed to retain their autonomy. In other words, I see the possibility of these systems coexisting alongside one another. I think it would be to the advantage of all people if instead of maintaining a few dozen mega-states (US, UK, Germany, China, Russia, etc.), we decentralized political power to the point where the world consists of hundreds, if not thousands, of micro-states like Luxembourg and Monaco. Naturally, these micro-states would recognize the utility of entering into loose regional and even global confederations that permitted free trade to occur between them largely unmolested.
Ethereal

So a world of Lichtensteins and Monacos? I see that as preferable to the large state which will trend increasingly towards the centralisation of power in a very nasty way in order to hold it together. I feel most people wish to be led and that is the crux of why voluntarism just will not work.

Those of you who do not wish to be led have too powerful of personalities to exist happily in an idyllic little group. Give it a year and you and Codename will either kill each other or bow to the machinations of Alyosha. It is the way of the strong to have a winner.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 03:06 PM
https://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/wsg/image/1356/76/1356761977407.gif


...are you shooting for ceeeeegar's picture poster extraordinaire title?...I love this stuff...

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 03:15 PM
...are you shooting for ceeeeegar's picture poster extraordinaire title?...I love this stuff...

We're three pages past where this sort of thing from you would be slightly less embarrassing. When you've been had and trounced and continue to try and get a leg up it just looks sad.

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news/40244/_1384186561.gif

Ethereal
03-05-2014, 03:18 PM
@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870)

So a world of Lichtensteins and Monacos? I see that as preferable to the large state which will trend increasingly towards the centralisation of power in a very nasty way in order to hold it together. I feel most people wish to be led and that is the crux of why voluntarism just will not work.

Those of you who do not wish to be led have too powerful of personalities to exist happily in an idyllic little group. Give it a year and you and Codename will either kill each other or bow to the machinations of Alyosha. It is the way of the strong to have a winner.

As I've said previously, the viability of any political system, whether it's anarchy or monarchy, rests on the character of the people. Obviously, if we start with the assumption that people are venal, ignorant, and aggressive, there is no way that voluntarism will come to fruition, let alone prosper. But the same can be said of monarchy or democracy. It wouldn't matter how wise and just a ruler was or how many checks and balances there were in a democracy if the people lacked proper values. Arguing over which system is better without reference to values is, therefore, just intellectual masturbation.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 03:20 PM
As I've said previously, the viability of any political system, whether it's anarchy or monarchy, rests on the character of the people. Obviously, if we start with the assumption that people are venal, ignorant, and aggressive, there is no way that voluntarism will come to fruition, let alone prosper. But the same can be said of monarchy or democracy. It wouldn't matter how wise and just a ruler was or how many checks and balances there were in a democracy if the people lacked proper values. Arguing over which system is better without reference to values is, therefore, just intellectual masturbation.

How does one implement values without authority? They have to come from somewhere. Without imposed values you fall back into evolutionary roles which are geared towards the strong.

Cthulhu
03-05-2014, 03:21 PM
@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870)

So a world of Lichtensteins and Monacos? I see that as preferable to the large state which will trend increasingly towards the centralisation of power in a very nasty way in order to hold it together. I feel most people wish to be led and that is the crux of why voluntarism just will not work.

Aye, and people will still be led, be it by social status, religious teachings, or via economics. Leadership takes many forms. State is not required to lead, yet it opposes all other options that rise to the surface. State is currently the alpha wolf. Although I think it is getting old and not as spry as it once was.



Those of you who do not wish to be led have too powerful of personalities to exist happily in an idyllic little group. Give it a year and you and Codename will either kill each other or bow to the machinations of Alyosha. It is the way of the strong to have a winner.

The psychology of wolves answers this problem. One dies or leaves, or accepts his position in life.

Chris
03-05-2014, 03:22 PM
I did feel bad for a bit when Cthulhu and Chris were so sincere, but then I remembered I'm British.



Yea, I'm all broken up over it. Would like to see more serious, sincere discussion. Would think that the purpose of a forum with world class pretensions.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 03:24 PM
Yea, I'm all broken up over it. Would like to see more serious, sincere discussion. Would think that the purpose of a forum with world class pretensions.

Wouldn't we all have to agree?

Chris
03-05-2014, 03:24 PM
Chris is gullible like that.

What would Howard Stern say, captain?

Captain Obvious
03-05-2014, 03:29 PM
What would Howard Stern say, captain?

Bababooey

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 03:31 PM
We're three pages past where this sort of thing from you would be slightly less embarrassing. When you've been had and trounced and continue to try and get a leg up it just looks sad.

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news/40244/_1384186561.gif


...trounced...that's funny...

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 03:33 PM
...trounced...that's funny...

...

^funny

Ethereal
03-05-2014, 03:38 PM
How does one implement values without authority?

With reason and persuasion, my good man.


They have to come from somewhere. Without imposed values you fall back into evolutionary roles which are geared towards the strong.

Ah, but evolution has also made us communal and cooperative, and this has been my experience in life. Most people I meet are meek and kind. It's the ruling class, the politicians, the credentialed who have an inflated opinion of themselves and, consequently, an inclination to exploit and dominate others. That is why I reject the fiction of "authority" and other forms of arbitrary power. It turns men into beasts.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 03:45 PM
With reason and persuasion, my good man.

Persuasion that your ideas and values are better than theirs? Is that not also a form of authoritarianism, if not in deed but philosophy?




Ah, but evolution has also made us communal and cooperative, and this has been my experience in life. Most people I meet are meek and kind. It's the ruling class, the politicians, the credentialed who have an inflated opinion of themselves and, consequently, an inclination to exploit and dominate others. That is why I reject the fiction of "authority" and other forms of arbitrary power. It turns men into beasts.

Agreed that there is incentive in power to take that monopoly and use it forcefully for self-gain, which is why I believe a monarchy, while not Shangri-La, more often relies on a parent's love and hopes for their children. A monarch wishes to leave a better kingdom to their children, while a group of men in a republic or parliamentary system want to pick the bones clean whilst they have the opportunity. Yes, there will be tyrants but better one tyrant than 500. With one there is always the chance they will become ill or have an accident. :wink:

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 03:50 PM
How does one implement values without authority?

...the hard part is who's values?...yours?...mine?...the BMFIC?...the collectives?...once you identify the standard, then you have a society implement that standard...



They have to come from somewhere.

...but they change with the change in leadership...



Without imposed values you fall back into evolutionary roles which are geared towards the strong.

...it works until you get a Hitler or Stalin in charge...look at history and there have been more good leaders via Darwinist ideals then not...in Hitler's case his war machine made huge technological advances, whether for good or bad...

Ethereal
03-05-2014, 03:52 PM
Persuasion that your ideas and values are better than theirs? Is that not also a form of authoritarianism, if not in deed but philosophy?

I'm not sure. Perhaps. I think what is important, though, is that it can be done without coercion, which I find uncivilized and immoral.


Agreed that there is incentive in power to take that monopoly and use it forcefully for self-gain, which is why I believe a monarchy, while not Shangri-La, more often relies on a parent's love and hopes for their children. A monarch wishes to leave a better kingdom to their children, while a group of men in a republic or parliamentary system want to pick the bones clean whilst they have the opportunity. Yes, there will be tyrants but better one tyrant than 500. With one there is always the chance they will become ill or have an accident. :wink:

Again, it goes back to a set of prior values. What good is a monarchy, or an anarchy, for that matter, if the people do not want it or do not possess the moral and intellectual capacity to prosper under it? That is why reason and consent must form the basis for any system of social organization or government, otherwise, it will simply devolve into conflict and scarcity.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 03:57 PM
...

^funny


...that's all you have?...as smart as you are that's the best you can come up with?...if you are the cream of the crop, we are doomed...

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 04:05 PM
I'm not sure. Perhaps. I think what is important, though, is that it can be done without coercion, which I find uncivilized and immoral.


I would say that coercion is only situationally immoral. If I coerce someone away from danger, did I do something immoral? That is a value, is it not?





Again, it goes back to a set of prior values. What good is a monarchy, or an anarchy, for that matter, if the people do not want it or do not possess the moral and intellectual capacity to prosper under it? That is why reason and consent must form the basis for any system of social organization or government, otherwise, it will simply devolve into conflict and scarcity.

I used to be far more agnostic and hedonistic. I even voted Labour for years. As I saw more and more NED culture pop up I realised that there is something to both religion and tradition that kept the English on top of the world for so long. Without shared values, as you've said, you have no safety.

The danger is in practice, specifically, the punitive aspect of what happens when someone does not adhere to those values. Obviously, I don't believe they should go to prison, but something either coercive or punitive has to happen to keep society in line.

Chris
03-05-2014, 04:10 PM
With reason and persuasion, my good man.



Ah, but evolution has also made us communal and cooperative, and this has been my experience in life. Most people I meet are meek and kind. It's the ruling class, the politicians, the credentialed who have an inflated opinion of themselves and, consequently, an inclination to exploit and dominate others. That is why I reject the fiction of "authority" and other forms of arbitrary power. It turns men into beasts.



Do we see generally people gathering together to go fight other groups of people? No, not in the least, except perhaps trivially after soccer matches. No, we see this only in the atrocities of states warring with other states.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 04:12 PM
Do we see generally people gathering together to go fight other groups of people? No, not in the least, except perhaps trivially after soccer matches. No, we see this only in the atrocities of states warring with other states.

That would be because they fear incarceration.

Cthulhu
03-05-2014, 04:12 PM
Persuasion that your ideas and values are better than theirs? Is that not also a form of authoritarianism, if not in deed but philosophy?

Just persuasion actually. If I convinced you that ___ was far superior and you bought it because of _____ reasons, does that in any way grant me authority over you? Not really. You still wouldn't pay my rent nor do my dishes just because I convinced you of something unrelated to rent payments or dish washing.

Persuasion is the art of convincing another to use their authority over their own body and mind to be more aligned with your own purposes.



Agreed that there is incentive in power to take that monopoly and use it forcefully for self-gain, which is why I believe a monarchy, while not Shangri-La, more often relies on a parent's love and hopes for their children. A monarch wishes to leave a better kingdom to their children, while a group of men in a republic or parliamentary system want to pick the bones clean whilst they have the opportunity. Yes, there will be tyrants but better one tyrant than 500. With one there is always the chance they will become ill or have an accident. :wink:

If we could have a righteous God fearing king with appropriate morals, I'd be all for it. But the odds are slim. And the apples of an evil king don't exactly fall far from the tree. A good king can bring about wonders, and evil king brings about where we are currently headed - and worse.

Chris
03-05-2014, 04:14 PM
Persuasion that your ideas and values are better than theirs? Is that not also a form of authoritarianism, if not in deed but philosophy?



Agreed that there is incentive in power to take that monopoly and use it forcefully for self-gain, which is why I believe a monarchy, while not Shangri-La, more often relies on a parent's love and hopes for their children. A monarch wishes to leave a better kingdom to their children, while a group of men in a republic or parliamentary system want to pick the bones clean whilst they have the opportunity. Yes, there will be tyrants but better one tyrant than 500. With one there is always the chance they will become ill or have an accident. :wink:



Persuasion that your ideas and values are better than theirs? Is that not also a form of authoritarianism, if not in deed but philosophy?

No, because ideas, good, reasonable ideas, are not any individual's but repeatable by anyone and achieve through self-persuasion. Is the process of scientific discovery authoritarian? Not since say Newton.

Chris
03-05-2014, 04:16 PM
That would be because they fear incarceration.

Not buying that, not very persuasive. :-) People just generally do not have such motivation, desire. It's too costly.

Cthulhu
03-05-2014, 04:17 PM
I would say that coercion is only situationally immoral. If I coerce someone away from danger, did I do something immoral? That is a value, is it not?

What is dangerous to one is not necessarily dangerous to another.

If I shoot a lion in front of a man that happened to be a lion trainer, or take him away from the lion by force I have not helped anybody.

If I see my kid wander to close to a lion in africa, you can bet coercion will take place to get to my kid to stay away.

At the same time, people should be allowed to make their own choices so long as they aren't going to harm anybody else. Want to kill yourself? Okay, stupid decision I frown on, but it is your life. Want to kill yourself and jump off a bridge with a toddler in your hands? Well, now we have a mighty large disagreement happening.

Consent is a needed thing.

Chris
03-05-2014, 04:18 PM
Wait a minute, is this turning into a discussion? :icon_scratch:

Ethereal
03-05-2014, 04:19 PM
I would say that coercion is only situationally immoral. If I coerce someone away from danger, did I do something immoral? That is a value, is it not?

Yes, you did, because you substituted your own judgement in place of theirs, which strips them of their autonomy and agency. Now, this would be justified if it were child who lacked the capacity to consent and to self-govern, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is adults we are concerned with, and they have the right to place themselves into "dangerous" (however you want to define that) situations or arrangements if they so desire. That would include, for example, drinking alcohol in a bar or having sex outside of marriage.


I used to be far more agnostic and hedonistic. I even voted Labour for years. As I saw more and more NED culture pop up I realised that there is something to both religion and tradition that kept the English on top of the world for so long. Without shared values, as you've said, you have no safety.

The danger is in practice, specifically, the punitive aspect of what happens when someone does not adhere to those values. Obviously, I don't believe they should go to prison, but something either coercive or punitive has to happen to keep society in line.

I'm not categorically opposed to the use of force or the threat of force in order to maintain adherence to a proper set of values. The question is not whether force is justified, but under what circumstances it is justified. You seem to believe that it is justified when you subjectively assess someone else's actions as being a "danger" to themselves, but that is not a self-consistent standard if you maintain your own right to engage in behavior which could be subjectively deemed a "danger" by others. Only when your actions infringe upon the rights of others, or represent an imminent threat of danger to others, is the use of defensive or preemptive force justified. And this is one of the major misconceptions about voluntarism/anarchy, that there is no recourse to force, law, and order. On the contrary, we take our rights deadly seriously and are more than willing to defend them with force and the imposition of law.

Ethereal
03-05-2014, 04:21 PM
Do we see generally people gathering together to go fight other groups of people? No, not in the least, except perhaps trivially after soccer matches. No, we see this only in the atrocities of states warring with other states.

I would much prefer small scale, localized skirmishes over land and resources than large scale industrialized warfare over abstruse nationalism and collectivism.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 04:27 PM
Yes, you did, because you substituted your own judgement in place of theirs, which strips them of their autonomy and agency. Now, this would be justified if it were child who lacked the capacity to consent and to self-govern, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is adults we are concerned with, and they have the right to place themselves into "dangerous" (however you want to define that) situations or arrangements if they so desire. That would include, for example, drinking alcohol in a bar or having sex outside of marriage.

Therein lies the rub as the Bard never said.

When is it acceptable? You say "never" because it removes autonomy and that, to you, is always wrong. I say that stopping someone from jumping off a bridge is a good thing. We both would probably not try to stop someone from doing drugs, but I admit that I am situational in my values and beliefs.

Is it always wrong to kill? No. Mostly though.




I'm not categorically opposed to the use of force or the threat of force in order to maintain adherence to a proper set of values. The question is not whether force is justified, but under what circumstances it is justified. You seem to believe that it is justified when you subjectively assess someone else's actions as being a "danger" to themselves, but that is not a self-consistent standard if you maintain your own right to engage in behavior which could be subjectively deemed a "danger" by others. Only when your actions infringe upon the rights of others, or represent an imminent threat of danger to others, is the use of defensive or preemptive force justified. And this is one of the major misconceptions about voluntarism/anarchy, that there is no recourse to force, law, and order. On the contrary, we take our rights deadly seriously and are more than willing to defend them with force and the imposition of law.

I don't believe in incarceration for non-violent action or that man does not have a right to self defence. I do believe in scorn, shaming, and other social pressures for non-violent offences.

I do prefer autonomy and liberty to what I have now and what you have most certainly, but a community of which you speak cannot happen on a large scale and what we have now is large systems which won't go away voluntarily. So my choices are a republic which is cheap and bought as easily as crisps or a more top down system like a monarchy which, if it is by blood, then you do have a motivation for excellence from the monarch.

Paperback Writer
03-05-2014, 04:29 PM
Not buying that, not very persuasive. :-) People just generally do not have such motivation, desire. It's too costly.

You bring up footie matches and hooliganism. It's not costly. It does happen. It happens with large groups because they outnumber the police and therefore have no fear of incarceration.

Ethereal
03-05-2014, 04:39 PM
Therein lies the rub as the Bard never said.

When is it acceptable? You say "never" because it removes autonomy and that, to you, is always wrong. I say that stopping someone from jumping off a bridge is a good thing. We both would probably not try to stop someone from doing drugs, but I admit that I am situational in my values and beliefs.

Is it always wrong to kill? No. Mostly though.

It boils down to consent, which is a state of mind. Take your bridge jumper, for example. If they were a cancer patient that was terminal and in great pain, having made their choice to end their life after careful consideration, it would indeed be morally wrong for you to stop them. That is because they have consented to the consequences of their actions. If, on the other hand, they were whacked on hallucinogens and tried to jump off the bridge, you would be justified in stopping them, because they lack the ability to consent to the consequences. That is why the issue of consent is so paramount to voluntarist thinkers, because it serves to distinguish between proper and improper uses of force. And lest we forget, consent is a central theme in common law systems as well.


I don't believe in incarceration for non-violent action or that man does not have a right to self defence. I do believe in scorn, shaming, and other social pressures for non-violent offences.

I do prefer autonomy and liberty to what I have now and what you have most certainly, but a community of which you speak cannot happen on a large scale and what we have now is large systems which won't go away voluntarily. So my choices are a republic which is cheap and bought as easily as crisps or a more top down system like a monarchy which, if it is by blood, then you do have a motivation for excellence from the monarch.

They could go away voluntarily if there was a change in thinking, which is why I always bring it back to a prior set of values. If people can be persuaded of the utility and justness of decentralization and voluntarism, they would naturally choose such systems for themselves. That is, therefore, the goal of all anarchists, to enlighten others and obtain their consent.

“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and opressions of the body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.”
--Thomas Jefferson

Chris
03-05-2014, 04:58 PM
I would much prefer small scale, localized skirmishes over land and resources than large scale industrialized warfare over abstruse nationalism and collectivism.

Exactly. Such would cause little havok and could be privately defended against. But where do we even see such small scale, localized skirmishes? In another thread it was suggested range wars are an example. But are they when range wars occurred in the West after government took over, but not before when Westerners, for range, farm, water, mineral rights formed voluntary associations that created and enforced rules and rights.

Chris
03-05-2014, 05:02 PM
You bring up footie matches and hooliganism. It's not costly. It does happen. It happens with large groups because they outnumber the police and therefore have no fear of incarceration.


I was pulling your leg on footie matches and hooliganism. I doubt those are costly, other than the drinking that comes before and after. What I'm getting at is your just don't see any Hobbesian man against man, you don't see the people of the United States voluntarily banding together to go conquer the people Canada, or England France--that would be too costly. You only see this under the coercive power of the state--too costly as well but the state forcefully collects the taxes to fund it or just prints the money to fake it.

Ravi
03-05-2014, 06:33 PM
PW is a troll. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Green Arrow
03-05-2014, 06:34 PM
I'd welcome a good, rousing debate. Set it up and I will come.

Bob
03-05-2014, 06:36 PM
It's fun having a go at all the threads, naturally, but say I wanted to debate one of the smart people, am I allowed to make a call out thread to @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) @Codename (I can't believe I'm saying this) Section @Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=473) or @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) ?

Just curious if it's allowable. :engel017:


That is your list?

ROFLMAO

Nothing against those on the list, but pal, you left off at least one in the upper 2 percent.

Well, perhaps you intend to debate the left and of course you have a decent list of names.

Ravi
03-05-2014, 06:37 PM
btw, who is that boy in PW's avatar?

Bob
03-05-2014, 06:59 PM
@Captain Obvious (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3)

we all have our good qualities. Chaps like myself have more than they rightly ought to have. I'm intelligent, well-educated, handsome, athletic, and a musician. All that I'm missing is modesty and humility or I'd be perfect.

Though I am robustly blessed in all ways I do acknowledge those who are my equal or superior. For example, I will admit that perhaps @Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) could quite possibly, in his own way, be as good looking as myself and will begrudgingly call him my athletic superior. His guitar skills are also, perhaps, equal to my own. Luckily, I'm smarter or I'd have to hate him.

Intellectually, I must look to @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) or @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) for those pursuits that require knowledge and abnormal, ie superior, brain function else I get bored.

While it is fun from time to time poking at the Cigar's of this world you can only do that so much without feeling as though you've taken candy from a baby.

I suspect you are an athletic supporter? Right?

Peter1469
03-05-2014, 07:00 PM
Dr. Who is the only one on the left in the list. And he is very reasonable. I would agree that there are no Neocons or religious right on the list.


That is your list?

ROFLMAO

Nothing against those on the list, but pal, you left off at least one in the upper 2 percent.

Well, perhaps you intend to debate the left and of course you have a decent list of names.

Peter1469
03-05-2014, 07:01 PM
btw, who is that boy in PW's avatar?

Some dude who lots of American girls thought could sing?

Ravi
03-05-2014, 07:04 PM
Some dude who lots of American girls thought could sign?Sign what?

Peter1469
03-05-2014, 07:16 PM
Sign what? You should know.

Chris
03-05-2014, 08:11 PM
PW is a troll. Not that there's anything wrong with it.



Stop projecting.

Chris
03-05-2014, 08:13 PM
Dr. Who is the only one on the left in the list. And he is very reasonable. I would agree that there are no Neocons or religious right on the list.

Adelaide and Green are on the left.

Peter1469
03-05-2014, 08:23 PM
Adelaide and Green are on the left.

They are. Must have overlooked them.

Chris
03-05-2014, 08:36 PM
And good at discussion, which, I still think, is more important than smarts. And I'd include Bob and many others in the list.


I wonder, if there were enough interest from members, for a more serious, sincere discussion area--not a formal debate are--could that be set up and moderated more strictly like we tried on the Serious Side.

Peter1469
03-05-2014, 08:39 PM
I would support a more serious side if enough members wanted it. It would require those posting in good faith on the serious side to ignore the nonsense posts until a mod could deal with it.


And good at discussion, which, I still think, is more important than smarts. And I'd include @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) and many others in the list.


I wonder, if there were enough interest from members, for a more serious, sincere discussion area--not a formal debate are--could that be set up and moderated more strictly like we tried on the Serious Side.

Chris
03-05-2014, 09:07 PM
OK, well, we'll see if there's interest.

Green Arrow
03-05-2014, 09:45 PM
Dr. Who is the only one on the left in the list. And he is very reasonable. I would agree that there are no Neocons or religious right on the list.

I was on the list.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 09:47 PM
btw, who is that boy in PW's avatar?


...he's the poster boy for liberalism and you don't know who he is?...yikes...

Peter1469
03-05-2014, 09:50 PM
I was on the list.

Sorry.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 09:54 PM
That is your list?

ROFLMAO

Nothing against those on the list, but pal, you left off at least one in the upper 2 percent.

Well, perhaps you intend to debate the left and of course you have a decent list of names.


...settle down Bob...these are the "gifted" and they are discussing how us "idiots" should be governed...it's pretty interesting how they make "force" sound "civilized"...

Chloe
03-05-2014, 09:57 PM
I think something like an instant messenger on here could be kindof cool to have if you wanted to debate someone in more real time, or a room that multiple people could debate in real time as well. It would definitely make it tough for people to go off topic in my opinion and would expose people that aren't sincere.

Kabuki Joe
03-05-2014, 10:38 PM
I think something like an instant messenger on here could be kindof cool to have if you wanted to debate someone in more real time, or a room that multiple people could debate in real time as well. It would definitely make it tough for people to go off topic in my opinion and would expose people that aren't sincere.


...nope, anything over the net promotes false courage...anything serious needs to be face-to-face for people to remain "civil"...there's that chat program, can't remember the name, but it allows groups to get in a chat and voice chat...but people still have a tendency to loose it...you need to pick and choose who'd you'd allow and then it would be a room full of like people with nothing really inspiring...

Captain Obvious
03-06-2014, 08:48 AM
I think it's been discussed already, but why not go the "serious discussion" route again?

It seems to have worked to a degree before. If it can be done, make it by invitation only - by thread, is that possible?

So if I want to "invite" a couple of specific members, I can give them access?

Maybe that's not possible.

Peter1469
03-06-2014, 09:02 AM
I don't know about limiting access to the serious side. But the blogs are an option. Start a blog. No response is made public until the blog author approves it. The author has 100% control over it.

We stopped the serious side because too many posters didn't realize that they were one the serious side, or just didn't care.

Chris
03-06-2014, 09:03 AM
I think it's been discussed already, but why not go the "serious discussion" route again?

It seems to have worked to a degree before. If it can be done, make it by invitation only - by thread, is that possible?

So if I want to "invite" a couple of specific members, I can give them access?

Maybe that's not possible.


If there's enough interest. The problem as I saw it with On the Serious Side was twofold. One, since all topics are listed together under What's New? members go to a topic and post not knowing which area they're in--remember trying to change background? Two, it's a rule, and there are those who will try to push limits just to do it.

I don't think members can limit participants in a thread by invite only, but that might be something ADMIN or Adelaide could look into. Of course it could be as simple as the OP deciding and contacting mods to kick someone out of a thread no questions asked and mods simply doing it.

Anyway it all comes down to whether there's really any interest in it. Currently interest seems to be bashing each other over the head about topical hypocrisy in thread after thread.

Chris
03-06-2014, 09:22 AM
I don't know about limiting access to the serious side. But the blogs are an option. Start a blog. No response is made public until the blog author approves it. The author has 100% control over it.

We stopped the serious side because too many posters didn't realize that they were one the serious side, or just didn't care.



Agree, it just got to be too much to mod when serious discussion wasn't really popular enough.

Another alternative is using groups which can be invite only I think.

Captain Obvious
03-06-2014, 09:22 AM
If there's enough interest. The problem as I saw it with On the Serious Side was twofold. One, since all topics are listed together under What's New? members go to a topic and post not knowing which area they're in--remember trying to change background? Two, it's a rule, and there are those who will try to push limits just to do it.

I don't think members can limit participants in a thread by invite only, but that might be something @ADMIN (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1) or @Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=473) could look into. Of course it could be as simple as the OP deciding and contacting mods to kick someone out of a thread no questions asked and mods simply doing it.

Anyway it all comes down to whether there's really any interest in it. Currently interest seems to be bashing each other over the head about topical hypocrisy in thread after thread.

People come to forums for a number of reasons, the latter of what you said is one reason why many are here.

Some like you and some others like serious discussion and there is definitely overlap between the two populations.

Which is why a "by invite only" option, if it's possible, would be ideal. The problem with serious discussion is that it will still get drive-by junk - I was guilty of doing it when we had that section, I admit it. It's hard not to.

Constantly bugging mods to remove members will be a hassle.

Chris
03-06-2014, 09:27 AM
People come to forums for a number of reasons, the latter of what you said is one reason why many are here.

Some like you and some others like serious discussion and there is definitely overlap between the two populations.

Which is why a "by invite only" option, if it's possible, would be ideal. The problem with serious discussion is that it will still get drive-by junk - I was guilty of doing it when we had that section, I admit it. It's hard not to.

Constantly bugging mods to remove members will be a hassle.



Agree that people come to forums for different reasons and the forum should accommodate all.

If there's interest whatever solution shouldn't burden mods with more work.

Maybe it's just fine the way it is, you want to seriously discuss a topic, just do it, and ignore the rest. Or use blogs, or use groups.

Captain Obvious
03-06-2014, 09:29 AM
Agree that people come to forums for different reasons and the forum should accommodate all.

If there's interest whatever solution shouldn't burden mods with more work.

Maybe it's just fine the way it is, you want to seriously discuss a topic, just do it, and ignore the rest. Or use blogs, or use groups.

I still like the idea of a by-invite only if it were only possible.

Or by request, or both.

Ravi
03-06-2014, 09:34 AM
Stop projecting.
I wasn't projecting. He admitted to trolling, therefore he is a troll.

You should stop projecting.

Paperback Writer
03-06-2014, 09:36 AM
Who admitted to being a troll? :azn:

Chris
03-06-2014, 09:37 AM
I wasn't projecting. He admitted to trolling, therefore he is a troll.

You should stop projecting.


You seem angry. And don't seem to understand what trolling is. The original definition of an Internet troll was someone who starts threads to get others fighting while they sit back and watch. You know, sort of like your Posters I Miss thread.

Ravi
03-06-2014, 09:37 AM
I don't know about limiting access to the serious side. But the blogs are an option. Start a blog. No response is made public until the blog author approves it. The author has 100% control over it.

We stopped the serious side because too many posters didn't realize that they were one the serious side, or just didn't care.
It takes a lot of effort to realize you are in a thread in the serious side if you read the forum through the what's new button. For a short time I believe it was changed to red so people would immediately know but I think that hurt people's eyes.

Captain Obvious
03-06-2014, 09:39 AM
Who admitted to being a troll? :azn:

http://www.feelingdownbutlookingup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/3370720363_0292e001822.jpg

Germanicus
03-06-2014, 09:40 AM
Those are the smart people?

Ravi
03-06-2014, 09:43 AM
You seem angry. And don't seem to understand what trolling is. The original definition of an Internet troll was someone who starts threads to get others fighting while they sit back and watch. You know, sort of like your Posters I Miss thread.
hahahaha. Why are you allowed to get away with this shit?

Polecat
03-06-2014, 09:49 AM
I still like the idea of a by-invite only if it were only possible.

Or by request, or both.

I am fairly sure this BB software has a private chat room feature that can be operated as invitation only. Could be the other board I frequented was using an add on though.

Captain Obvious
03-06-2014, 09:50 AM
I am fairly sure this BB software has a private chat room feature that can be operated as invitation only. Could be the other board I frequented was using an add on though.

Yeah, but IMO these threads should be visible to the public.

People want other people to see how smart they are.

Paperback Writer
03-06-2014, 09:51 AM
Those are the smart people?

If you can't tell those are the smart people, you're not that smart yourself.

Captain Obvious
03-06-2014, 09:52 AM
If you can't tell those are the smart people, you're not that smart yourself.

If there's a fine line between smart and psycho, Germanicus is a genius.

Chris
03-06-2014, 09:53 AM
hahahaha. Why are you allowed to get away with this shit?

Poor ravi. Someday you'll get it.

Chris
03-06-2014, 09:56 AM
Yeah, but IMO these threads should be visible to the public.

People want other people to see how smart they are.

Yea, that's the problem with blogs and groups, they're not visible. You want visibility to get people interested.

Blogs may be the way to go if admin/adelaide can figure out how to get blogs added to What's New? Then it's up to the blog owner who to let post.

Peter1469
03-06-2014, 10:11 AM
Yes, user groups would be much easier to custom a debate than by setting up a blog. We really need to find a way to make those more prominent. At least to provide members notice of when a new post is made in a user group.


Agree, it just got to be too much to mod when serious discussion wasn't really popular enough.

Another alternative is using groups which can be invite only I think.

Peter1469
03-06-2014, 10:14 AM
Yes, the color change didn't work out and it was about that time we decided to stop with the heavier modding there so we never got around to trying another color.


It takes a lot of effort to realize you are in a thread in the serious side if you read the forum through the what's new button. For a short time I believe it was changed to red so people would immediately know but I think that hurt people's eyes.

Germanicus
03-06-2014, 10:14 AM
If there's a fine line between smart and psycho, @Germanicus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=768) is a genius.

I prefer eccentric. Im pretty sure you have to be smart to be a genius. Mensa would laugh their asses off at the likes of me. Wouldnt a genius be insane? Or 'eccentric'? Why is a genius allowed to be insane? Or is it all of you that are insane? ... ((:

edit- I think that many psychopaths are misunderstood as well. A few bad apples ruin it for the rest of us. Right?

Peter1469
03-06-2014, 10:17 AM
I doubt that the Blogs could be added to What's New. But Admin did add a feature to the bottom of the Forum page to show new blog posts.

That doesn't really help me, I tend to update current posts because of the way WordPress works (or rather my limited knowledge of it).


Yea, that's the problem with blogs and groups, they're not visible. You want visibility to get people interested.

Blogs may be the way to go if admin/adelaide can figure out how to get blogs added to What's New? Then it's up to the blog owner who to let post.

Chris
03-06-2014, 10:18 AM
Yes, user groups would be much easier to custom a debate than by setting up a blog. We really need to find a way to make those more prominent. At least to provide members notice of when a new post is made in a user group.

If group discussions could hit What's New? that would be the easiest. I join them, make a few posts, and then, not seeing them, forget they're there.

Blogs are NOT so hard to set up. And they have the advantage of roping in a larger audience than just forum members. But visibility here is a problem--posts are on the main page though.

It's fun to kick ideas around.

Now, was Paperback Writer serious?



Edit, added NOT.

Chris
03-06-2014, 10:19 AM
Those are the smart people?



A better question might be, are there smart people? Here? Anywhere?

Paperback Writer
03-06-2014, 10:22 AM
If group discussions could hit What's New? that would be the easiest. I join them, make a few posts, and then, not seeing them, forget they're there.

Blogs are so hard to set up. And they have the advantage of roping in a larger audience than just forum members. But visibility here is a problem--posts are on the main page though.

It's fun to kick ideas around.

Now, was @Paperback Writer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=862) serious?

I'll admit to being a bit of an arsehole as a preface to what I'm about to say.

I've been stuck in the States and was bored so I posted. There wasn't much intelligence to the conversations so I had the type of fun I would have whilst sitting in grammar school. That, too, grew old and it became like shooting fish in a barrel so I came up with this thread. Mostly, I was having a laugh but, in truth, I've always wanted to debate Ethereal but he always gives me a bit of a dodge.

I feel as though debating him would settle something in my own head and that is admittedly vain.

Peter1469
03-06-2014, 10:36 AM
For a debate with a specific member, set up a user group and only allow that person to post. Anyone could read but they couldn't post (except Mods, but we would not post if you asked it to be limited to one member.)


I'll admit to being a bit of an arsehole as a preface to what I'm about to say.

I've been stuck in the States and was bored so I posted. There wasn't much intelligence to the conversations so I had the type of fun I would have whilst sitting in grammar school. That, too, grew old and it became like shooting fish in a barrel so I came up with this thread. Mostly, I was having a laugh but, in truth, I've always wanted to debate @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) but he always gives me a bit of a dodge.

I feel as though debating him would settle something in my own head and that is admittedly vain.

Chris
03-06-2014, 10:43 AM
I'll admit to being a bit of an arsehole as a preface to what I'm about to say.

I've been stuck in the States and was bored so I posted. There wasn't much intelligence to the conversations so I had the type of fun I would have whilst sitting in grammar school. That, too, grew old and it became like shooting fish in a barrel so I came up with this thread. Mostly, I was having a laugh but, in truth, I've always wanted to debate Ethereal but he always gives me a bit of a dodge.

I feel as though debating him would settle something in my own head and that is admittedly vain.

You two started debating earlier. Carry on. I can stay out but if you want one on one use PMs or email.

Ravi
03-06-2014, 10:44 AM
Jeesh! Just do a bull ring. It flops on other forums, why not here?

Paperback Writer
03-06-2014, 10:45 AM
You two started debating earlier. Carry on. I can stay out but if you want one on one use PMs or email.

And UFC fighters could do it in a basement if they really wanted to, yeh?

I'm afraid you're missing the point, Chris.

Chris
03-06-2014, 11:02 AM
Jeesh! Just do a bull ring. It flops on other forums, why not here?

Just read Hemingway.

Chris
03-06-2014, 11:02 AM
And UFC fighters could do it in a basement if they really wanted to, yeh?

I'm afraid you're missing the point, Chris.

Perhaps.

Peter1469
03-06-2014, 11:03 AM
Perhaps.

He wants others to watch.

Chris
03-06-2014, 11:28 AM
He wants others to watch.

OMG! Paperback Writer, keep the raincoat buttoned! :shocked:

Ravi
03-06-2014, 12:05 PM
He wants others to watch.
Now that is creepy.

The Xl
03-06-2014, 12:28 PM
He wants others to watch.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/117/008/soon_honey_beer_bottle.jpg

The Sage of Main Street
03-06-2014, 12:39 PM
Mensa would laugh their asses off at the likes of me. Wouldn't a genius be insane? Why is a genius allowed to be insane? Or is it all of you that are insane? ...

High IQs create all the wealth of the 1%. In order to steal that, the homo erectus economic bullies arrange things so that the true homo sapiens becomes a wimpy little nerd.http://abeautifulmind.proboards.com

Bob
03-06-2014, 04:49 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=539784#post539784)
That is your list?

ROFLMAO

Nothing against those on the list, but pal, you left off at least one in the upper 2 percent.

Well, perhaps you intend to debate the left and of course you have a decent list of names.


...settle down Bob...these are the "gifted" and they are discussing how us "idiots" should be governed...it's pretty interesting how they make "force" sound "civilized"...

Oh I am amused by it all is all.

Actually, I urge that at least one major thread, one not changed off the list, be created for the sole purpose of discussion that is fairly strict. If posts go after others to harm them, delete those. I don't like censoring anybody, but if a post is to simply hurt, we don't need it.

Issues don't have to turn out to be brawls or dog fights.

I can tell all of you that compared to some forums, this forum is very sweet.

Only one of my threads got sent to the hole. As I understand it, this is not discipline but to have those interested in that particular joke, look it up should they want to read the joke. I would not mind a thread devoted to jokes and jokes may not be jokes you like, but just think of them as jokes.

Bob
03-06-2014, 05:00 PM
High IQs create all the wealth of the 1%. In order to steal that, the homo erectus economic bullies arrange things so that the true homo sapiens becomes a wimpy little nerd.http://abeautifulmind.proboards.com

Actually, I believe you are correct on your statement on IQ. This does not imply that all high IQ types create all the wealth, but I have yet to hear of a low IQ person creating wealth.

I further believe that this is why we have incomes that are not equal. So, Democrats fight nature, not politics by trying to pretend they create more equality. Such as with the minimum wage laws.

Chris
03-06-2014, 05:59 PM
Oh I am amused by it all is all.

Actually, I urge that at least one major thread, one not changed off the list, be created for the sole purpose of discussion that is fairly strict. If posts go after others to harm them, delete those. I don't like censoring anybody, but if a post is to simply hurt, we don't need it.

Issues don't have to turn out to be brawls or dog fights.

I can tell all of you that compared to some forums, this forum is very sweet.

Only one of my threads got sent to the hole. As I understand it, this is not discipline but to have those interested in that particular joke, look it up should they want to read the joke. I would not mind a thread devoted to jokes and jokes may not be jokes you like, but just think of them as jokes.



That's true. I've seen better, where you either argued your point or got left in the dust. I've seen worst, where arguing a point was ignored for scuffles that kicked up only dust.

I think I missed your holed joke.

Chris
03-06-2014, 06:03 PM
Holy shit, http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/23207-This-just-in?p=541116#post541116 was racist? :loco:

Ravi
03-06-2014, 06:42 PM
Holy shit, http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/23207-This-just-in?p=541116#post541116 was racist? :loco:

Yes. Are you going to excuse it all over the board?

Ravi
03-06-2014, 06:43 PM
Actually, I believe you are correct on your statement on IQ. This does not imply that all high IQ types create all the wealth, but I have yet to hear of a low IQ person creating wealth.

I further believe that this is why we have incomes that are not equal. So, Democrats fight nature, not politics by trying to pretend they create more equality. Such as with the minimum wage laws.
You never heard of Mitt Romney?

Chris
03-06-2014, 06:43 PM
Yes. Are you going to excuse it all over the board?

How is it racist, ravi? You make the claim, explain. Max explained it as racial, not racist, there's a difference, you know.

Ravi
03-06-2014, 06:44 PM
How is it racist, ravi? You make the claim, explain. Max explained it as racial, not racist, there's a difference, you know.There's no real difference. But feel free to demonstrate what you think that difference is.

Chris
03-06-2014, 06:52 PM
There's no real difference. But feel free to demonstrate what you think that difference is.

That's what I said, to you there's no difference, everything is, so to speak, black and white to you. Why bother.

Ravi
03-06-2014, 06:54 PM
That's what I said, to you there's no difference, everything is, so to speak, black and white to you. Why bother.
:rolleyes: No YOU!

Honestly, Chris, you are so married to black and white that I'm beginning to wonder if you suffer from Asperberger's. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Chris
03-06-2014, 06:54 PM
:rolleyes: No YOU!

Honestly, Chris, you are so married to black and white that I'm beginning to wonder if you suffer from Asperberger's. Not that there's anything wrong with it.



Why do trolls repeat?

Captain Obvious
03-07-2014, 08:42 AM
:rolleyes: No YOU!

Honestly, Chris, you are so married to black and white that I'm beginning to wonder if you suffer from Asperberger's. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

I like Chris, I don't want to pile on here but you're absolutely right.

It's both a strength and a weakness, I think if he embraced that more it would serve him better.

The Wash
03-07-2014, 08:45 AM
Holy shit, http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/23207-This-just-in?p=541116#post541116 was racist? :loco:

I didn't think it was racist. Who bitched?

Chris
03-07-2014, 03:07 PM
I didn't think it was racist. Who bitched?

Thanks, I was wondering what you would say.

Who bitched? People who see things black and white and play the race card like ravi and max. To race card players racism is just an emotionally appealing bat to bludgeon others with.

It blinds them to the nuances of the joke, not just the progressive support for abortion and funding it but the deeper shades of progressive euthanasia.

Chris
03-07-2014, 03:09 PM
I like Chris, I don't want to pile on here but you're absolutely right.

It's both a strength and a weakness, I think if he embraced that more it would serve him better.



Uh, captain, I'm the one here pointing out the nuanced shades of gray in the joke while ravi can't get past black and white. Can you?