I did argue the point, but you didn't fucking comprehend the point, and started lashing out with unwarranted insults about how 'better men' than me died so I can be a pacifist, which I'm obviously not.
I love rational arguments. I even love it when someone can shoot my ideas down, because I'm not attached to them, and my conception of the world comes out stronger.
What I can't stand are people like you, who can't argue. You read what you wanted to read in my statements, not what was there. You dish out insults and then whine when people respond in kind. You accuse others of exactly the things you do, and try to take the moral high ground.
Are you sure you were in the marines? Because you seem like a whiny four year old to me, and I didn't think they let four year olds in the armed services. This is the big boy's Internet, and if you don't want to be insulted, don't dish it out. Or better yetm shut the fuck up and don't speak at all until you have something sensible to say.
Here's a clue for you: if you don't want people to assume you are mentally challenged, don't act mentally challenged. That is to say, try to understand what others are saying before you respond, or people will continue to think you are stupid.
Sorry if you got your little girl panties in a twist because people use harsh words with you. Right wing idiots are so capable of dishing out abuse and insults, but they are also the first to start bawling about how mean everyone else is being when anyone dares use their own tactics against them.
I don't speak out against idiots out of anger. It's just a public service. Maybe in your inbred, redneck world, harsh words always lead to violence, but the rest of us are capable of having even heated discussions without resorting to violence.
Sorry you have such a pessimistic world view that you can';t understand that there will come a point when violence will be greatly reduced, if not eliminated entirely. The trend certainly is in that direction.
Sorry to hear you have such difficulty comprehending the English language, must be difficult living with such a learning disability. The phrase 'some times' does not mean 'all the time,' and someone who says, "in some cases, violent defense will result in the least violence," and "Being totally pacifistic is not the best course," is NOT a pacifist.
But I can see I'm wasting my time here. Your learning disability has obviously rendered you incapable of understanding nuance and subtlety in an argument. For people of limited mental capacity such as yourself, the world must be reduced to black and white to be comprehended. So there's really not much of a discussion to be had, because anything I say is obviously lost on you.
He has a point, but it is still just opinion. It is my opinion that people who pick and choose what is literal and what is not from their religion's holy book are idiots lacking in critical thinking skills. You can tell me not to say that, but I will just laugh in your face, and keep on telling whoever I feel like, whatever I feel like telling them.
Yeah, right. There are stupid, violent people in any movement. But property damage is not the same as hurting people. And the folks who go to peaceful rallies with the intent to commit violence against people? Usually, nobody ever saw them before, and we never see them again. Gee, I wonder who they are really working for?
Most violence at peaceful rallies is started by police, security, or right wing fuckstains, despite the lies you may have seen on corporate TV.
No, pay attention. He was stating his opinion, that he thought people who pick and choose what is literal and what is not from some moldy old book are being stupid, and I happen to agree with him.
Get it? He was stating his opinion, and you basically said he doesn't get to. Maybe you should reread the post you replied to because it sounds to me like you've made up a little story in your head that bears no relation to reality. Color me surprised.
My point is that he fucking well does get to decide, for himself what everything in the entire universe means to him, and he is free to voice those beliefs. You are free to do the same.
You do get the irony, that both of you are just voicing your opinion, right? But your opinion is, "You don't get to have an opinion," which is so indicative of the stupid, fascist, patriarchal thinking that western religions produce in otherwise intelligent people.
What do most of the major world religions and non-religious philosophies say about ending violence? Hint: it isn't more violence. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," "Turn the other cheek," "thou shalt not kill," ring any bells?
If the goal is to reduce violence, then situations must be taken on a case by case basis and possible courses of action evaluated. The criteria are, "what course of action will result in the least violence?" In some cases, violent defense will result in the least violence. In other cases, diplomacy or sanctions may result in the least violence.
Being totally pacifistic is not the best course. If a criminal is threatening you or your family, turning the other cheek may simply let a violent individual perpetrate more violence, while killing the son of a bitch would result in one less violent person. If you are dead and no one knows you turned the other cheek for moral reasons, what good have you really done?
Some times, being willing to die rather than lift a finger to defend yourself is the best course, but only when you can get enough publicity that you can be sure you are influencing people towards non-violence.
The thing is, violence is sometimes necessary to defend against the initiators of violence. But it never helps to reduce the amount of violence in the world in the long run. It simply legitimizes the use of force to solve problems. In the long run, rejecting violence when at all possible is the only thing that can reliably reduce the world wide level of violence.
I've participated in more far left rallies than you have ever seen or heard about, and I can say with authority that you are a liar. I've been stomped on by police for trying to peacefully hand out free food to the homeless. We aren't the ones that start the violence against other people.
Moron. Way to over extrapolate and create a ridiculous straw man. Did I ever say I was against self defense? Did I say I was against guns? No, fuckstain, I did not. What I said was, advocating that the 'far left' go to Iraq and fight America in order to achieve our goal of reducing violence and warfare is absolute lunacy.
The depths of your mental disjunction surprise me. You seem to be seriously advocating that peace activists use warfare to achieve their goals. Our cause is ending warfare, how are we supposed to use war to end warfare? People have been trying that shit for thousands of years, claiming that if we just kill enough people, we will finally end war for good. Which I suppose is true, if you define 'enough' as 'everyone but me.'
You also seem to be saying that if you really, really want something, violence is the tool to get it. And conversely, if you aren't willing to use violence to get what you want, you must not really want it. It's as if you see the world through violence colored glasses and can not even imagine a solution that does not resort to it.
Please reread the GP post. He was asking why the 'far left' do not go to Iraq and fight America, seeing as how they don't agree with US policy. Get that? He was advocating that peace activists use war to achieve peace, and stating that it was 'funny' that we don't. Yes, it's fucking hilarious. I mean, why doesn't the fire department just burn down buildings, that would certainly solve the fire problem.
You subhuman primate. "Ugh, Violence best for get what you want." Thankfully, most humans aren't violent fucks who think the only way to solve a problem is to kill someone.
What's so sick and disgusting about the far right is that they think taking up arms ever solves anything, rather than perpetuating the problem.
You'll scare her away! She's a hot chick who posts on Slashdot. Most of us wouldn't care if she thought that rabbits flying out of her ass let her communicate with Zippy the Pinhead.
Oh, please. All those highly paid climate scientists are just swimming in money compared to the poor beleaguered boards and CEOs of megacorporations who pollute. Yes, the climate scientists have all the power.
If you were attempting to make a point other than 'the rich and powerful climate scientists are gonna make out like bandits,' then I apologize and humbly ask: what the fuck were you trying to say?
If you were saying, 'the solution to global warming will make the rich richer,' then I beg to differ. It will be small start ups that profit the most from alternative energy and climate control programs.
But I doubt that was what you were trying to say. I suspect that you are one of the sadly deluded idiots who think that global warming is some kind of left wing money and power grab.
Well, most of this comes from conversations with a friend who is pursuing his Ph.D. in neuroscience, so I don't have any cites or sources readily at hand.
Wait, I do have one book I'd highly recommend. Animals in Translation by Temple Grandin has some very interesting discussions of current research into animal cognition. She's an autistic Ph.D. who is well known in the animal handling field for 'thinking like a cow,' and finding the root cause of issues in animal handling facilities. She has a theory that autistic people, lacking the high number of connections to the neocortex that most of us have, think more like animals, who don't have much of a neocortex at all.
I don't think for a millisecond that the threat is real. We've lost more Americans to lightning strikes than we have to terrorism. You've a better chance of winning the lottery than getting killed by a terrorist. Terrorism is a matter for law enforcement, not the military.
The threat is manufactured, those in power know exactly what they are doing. It's all laid out by right wing think tanks in a plan called The Project for a New American Century
That simply won't work. First, the solution doesn't enrich anyone in power. What's the point? Second, it won't scare the populace enough. Third, it won't get people angry. In short, the threat of global warming will do nothing to keep the populace frightened and in check, and it works counter the interests of people currently in power.
They were the best boogie-man ever. The Islamists may, eventually, someday, get nukes. The USSR had enough nukes to sterilize the planet. And a huge conventional army. And chemical and biological weapons galore. As far as keeping the populace pissing itself in fear and doing whatever the authorities tell them to, Islamists just don't hold a candle to our dear former enemies, the Soviets. Well, I suppose they'll have to do until the authorities can cook up something scarier.
He may not get to decide for others what they believe, but there is nothing wrong with trying to get others to believe any particular thing, which is exactly what you are doing. He can call anything he likes 'picking and choosing,' and everyone is free to accept or reject that definition.
I'm sick and tired of people trying to place limits on free speech. If he isn't free to criticize what he sees as stupidity, what gives you the right to criticize him, you hypocrite?
Your mind could be the only thing that exists, and still be logically self consistent, and therefore amenable to self-understanding through the scientific method.
Slashdot Mirror
I did argue the point, but you didn't fucking comprehend the point, and started lashing out with unwarranted insults about how 'better men' than me died so I can be a pacifist, which I'm obviously not.
I love rational arguments. I even love it when someone can shoot my ideas down, because I'm not attached to them, and my conception of the world comes out stronger.
What I can't stand are people like you, who can't argue. You read what you wanted to read in my statements, not what was there. You dish out insults and then whine when people respond in kind. You accuse others of exactly the things you do, and try to take the moral high ground.
Are you sure you were in the marines? Because you seem like a whiny four year old to me, and I didn't think they let four year olds in the armed services. This is the big boy's Internet, and if you don't want to be insulted, don't dish it out. Or better yetm shut the fuck up and don't speak at all until you have something sensible to say.
Here's a clue for you: if you don't want people to assume you are mentally challenged, don't act mentally challenged. That is to say, try to understand what others are saying before you respond, or people will continue to think you are stupid.
Sorry if you got your little girl panties in a twist because people use harsh words with you. Right wing idiots are so capable of dishing out abuse and insults, but they are also the first to start bawling about how mean everyone else is being when anyone dares use their own tactics against them.
I don't speak out against idiots out of anger. It's just a public service. Maybe in your inbred, redneck world, harsh words always lead to violence, but the rest of us are capable of having even heated discussions without resorting to violence.
Sorry you have such a pessimistic world view that you can';t understand that there will come a point when violence will be greatly reduced, if not eliminated entirely. The trend certainly is in that direction.
Sorry to hear you have such difficulty comprehending the English language, must be difficult living with such a learning disability. The phrase 'some times' does not mean 'all the time,' and someone who says, "in some cases, violent defense will result in the least violence," and "Being totally pacifistic is not the best course," is NOT a pacifist.
But I can see I'm wasting my time here. Your learning disability has obviously rendered you incapable of understanding nuance and subtlety in an argument. For people of limited mental capacity such as yourself, the world must be reduced to black and white to be comprehended. So there's really not much of a discussion to be had, because anything I say is obviously lost on you.
He has a point, but it is still just opinion. It is my opinion that people who pick and choose what is literal and what is not from their religion's holy book are idiots lacking in critical thinking skills. You can tell me not to say that, but I will just laugh in your face, and keep on telling whoever I feel like, whatever I feel like telling them.
HAND, yourself.
Got any sources on that? Preferably showing how much money congress actually budgeted, not just how much the program costs.
Yeah, right. There are stupid, violent people in any movement. But property damage is not the same as hurting people. And the folks who go to peaceful rallies with the intent to commit violence against people? Usually, nobody ever saw them before, and we never see them again. Gee, I wonder who they are really working for?
Most violence at peaceful rallies is started by police, security, or right wing fuckstains, despite the lies you may have seen on corporate TV.
No, pay attention. He was stating his opinion, that he thought people who pick and choose what is literal and what is not from some moldy old book are being stupid, and I happen to agree with him.
Get it? He was stating his opinion, and you basically said he doesn't get to. Maybe you should reread the post you replied to because it sounds to me like you've made up a little story in your head that bears no relation to reality. Color me surprised.
My point is that he fucking well does get to decide, for himself what everything in the entire universe means to him, and he is free to voice those beliefs. You are free to do the same.
You do get the irony, that both of you are just voicing your opinion, right? But your opinion is, "You don't get to have an opinion," which is so indicative of the stupid, fascist, patriarchal thinking that western religions produce in otherwise intelligent people.
What do most of the major world religions and non-religious philosophies say about ending violence? Hint: it isn't more violence. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," "Turn the other cheek," "thou shalt not kill," ring any bells?
If the goal is to reduce violence, then situations must be taken on a case by case basis and possible courses of action evaluated. The criteria are, "what course of action will result in the least violence?" In some cases, violent defense will result in the least violence. In other cases, diplomacy or sanctions may result in the least violence.
Being totally pacifistic is not the best course. If a criminal is threatening you or your family, turning the other cheek may simply let a violent individual perpetrate more violence, while killing the son of a bitch would result in one less violent person. If you are dead and no one knows you turned the other cheek for moral reasons, what good have you really done?
Some times, being willing to die rather than lift a finger to defend yourself is the best course, but only when you can get enough publicity that you can be sure you are influencing people towards non-violence.
The thing is, violence is sometimes necessary to defend against the initiators of violence. But it never helps to reduce the amount of violence in the world in the long run. It simply legitimizes the use of force to solve problems. In the long run, rejecting violence when at all possible is the only thing that can reliably reduce the world wide level of violence.
I've participated in more far left rallies than you have ever seen or heard about, and I can say with authority that you are a liar. I've been stomped on by police for trying to peacefully hand out free food to the homeless. We aren't the ones that start the violence against other people.
Moron. Way to over extrapolate and create a ridiculous straw man. Did I ever say I was against self defense? Did I say I was against guns? No, fuckstain, I did not. What I said was, advocating that the 'far left' go to Iraq and fight America in order to achieve our goal of reducing violence and warfare is absolute lunacy.
The depths of your mental disjunction surprise me. You seem to be seriously advocating that peace activists use warfare to achieve their goals. Our cause is ending warfare, how are we supposed to use war to end warfare? People have been trying that shit for thousands of years, claiming that if we just kill enough people, we will finally end war for good. Which I suppose is true, if you define 'enough' as 'everyone but me.'
You also seem to be saying that if you really, really want something, violence is the tool to get it. And conversely, if you aren't willing to use violence to get what you want, you must not really want it. It's as if you see the world through violence colored glasses and can not even imagine a solution that does not resort to it.
Please reread the GP post. He was asking why the 'far left' do not go to Iraq and fight America, seeing as how they don't agree with US policy. Get that? He was advocating that peace activists use war to achieve peace, and stating that it was 'funny' that we don't. Yes, it's fucking hilarious. I mean, why doesn't the fire department just burn down buildings, that would certainly solve the fire problem.
You subhuman primate. "Ugh, Violence best for get what you want." Thankfully, most humans aren't violent fucks who think the only way to solve a problem is to kill someone.
What's so sick and disgusting about the far right is that they think taking up arms ever solves anything, rather than perpetuating the problem.
Oh snap! But I looked over her site, she's smarter than most camsluts and she has an interesting hook. Girl's gotta eat, right?
You'll scare her away! She's a hot chick who posts on Slashdot. Most of us wouldn't care if she thought that rabbits flying out of her ass let her communicate with Zippy the Pinhead.
Fortune say, "Chinese will not attack what they already own... in bed!"
Oh, please. All those highly paid climate scientists are just swimming in money compared to the poor beleaguered boards and CEOs of megacorporations who pollute. Yes, the climate scientists have all the power.
If you were attempting to make a point other than 'the rich and powerful climate scientists are gonna make out like bandits,' then I apologize and humbly ask: what the fuck were you trying to say?
If you were saying, 'the solution to global warming will make the rich richer,' then I beg to differ. It will be small start ups that profit the most from alternative energy and climate control programs.
But I doubt that was what you were trying to say. I suspect that you are one of the sadly deluded idiots who think that global warming is some kind of left wing money and power grab.
Well, most of this comes from conversations with a friend who is pursuing his Ph.D. in neuroscience, so I don't have any cites or sources readily at hand.
Wait, I do have one book I'd highly recommend. Animals in Translation by Temple Grandin has some very interesting discussions of current research into animal cognition. She's an autistic Ph.D. who is well known in the animal handling field for 'thinking like a cow,' and finding the root cause of issues in animal handling facilities. She has a theory that autistic people, lacking the high number of connections to the neocortex that most of us have, think more like animals, who don't have much of a neocortex at all.
I don't think for a millisecond that the threat is real. We've lost more Americans to lightning strikes than we have to terrorism. You've a better chance of winning the lottery than getting killed by a terrorist. Terrorism is a matter for law enforcement, not the military.
The threat is manufactured, those in power know exactly what they are doing. It's all laid out by right wing think tanks in a plan called The Project for a New American Century
That simply won't work. First, the solution doesn't enrich anyone in power. What's the point? Second, it won't scare the populace enough. Third, it won't get people angry. In short, the threat of global warming will do nothing to keep the populace frightened and in check, and it works counter the interests of people currently in power.
Please try to think these things through.
They were the best boogie-man ever. The Islamists may, eventually, someday, get nukes. The USSR had enough nukes to sterilize the planet. And a huge conventional army. And chemical and biological weapons galore. As far as keeping the populace pissing itself in fear and doing whatever the authorities tell them to, Islamists just don't hold a candle to our dear former enemies, the Soviets. Well, I suppose they'll have to do until the authorities can cook up something scarier.
No, we're the Islamic Radical Moderates. The Moderate Islamic Radicals are over there. Splitters!
He may not get to decide for others what they believe, but there is nothing wrong with trying to get others to believe any particular thing, which is exactly what you are doing. He can call anything he likes 'picking and choosing,' and everyone is free to accept or reject that definition.
I'm sick and tired of people trying to place limits on free speech. If he isn't free to criticize what he sees as stupidity, what gives you the right to criticize him, you hypocrite?
Your mind could be the only thing that exists, and still be logically self consistent, and therefore amenable to self-understanding through the scientific method.