they taste alot like edible underwear.
I am opposed to banning them. If the individual can not moderate their diet properly it is their own fault.
That applies to so many things in society/life.
step 1, crack open a box of fruit roll up
step 2, remove one from package
step 3, remove plastic foil
step 4, repeat step 2 & 3 until box of fruit rollups is empty and all are displayed before you
step 5, take all fruit rollups and ball them up
step 6, insert in mouth and try not to suffocate as you devour the wad.
step 7, instant elementary school hero.
People aren't concious of that. Maybe if we put pictures of fat people on fruit rollups, like we put pictures of lungs on cigarettes, that will make people think.
Why don't we just leave people the hell alone and let them make their own decisions?
I am opposed to banning them. If the individual can not moderate their diet properly it is their own fault.
Well, to the Left, it is the gov'ts fault for not regulating the way, and what, people eat.
But just give it time.
Barry has 2 more years, and McDonalds is already being labeled as evil and trying to kill you through fat... which will eventually open the way for gov't regulation/control of the food you will be allowed to eat...
Right, because people saying McDonalds is evil is a new thing. I have no idea when people started saying that (it's been as long as I recall), but I can say with confidence it wasn't January 2009.
He did not say it was new, he said people are already doing it.
People aren't concious of that. Maybe if we put pictures of fat people on fruit rollups, like we put pictures of lungs on cigarettes, that will make people think.
Why don't we just leave people the hell alone and let them make their own decisions?
Way to jump in there and grab the schmuck bait, bro.
Personally I prefeer froot by the foot. It fits on my tongue better.
Right, because people saying McDonalds is evil is a new thing. I have no idea when people started saying that (it's been as long as I recall), but I can say with confidence it wasn't January 2009.
Its funny. Just as a sign of the change in our country, I remember less than 10 years ago when "regulating McDonalds" was the comically extreme example used to defend cigarettes. Not only are cigarettes completely evil now, but the comically extreme example is an actual discussion.
And I clearly remember talking about this in college so it wasn't so long ago (less than 10 years).
(Before recently, McDonald's being "evil" was based on them destroying the rainforests and not trying to poison everyone will fat.)
People aren't concious of that. Maybe if we put pictures of fat people on fruit rollups, like we put pictures of lungs on cigarettes, that will make people think.
Why don't we just leave people the hell alone and let them make their own decisions?
I guess we have the same views about clergymen and religious "leaders". Can't they leave people alone? They are not even elected!
Wow...
What country do you live in that clergymen can regulate and mandate what religion you can be?
Somewhere in the Middle East?
And no.
I don't think we have the same views.
That is to say... if there is an image of a "fat person" on a snack food, that is not directly stopping you from making a decision, it's simply attaching a bit of propaganda to something you choose to purchase/enjoy. Religion, similarly, does not directly force your decisions, however many (MANY) preachers attach "propaganda" of their own (that is, their own takes, views, thoughts, and so-on) into their preaching. So in both cases you have someone going for a product/service (a snack, spiritual guidance) and receiving, in addition to what it was they wanted, a bit of propaganda (picture of fat person, whatever proselytizing the preacher tacks onto his/her scriptural readings).
Does that sound more... reasonable... RH?
Does that sound... accurate... Goldo?
Edit: And to be a bitter ol' queen for a moment, until preachers stop meddling in politics I think it's perfectly valid to say "why can't they just leave people alone?"
For instance, didn't San Fran recently outlaw Happy Meals? Because they make kids fat?
Limiting your choice, or giving you no choice, is not propaganda. It's tyranny.
And one is free to choose ones religion in the United States, but not their food in San Fran...
Edit: And to be a bitter ol' queen for a moment, until preachers stop meddling in politics I think it's perfectly valid to say "why can't they just leave people alone?"
And I could say "until the LGBT community stops meddling in politics I think it's perfectly valid to say "why can't they just leave people alone?"
;)
But the state mandating/regulating what you eat is different than simple propaganda, and that is what I am talking about.
But it isn't what Goldo was talking about, or what you responded to. His idea was simply adding propaganda to a snack, not banning it.
But the state mandating/regulating what you eat is different than simple propaganda, and that is what I am talking about.
But it isn't what Goldo was talking about, or what you responded to. His idea was simply adding propaganda to a snack, not banning it.
Then this has all been a mis-communication.
And I could say "until the LGBT community stops meddling in politics I think it's perfectly valid to say "why can't they just leave people alone?"
Why can't they? 'cause I see news like [this] every few days. That's why.
Then this has all been a mis-communication.
I'm a helper!
Then this has all been a mis-communication.
I'm a helper!
You are!
Thanks!
And I could say "until the LGBT community stops meddling in politics I think it's perfectly valid to say "why can't they just leave people alone?"
Why can't they? 'cause I see news like [this] every few days. That's why.
So, you ban one group from politics , but allow a different group to meddle... simply because of how you view and agree with them.
That's discrimination EE.
And I can post stories/propaganda too, but I won't.
And the story you link too is more a matter of bad parenting and school management than of politics.
Oh, and being said to be gay is but one of the reasons he was picked on... many more were listed, such as being small.
So should there be a "group" for small people, so they can meddle in politics too?
You're trying to use propaganda EE, and you aren't that good at it.
... His idea was simply adding propaganda to a snack, not banning it.
Post number three however mentioned that the snack "should be band"(sic).
What if we tilt it? A slow but steady killer that claims millions of millions of lives, but over the course of decades, compared to something that will kill, in a flash, a few thousand, maybe a few million at most. If all we're interested in doing in saving lives, the answer should be obvious.
But, of course, we're not just interested in saving lives. To be more accurate, we're interested in preventing people from taking lives. People killing themselves? Perfectly fine with that (so long as it's not all at once, without a doctor's help, and they've already racked up as much crippling debt in medical bills fro their family to pay off as they can) in America. But people killing other people? Can't have that now (unless they work for us, in which case it's A-OK).
But the comparison itself... eh. Death is death. While there are many other considerations, if all you're worried about is the reaper's toll it's not so ridiculous.
Others might say it is a free country and a free market economy.
You forgot the "some exceptions apply" on that pair of "free"s.
Whether these things are good or not is a different discussion. That they are is my point. America is a modern nation. And in a modern nation, there are some things that, if you do, we'll throw you in a small box and let you think about the things you've done while life passes you by.
So are we free? Sure. So long as you don't try to color outside the lines of the coloring book of your life.
Guns dont kill people, bullets do!
No, people do.
And comparing guns, a tool designed for hunting and/or self defense, with food, is, again, ridiculous.
Guns dont kill people, bullets do!
No, people do.
And comparing guns, a tool designed for hunting and/or self defense, with food, is, again, ridiculous.
I still maintain that the bullets come into play in there some where.
And with all the crap they put into food these days, i can see comparing it to an item of precieved destruction. But any way I think this whole thread is rather ridiculous, all this fuss over fruit roll ups?
Thats kinda why I made the bullets statement, I meant it as like a joke, you know to lighten the mood haha.
Why can't we be skinny like Britain?
If what you are comparing is the ability to cause death, well, pretty much everything falls in on that scale somewhere.
Why can't we be skinny like Britain?
From my experience, British people are fat just like Americans. Now the French are skinny.
And we say bad food is allowed because it is a self inflicted death, but parents feed kids tonnes of crap all the time. The kids can't say no and this bad diet will influence the kids way of seeing eating in the future. The food kids eat today are the food they will probably eat later on when adults. So it is not completely self inflicted.
Eh. Parents are given a large amount of discretion when it comes to raising their children. You have to really screw up before they'll take your kids away, especially over something like diet (someone linked an article here a few months (a year?) ago about a case in the UK I think it was. The two children (between 2 and 10 and think) both already had type-2 diabetes, were close to morbidly obese, and the months-old baby was already twice what a healthy weight was, if I recall the details correctly).
That is to say, before most "modern" states will take away a parents kid, their must normally be a clear and present danger, as long-term dangers aren't often seen as clear and people feel a lot funnier about saying that it's right to take away someone's kids because they're feeding them too much.
People should pass an exam and get a license before making babies. Like guns.
Honestly, I aprove this message, sans any sarcasim you may have intended to inject into it.
People should pass an exam and get a license before making babies. Like guns.
Kids grow up into serial killers you know. Fat serial killers.
!People should pass an exam and get a license before making babies. Like guns.
Kids grow up into serial killers you know. Fat serial killers.
Alas, while the idea does have merits, there are a number of problems.
Ethics of forced sterilization.
Ethics of meddling in someone's procreative rights.
Issues of population control.
Issues of deciding the standards that people must meet.
Issues of immigration in light of new changes to population growth.
Religious issues (some religions won't play nicely with these policies).
Cost (while the long-term cost might be in the state's favor, the short term cost of mandatory sterilization and reversal of sterilization upon being granted a license would be prohibitive).
And probably other issues I haven't even thought of yet.
Or to put it another way... if we have such great public outcries just talking about putting teen girls on the pill, what makes you think we could float tube-tieing teen girls?
You guys agree with me? Proof that alien abductions exist.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut from time to time...
People should pass an exam and get a license before making babies. Like guns.
Kids grow up into serial killers you know. Fat serial killers.
Alas, while the idea does have merits, there are a number of problems.
Ethics of forced sterilization.
Ethics of meddling in someone's procreative rights.
Issues of population control.
Issues of deciding the standards that people must meet.
Issues of immigration in light of new changes to population growth.
Religious issues (some religions won't play nicely with these policies).
Cost (while the long-term cost might be in the state's favor, the short term cost of mandatory sterilization and reversal of sterilization upon being granted a license would be prohibitive).
And probably other issues I haven't even thought of yet.
Or to put it another way... if we have such great public outcries just talking about putting teen girls on the pill, what makes you think we could float tube-tieing teen girls?
Pish, you and your adorable squeemishnesss. We don't stop people from driving drunk, we don't stoppeople for having sex with children. We find them, and we punish them. And it's the best kind of law because you can prove fairly easily who a child belongs too, and if its parents are registered (just need to keep a database of DNA samples for registered breeding pairs... :shifty
. Have baby without license? Death, for you and your unlicensed spawn.And this is why I will not / should not ever be allowed to rule over a group of people, yes?
Now what is all this "reproduction rights" crap your talking about? Who the hell gave you that right? The licencing agency, that's who! And it would be a privilege anyways, something they can take away, like a drivers licence.
Pish, you and your adorable squeemishnesss. We don't stop people from driving drunk, we don't stoppeople for having sex with children. We find them, and we punish them. And it's the best kind of law because you can prove fairly easily who a child belongs too, and if its parents are registered (just need to keep a database of DNA samples for registered breeding pairs... :shifty
Yes... seeing as I don't see the government killing teen mothers, I don't think your intention of implementation would work.
Now what is all this "reproduction rights" crap your talking about? Who the hell gave you that right? The licencing agency, that's who! And it would be a privilege anyways, something they can take away, like a drivers licence.
The US, through various means, methods, and statements, has re-affirmed various procreative rights numerous times over the years. So to answer your question of "Who the hell gave you that right", according to our courts it's one we were born with.
The US, through various means, methods, and statements, has re-affirmed various procreative rights numerous times over the years. So to answer your question of "Who the hell gave you that right", according to our courts it's one we were born with.
EE is correct.
The Creator gave us those rights.
Always remember, when discussing rights and where they came from, that what the gov't gives, it can also take.
By making certain rights given by the Creator, it prevents (or at least tries to) the gov't from taking them.
But everything a human can do is, if you are a believer, god given. A human can kill other humans, god made it this way, so killing other human is a right?
No.
It's a sin.
Ever read the Ten Commandments?
Look goldo, I am not having this discussion with you here.
But everything a human can do is, if you are a believer, god given. A human can kill other humans, god made it this way, so killing other human is a right?
Not my belief, but I think the story goes that the creator gave us rights, and gave us abilities. But just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do that something.
Or in other words: just 'cause you can doesn't mean you should. And a large part of morality (divinely inspired or otherwise) is figuring out which category things fall into.
Step 1) Make a self aware computer virus.
Step 2) Have it destroy the world.
Step 3) Everyone is skinny, 'cause in a post-apocalyptic world everyone is skinny and gorgeous!
Step 3) Everyone is skinny, 'cause in a post-apocalyptic world everyone is skinny and gorgeous!
I, for one, do not think skinny is attractive.
And in a post-apocalyptic world everyone is skinny because they're hungry...
Just sayin'...
Step 3) Everyone is skinny, 'cause in a post-apocalyptic world everyone is skinny and gorgeous!
I, for one, do not think skinny is attractive.
And in a post-apocalyptic world everyone is skinny because they're hungry...
Just sayin'...
When have you seen an ugly person in a post-apocalyptic movie? (Other than from radiation.)
Religion is verboten on the forums.
No.
It's a sin.
...
So are unlicensed attempts at reproduction. The bible is not anti birth control, and even supports 2 methods: abstinence and the stoning of whores and lechers. My proposed system is not in opposition to this.
Why don't we just leave people the hell alone and let them make their own decisions?
Because they are morons who will, through choice or raw stupidity, get me or people I care about killed.
That's why.
Rights? Abilities? I need quotes please.
Don't be deliberately daft. Presuming a creator, that we were created with the ability to do many things is self-evident. Looking to any given holy book, it becomes clear that even though we have the ability to do many things, the creator does not want us to. So though it may not have been written in such words, it's clear that just because people are able to do something does not mean we have the right to do that thing.
And really, just about every morality system I can think of comes to the same conclusion sooner or later, that ability to do something does not mean right to do that something, that the natural thing to do does not necessarily mean the good thing to do, and that the wrong thing to do doesn't necessarily mean it's not a right to do it.
And you aren't taking away reproduction rights, per say. You are just requiring regulations. If you are not able to get a license when you are a poor 18 year old, that doesn't mean you can't get a license later when you are somewhat established. If you can't pass the written portions, you can try again later, etc.
And of course this would never happen, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.
Why don't we just leave people the hell alone and let them make their own decisions?
Because they are morons who will, through choice or raw stupidity, get me or people I care about killed.
That's why.
So people are generally stupid and need gov't to lead them?
I strongly disagree.
More gov't is not the solution, it's the problem.
More gov't is not the solution, it's the problem.
Then shouldn't Somalia be a paradise?
So people are generally stupid and need gov't to lead them?
I strongly disagree.
More gov't is not the solution, it's the problem.
I disagree with the first part (I think people are stupid), but somehow agree with the second part (government is not the solution).
More gov't is not the solution, it's the problem.
Then shouldn't Somalia be a paradise?
I'm not talking about Somalia, I am talking about the US.
And I didn't say no and/or inefficient gov't, just less.
You are assuming that the current, weak gov't of Somalia is in control of the country... it is not.
Regardless. So, anarchy isn't the answer either. How much government then5?
________
1That's right, "no". As should be common knowledge2, at higher altitudes it boils at lower temperatures due to the pressure difference3, which is why you add salt to boiling water at higher altitudes so that it boils closer to the right temperature. But the general idea is true, even if the example is bad.
2I'm making no bets here, particularly since we do have some kiddies 'round here.
3That is, when there's less air pressure on the surface of the water, the water requires less energy (heat) to boil away. If I were inspired enough I could dig up the equations from my old chemistry book, but basically what it boils down to is that teh state of matter depends on, roughly, two things. Heat and pressure. More pressure, and you move towards solid, more energy, move towards gas (and eventually plasma, but that's a weird one). Less pressure, and you require less energy to move up in energy state4.
4As a side note, I'd like to point out that while I'm confident I have the general concepts right here, it's been a few years since I've actually studied this stuff so I probably have the terms and details wrong. But I'm pretty confident in the general idea. On the other hand, this might also be one of those things where they taught you one working model, and then if you ever get to the 300 level courses you find out that everything you know is wrong and really everything works because a flying unicorn orchestrates it all in concert with a lavender leprechaun.
5I'd like to point out that I think "hell if I know, but this current set-up isn't working" is a perfectly acceptable answer. You don't have to have the answers to tell the system is broken.
Then shouldn't Somalia be a paradise?
To some, I'm certain it is. Like most things, it depends what side of the death machine you're on.
I disagree with the first part (I think people are stupid), but somehow agree with the second part (government is not the solution).
Yep, me too.
How much government then?
The least possible.
I dunno. By 'possible', I suspect he meant the least possible that'll actually work. Anarchy won't, so ...
EDIT: It's like I could say I wanna make a s'more with the least amount of chocolate possible. That, of course, would be none. However, if we look at what a s'more is, we see that it does need some chocolate to qualify. Here, if we look at what gov't is supposed to be, it needs to do at least some governing to qualify.
so I guess it could be usefull in a few nitch situations.
That should be niche.
Anarchy sucks: your research stops, you can't build any more mens, your people dont reproduce: but they also don't starve and you don't lose any money even if you where running at a negative income when it started, so I guess it could be usefull in a few nitch situations.
Maybe you should be more spiritual or something...
Anarchy sucks: your research stops, you can't build any more mens, your people dont reproduce: but they also don't starve and you don't lose any money even if you where running at a negative income when it started, so I guess it could be usefull in a few nitch situations.
Maybe you should be more spiritual or something...
What does spirituality have to do with gov't?
His use of anarchy was based on its application in the Civilization game series (building units, population growth, research all spots). The leader trait "Spiritual" negates anarchy in the game.
Ah.
How do we make the transition from God given Abilities = God given Rights? Goldo needs quote.
goldo needs a lot of things...
But how's this, taken from the US Declaration of Independence...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I like the underlined part too...
Ooooh. The Declaration of Independance. Not the Bible. So a men made document. Well another. Men made conclusions. That answer my questions.
Why don't we just leave people the hell alone and let them make their own decisions?
Because they are morons who will, through choice or raw stupidity, get me or people I care about killed.
That's why.
So people are generally stupid and need gov't to lead them?
I strongly disagree.
More gov't is not the solution, it's the problem.
People are generally stupid. Obviously, if you ask stupid people to rule other stupid people, things will not get better, they will get worse.
Hence, the state of the world today.
People make politcal choices with their feelings and not their heads.
I'm going to vote for Harry Teague in November because he voted for adding the DADT-repeal compromise to the defense authorization act. I'm voting against Steve Pearce because he has "family values" all over his web-page, and when it comes to his brand of politics, that's code for "but not your family".
.
This is why Keynes's ideas on economy have never been fully implimented.
Because it doesn't work.
It takes money from those that earn it, and "redistributes" the money you have earned to people who don't.
It's Socialism, and it has been demonstrably a failure.
How many times does something have to fail before people figure out it doesn't work?
Let the people who earn the money keep it.
Imagine that...
We should do like in China and make them work in coal mines!
AFAIK, China has a better public education system than the US. (Which wouldn't be saying much.)
Here's an idea...
Let the people who earn the money keep it.
Oh? And what about the people that helped them earn money? Should they get nothing for propping someone else up and making it possible?
Here's an idea...
Let the people who earn the money keep it.
Oh? And what about the people that helped them earn money? Should they get nothing for propping someone else up and making it possible?
Somebody unemployed helps you at your job?
Here's an idea...
Let the people who earn the money keep it.
Imagine that...
No roads, no water, no security, no justice, no education, no healthcare, dangerous and underpaid jobs, over priced goods and services, warring warlords... Yup, the dream life.
What the hell is wrong with you?
I think I would like to meet you... maybe teach you some dance...
If you do have taxes, then the height of them is just semantics, since people can't keep what they're earned anyway and everyone has a different opinion on what taxes should be spent on.
He has a point you know. If you let people keep what they´ve earned, you can´t have taxes.
If you do have taxes, then the height of them is just semantics, since people can't keep what they're earned anyway and everyone has a different opinion on what taxes should be spent on.
Taxes are fine, just not so much!
And I don't like the fact that my tax money (and yours) pays for liberal social programs that offer no incentive to get off them. Actually, they provide incentive to do nothing. And most (if not all) liberal social programs are failures, yet somehow, they keep throwing more and more money into them.
People with no jobs having 17 children that I end paying for, their food stamps that I end up paying for, their welfare check that I end up paying for, and they keep having kids because it means another check from the gov't.
No wonder those people don't work, why should they?
And people need to get out of the mentality that taxes are the govt's money. Thats YOUR money, entrusted to the govt for the common good... not the govt's money to do with as they please.
That's another thing... Barry is expanding govt, adding more govt employees... that have to be paid with your tax money.
The gov't doesn't produce anything, so any money they have, or get, is yours.
And if anybody thinks they aren't paying enough taxes, well... you are free to send the govt more if you want...
Somebody unemployed helps you at your job?
Sooner or later? Probably. But that's irrelevant. You don't pay taxes to help an individual, you pay taxes to help that nation that supports you.
Yeah, that means that sooner or later you probably ended up supporting a leech, but the thing is that society decided a while back that being a miserable failure at life wasn't a good enough crime to deserve a death sentence. Would I rather not see a woman living on welfare raise 17 kids on the tax-payer's dollar? Sure. But do I find the situation detestable enough to punish every hard working single-mother who's just in a tough position and will crawl and claw her way out of poverty if she's just given a chance? Hell no.
And, to back up Goldo's quote, remember this one:
"From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."
-Luke 12:48
"From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."
-Luke 12:48
Sweet, you warped my mind.
Well, when you spend 15 years attending mass on Sundays (not to mention all the holy days of obligation) something is bound to stick.
For the 15 years of sunday mass!
Doesn't it depend on the preacher and the faith (the message I mean). Catholics aren't the same as protestants or orthodoxes. Even if we worship the same god. And Jews, Muslims and Christians just basically worship the same god too.
Without making this into an elaborate theological discussion, there's actually a lot of similar stuff in there. The ideals of love, faith, and charity are there with all of them; people just tend to get hung up on the details of ritual and dogma. I could expound further, but I don't want to get this thread locked for religious discussions so I'll refrain from doing so.
Thank you for your insights.
I'm humbled.
Thank you for your insights.
Really?
goldo, I expected you to take that sincerely.
Big talk from a small man. You'd be surprise my furry friend.
Hmm? Yeah, I would be very surprised indeed if it turned out that RH was not, infact, much better armed than you.
I didn't say accept, that the adult is a lost cause, but that social programs can make some of those 17 kids into productive members of society. This should be the aim of social programs, even if douchebags abuse it. Everything has people ready to abuse it, even the capitalist system. Think Ponzi.
And thoes people are punished and stoped, not rewarded and hired into what essentially ammounts to a government sponsered breeding program.
Resorting to threats is the last stand of the person who isn't capable of argumenting in an intelligent matter.
Pretending that quoted sentences was intended to say what I belive it was, how is that fundementally diffrent from your response?
"Blah blah, because 'violence'!"
"Hah! me bigger! Me more 'violence'!"
You in no way demonstrated any additional intelect, and instead demonstrated a general lack of understanding on the basic concept of "tool use". Not very impressive.
Resorting to threats is the last stand of the person who isn't capable of argumenting in an intelligent matter.
Maybe, but it's also the first resort of someone who's just really pissed.
Resorting to threats is the last stand of the person who isn't capable of argumenting in an intelligent matter.
Maybe, but it's also the first resort of someone who's just really pissed.
It is therapeutic. No wait, I'm thinking of violence.
Resorting to threats is the last stand of the person who isn't capable of argumenting in an intelligent matter.
Maybe, but it's also the first resort of someone who's just really pissed.
It is therapeutic. No wait, I'm thinking of violence.
No, you're right. Yelling threats can also be very cathardic. I imagine that's why it so often accompanies the violence.
Not the smartess response but I will stand up to bullies. Especially the uneducate kind.
When I am pissed I do not make threats.
If you've really never been pissed enough to threaten someone, then I kinda feel sorry for you. Primal wrath (which, admittedly, sounds like a barbarin power) is quite an experience.
Resorting to threats is the last stand of the person who isn't capable of argumenting in an intelligent matter.
Are you sure? I always found it to be the first resort.
It's like "walk past the bullies, get a random threat of violence, move on" type of thing. It's kinda an opening salvo in any kind of interaction with certain sorts of people.
Resorting to threats is the last stand of the person who isn't capable of argumenting in an intelligent matter.
Are you sure? I always found it to be the first resort.
It's like "walk past the bullies, get a random threat of violence, move on" type of thing. It's kinda an opening salvo in any kind of interaction with certain sorts of people.
Yeah, I really wouldn't look at the actual wording real close. It is a horribly mangled sentence.
Resorting to threats is the last stand of the person who isn't capable of argumenting in an intelligent matter.
and parsed:
(Resorting to threats) is (the last stand of (the person who isn't capable of (argumenting in an intelligent matter))).
See? Easy.
Wrong, I think, but easy to parse.
... and I also wonder whether "argumenting" is a real word.
... and I also wonder whether "argumenting" is a real word.
Meh, that's a difficult question to answer and depends, IMO, upon the person asked. Did you understand what he meant by 'argumenting'? If so, it did it's job of communicating meaning and so could be considered a real word in that regard. It isn't, of course, but it could certainly be seen as 'real' enough.
Oh, I wouldn't say that, TA, it's quite easy to parse. Here, let me show youResorting to threats is the last stand of the person who isn't capable of argumenting in an intelligent matter.
and parsed:
(Resorting to threats) is (the last stand of (the person who isn't capable of (argumenting in an intelligent matter))).
See? Easy.
Wrong, I think, but easy to parse.
... and I also wonder whether "argumenting" is a real word.
'Intelligent Matter' makes no sense in this sentence. It makes more sense, strictly speaking, to assume that by 'Intelligent matter' he means brain matter. Or more likely, he meant intelligent mannerbut simply mangled the common saying. A 'last stand; is a fight to the death, typically. More likely he meant 'last resort'.
What I think he wanted to say: "Threats are the last resort of a person who is incapable of arguing in an intelligent manner."
How I actually read his sentence: "Resorting to threats is the suicidal defensive tactic of people who are not capable of constructing arguments inside of an object that is capable of thought."
Like I said, much better to just kind of skip over the actual words and just go with the basic gist of it.
What the hell is wrong with you?
I think I would like to meet you... maybe teach you some dance...
This. It is subtle for once. He made less subtle one in other threads.
My sort of sh*t shouldn't be tolerated.
Fix'd
What the hell is wrong with you?
I think I would like to meet you... maybe teach you some dance...
This. It is subtle for once. He made less subtle one in other threads.
This sort of sh*t shouldn't be tolerated.
Then report it.
Fact of the matter is... I don't like you.
At all.
And you get on my f'in nerves.
What the hell is wrong with you?
I think I would like to meet you... maybe teach you some dance...
This. It is subtle for once. He made less subtle one in other threads.
This sort of sh*t shouldn't be tolerated.
I did miss that. Still, it's just internet bravado. Until you have someone that either knows a significant amount of personal information or is in a position to actually influence your life in a direct and meaningful way, I find it hard to put much stock in internet bravado.
That is to say, while I do see the threat, I don't put much stock in it. Then again, compared to some of the real trolls we've gotten 'round here, RH (regardless of his current incarnation) is pretty darn tame in the excessive threats department.
I did miss that. Still, it's just internet bravado. Until you have someone that either knows a significant amount of personal information or is in a position to actually influence your life in a direct and meaningful way, I find it hard to put much stock in internet bravado.
That is to say, while I do see the threat, I don't put much stock in it. Then again, compared to some of the real trolls we've gotten 'round here, RH (regardless of his current incarnation) is pretty darn tame in the excessive threats department.
Trolls? What do you mean, the tavern is pretty sparse on trolls, save one. Do you mean the wizards forums in general, or are there more trolls in the ol tavern than I am noticing?
Yeah, but by not responding to it he might actualy think that I am afraid of his fat ***.
Again, it appears you have a massive lack of understanding about how modern weapons work. If you are going to be not afraid of him, it should be due to a lack of proximity, not because you belive that his butt may be fat.
*sigh*
But it is really easy to ignore, what made them interesting?
Masochism, I suppose.
But it is really easy to ignore, what made them interesting?
Masochism, I suppose.
...
So you find masochism interesting?
And you still won't be my neighbor?
Yeah, we have one troll here.
Yeah, we have one troll here.
Affirmative. I almost fed him right now, but thought the better of it.
Though to be honest, he could tune down the insulting behavior. But that goes for quite a lot of people, no?
Nah. Goldo is caustic, dishonorable, insulting, and so-on, sure, but at worst he's an accidental troll (like RH) who just happens to have unpopular thoughts and views, not an intentional troll who goes out of his way to do nothing but stir trouble.
Though to be honest, he could tune down the insulting behavior. But that goes for quite a lot of people, no?
Normally, I'd agree. His last post, however, was nothing more than an attempt to lure RH into a retaliatory response - also known as Baiting. So, at the least, I'd say that he's currently acting in a certain way.
Nah. Goldo is caustic, dishonorable, insulting, and so-on, sure, but at worst he's an accidental troll (like RH) who just happens to have unpopular thoughts and views, not an intentional troll who goes out of his way to do nothing but stir trouble.
Though to be honest, he could tune down the insulting behavior. But that goes for quite a lot of people, no?
I think he goes out of his way to cause angry responses. Some of the things he says, I think he actually believes and will defend. But other things he just says to get a reaction. And you have that whole thing of trying to break the rules as much as possible. I'm not sure if that's necessarily a troll, but its negative enough for me. I've just decided to not take him seriously and dismiss everything he says.
Nah, you're just needlessly judgemental.
@Zombie_Babies
There's a difference between being a troll and being an ass. Goldo is certainly the later. But frankly, he just doesn't take it far enough for me to call him a troll. Again, maybe my bar is just set higher, but occasional baiting and insulting just doesn't qualify for me. By that measure I'm pretty sure we all would be "trolls".
@Scypio
Oh negative, surely. No debate there. But I would argue that it takes more to be a troll then just being a rather not-nice person who occasionally tries to stir up a little light trouble.
And face it, compared to calling me an Islamaphobic forum-bully "uncle tom" that uses my orientation as a shield while failing at logic and insinuating a lack of maturity accompanied by attempts at psycho-analyziation and deconstruction of my personality, all interspersed with various other non-interesting personal insults every other line, Goldo is a rank amateur when it comes to insulting people1.
________
1All from one poster back in June. That was an interesting few days.
@Scypio
Oh negative, surely. No debate there. But I would argue that it takes more to be a troll then just being a rather not-nice person who occasionally tries to stir up a little light trouble.
I'm not sure if its just ocassionally. I guess I just get the impression that he just does it for the sake of contraversey and a persona while I get the impression that others like Robin_Hoodlum or saint_matthews actually believe what they say. But again, its all perception, so I really can't say much.
Although I do kind of wonder what people think of each other here. Kind of a who likes who and who hates who. I think it'd definately be interesting to see.
That is something. Link please. It was S&M right?
Sorry, it was a string of about... 40 private messages I think... not gonna bother sharing. And I don't even know who S&M is supposed to be.
@Scypio:
Oh, that's easy. Just assume everyone hates everyone and work up from there. Anything more complicated is going to require thumbtacks and colored string.
@Zombie_Babies
There's a difference between being a troll and being an ass. Goldo is certainly the later. But frankly, he just doesn't take it far enough for me to call him a troll. Again, maybe my bar is just set higher, but occasional baiting and insulting just doesn't qualify for me. By that measure I'm pretty sure we all would be "trolls".
True, and for a time I was right here with you in my assessment. Thing is, it's gotten to the point that it's more than just occasional. At any rate, we see this differently. No big deal. I'm certainly not going to try and convince you I'm right. Just doesn't matter.
S&M=Saint_Matthiew. I do belive that RH is honest, I do not believe SM is.
Darn, why flame someone in private?
... you know, shortening Saint_Matthew to S&M instead of S_M kinda hurts my argument for you not being a troll.
And you flame someone in private if you get your jollies by pissing people off and don't care for an audience. Or if you know that what you have to say will be reported if it's said in public, even if your target won't1.
________
1Well, I did eventually report him, but he didn't just cross the line, he took a flying leap across the line and then sprinted to see how far he could go before he got shut down. Took a lot before I finally did though.
Sorry, it was a string of about... 40 private messages I think... not gonna bother sharing. And I don't even know who S&M is supposed to be.
You need to become tougher on that sort of thing. I've said and received some pretty nasty comments in PMs, but that was part of an argument/attempt at conflict-resolution none of us cared for others to get involved in. When I got a harassing PM, I reported it immediately (or rather, I told the guy to cut it off and say what he had to say in public, he sent me another PM saying he would, then he sent me a third one after he'd promised not to, I told him to stop again, he answered that he wouldn't until I started behaving like he wanted me to, and then I reported it).
I can see why you'd avoid report other posters on the boards, I do too, but the boards are like a public space where getting something removed means you also prevent other people from seeing it (or worse, get the whole discussion closed), even those who want to. PMs are like your tiny private (rented) space, and if people bother you there, you can kick them out without robbing others of anything, and even without preventing the scumbag from expressing their views. So why not do it?
PS, the poster in question wouldn't happen to be the one I'm thinking about?
PS, the poster in question wouldn't happen to be the one I'm thinking about?
I wouldn't pretend to know who you think I'm talking about, and I suspect it's unwise to speculate.
PS, the poster in question wouldn't happen to be the one I'm thinking about?
I wouldn't pretend to know who you think I'm talking about, and I suspect it's unwise to speculate.
Fair enough. Though I think we've already crossed the line in regards to speculation.
Nah. Goldo is caustic, dishonorable, insulting, and so-on, sure, but at worst he's an accidental troll (like RH) who just happens to have unpopular thoughts and views, not an intentional troll who goes out of his way to do nothing but stir trouble.
Though to be honest, he could tune down the insulting behavior. But that goes for quite a lot of people, no?
Normally, I'd agree. His last post, however, was nothing more than an attempt to lure RH into a retaliatory response - also known as Baiting. So, at the least, I'd say that he's currently acting in a certain way.
Nah. Goldo is caustic, dishonorable, insulting, and so-on, sure, but at worst he's an accidental troll (like RH) who just happens to have unpopular thoughts and views, not an intentional troll who goes out of his way to do nothing but stir trouble.
Though to be honest, he could tune down the insulting behavior. But that goes for quite a lot of people, no?
I think he goes out of his way to cause angry responses. Some of the things he says, I think he actually believes and will defend. But other things he just says to get a reaction. And you have that whole thing of trying to break the rules as much as possible. I'm not sure if that's necessarily a troll, but its negative enough for me. I've just decided to not take him seriously and dismiss everything he says.
Nah, you're just needlessly judgemental.
@Zombie_Babies
There's a difference between being a troll and being an ass. Goldo is certainly the later. But frankly, he just doesn't take it far enough for me to call him a troll. Again, maybe my bar is just set higher, but occasional baiting and insulting just doesn't qualify for me. By that measure I'm pretty sure we all would be "trolls".
@Scypio
Oh negative, surely. No debate there. But I would argue that it takes more to be a troll then just being a rather not-nice person who occasionally tries to stir up a little light trouble.
And face it, compared to calling me an Islamaphobic forum-bully "uncle tom" that uses my orientation as a shield while failing at logic and insinuating a lack of maturity accompanied by attempts at psycho-analyziation and deconstruction of my personality, all interspersed with various other non-interesting personal insults every other line, Goldo is a rank amateur when it comes to insulting people1.
________
1All from one poster back in June. That was an interesting few days.
@Scypio
Oh negative, surely. No debate there. But I would argue that it takes more to be a troll then just being a rather not-nice person who occasionally tries to stir up a little light trouble.
I'm not sure if its just ocassionally. I guess I just get the impression that he just does it for the sake of contraversey and a persona while I get the impression that others like Robin_Hoodlum or saint_matthews actually believe what they say. But again, its all perception, so I really can't say much.
Although I do kind of wonder what people think of each other here. Kind of a who likes who and who hates who. I think it'd definately be interesting to see.
That is something. Link please. It was S&M right?
Sorry, it was a string of about... 40 private messages I think... not gonna bother sharing. And I don't even know who S&M is supposed to be.
@Scypio:
Oh, that's easy. Just assume everyone hates everyone and work up from there. Anything more complicated is going to require thumbtacks and colored string.
@Zombie_Babies
There's a difference between being a troll and being an ass. Goldo is certainly the later. But frankly, he just doesn't take it far enough for me to call him a troll. Again, maybe my bar is just set higher, but occasional baiting and insulting just doesn't qualify for me. By that measure I'm pretty sure we all would be "trolls".
True, and for a time I was right here with you in my assessment. Thing is, it's gotten to the point that it's more than just occasional. At any rate, we see this differently. No big deal. I'm certainly not going to try and convince you I'm right. Just doesn't matter.
S&M=Saint_Matthiew. I do belive that RH is honest, I do not believe SM is.
Darn, why flame someone in private?
... you know, shortening Saint_Matthew to S&M instead of S_M kinda hurts my argument for you not being a troll.
And you flame someone in private if you get your jollies by pissing people off and don't care for an audience. Or if you know that what you have to say will be reported if it's said in public, even if your target won't1.
________
1Well, I did eventually report him, but he didn't just cross the line, he took a flying leap across the line and then sprinted to see how far he could go before he got shut down. Took a lot before I finally did though.
Sorry, it was a string of about... 40 private messages I think... not gonna bother sharing. And I don't even know who S&M is supposed to be.
You need to become tougher on that sort of thing. I've said and received some pretty nasty comments in PMs, but that was part of an argument/attempt at conflict-resolution none of us cared for others to get involved in. When I got a harassing PM, I reported it immediately (or rather, I told the guy to cut it off and say what he had to say in public, he sent me another PM saying he would, then he sent me a third one after he'd promised not to, I told him to stop again, he answered that he wouldn't until I started behaving like he wanted me to, and then I reported it).
I can see why you'd avoid report other posters on the boards, I do too, but the boards are like a public space where getting something removed means you also prevent other people from seeing it (or worse, get the whole discussion closed), even those who want to. PMs are like your tiny private (rented) space, and if people bother you there, you can kick them out without robbing others of anything, and even without preventing the scumbag from expressing their views. So why not do it?
PS, the poster in question wouldn't happen to be the one I'm thinking about?
PS, the poster in question wouldn't happen to be the one I'm thinking about?
I wouldn't pretend to know who you think I'm talking about, and I suspect it's unwise to speculate.
PS, the poster in question wouldn't happen to be the one I'm thinking about?
I wouldn't pretend to know who you think I'm talking about, and I suspect it's unwise to speculate.
Fair enough. Though I think we've already crossed the line in regards to speculation.