Ah, so I am a secret homosexual? Anyone who defends gays must be one? Well, it's hardly a secret, I've tried it and found it isn't really for me. I like curves, and men don't have them. Sorry to dash your hopes. If you were a nicer person, I might be persuaded to have sex with you even though I'm not so into it, but given that you're kind of a jerk, that's not going to happen.
I don't want to win. I just want to help you get your point across. That is pure selfishness on my part, you see, I'm sick and tired of debating with people who only know how to insult. I'm like that guy in the Monty Python sketch (it used to be my sig here, for almost a decade), you know, I want an argument, but this is just abuse. Therefore, I selfishly try to make people better debaters, so they can better entertain me.
"Fuckstained cuntflap" is not a phrase that applies to a specific group of people. It does not connote a history of violence and oppression. It does not bring up memories of young men being tied to fences and beaten to death. Are you clear on the difference now, or do you need more of an explanation?
Hmmm, you said you were done responding, and yet, here you are, desperately trying to communicate with me. What are you hoping to accomplish? Personally, I feel good about the work I've done here. I'm willing to bet that, whatever your protests to the contrary, you will probably be less inclined to call people faggots. From here on out, you will find that you will be called on using that word more and more often, and eventually, you will stop.
No, they are wonderful things, just like the poop that came out of me this morning was a wonderful thing (to me anyway.) I wouldn't want to be one, though.
That depends on what you mean by "libertarian." You see, libertarians are just anarchists. In America, they are what is known as "individualist anarchists," as opposed to "social anarchists." In the rest of the world, "libertarian" is just a synonym for "anarchist," and so you can find European libertarians espousing everything from unbridled lassez faire capitalism to pure communism. In America, "libertarianism" is merely a front group for a collection of powerful, wealthy interests who do not want anything like real anarchism. Anarchism means "no hierarchy" rather than "no government," and the moneyed interests behind American libertarianism absolutely desire a hierarchy, with them on top. So, to make a long explanation short, if by "libertarian" you mean "American libertarian," then no, you will not find any American libertarians who want a fair market rather than one where they are free to dominate.
Agreed, my only point being that, IMHO, people making a quarter million have the same or similar economic interests as those making $20,000. In general, people making a quarter million make most of it from labor, not interest. They are not "capitalists" in that they do not make most of their money by lending capital, they are "labor" in that they make most of their money through, well, working for it. It was badly put, an awful sidetrack to my original point, and I'm sorry I even brought it up at this point.
Fuck is just a curse, it has never had negative connotations. And I am calm, you can tell that because I am not insulting you. I am not offended, because, like I mentioned, I don't think you said it on purpose. In fact, I am trying to help you. You seem to think that "faggot" has some other commonly accepted meaning besides "homosexual." It doesn't. When you use the word, you will alienate large segments of your audience, and your message will not be heard. It is no longer socially acceptable to call people "faggots," sorry. Try finding another word or phrase to use as an insult, perhaps "Fuckstained cuntflap" which I find fun to use because it is so graphic.
I think "invest in renewable energy source" is the other idea. I don't think anyone, especially those reading Slashdot, want to live in the dark, or are in any way anti-progress. You see, poisoning others so that we may have light and heat is not "progress," it is just trading one misery for another. The net motion certainly isn't forward.
By making claims, and then not presenting any sort of evidence, you lose. When people argue against your points, and all you can do is take your ball and go home, you lose. By insulting others instead of debating, you lose. You have a long climb UPWARDS to reach the level of fuzzyfuzzyfungus.
Uh, that "philosophy" is not something anyone espouses. It is something people DO, while saying something different. Libertarians reject government regulations, such as environmental regulations. Yet they claim to want government to protect their person and property, as that is the only fitting role for government, providing police and an army. Well, how do you protect people's health and property from negative externalities like pollution without environmental regulations? Do you see, libertarians CLAIM they want government to protect people from assault, but they don't. Pollution is assault. It harms health and property, yet libertarians do not want government to protect you from THAT kind of assault. They want to be free to assault you in any possible way, without interference. When libertarians claim government has a monopoly on violence, what they really means is, "I wish I could use violence to get my way."
That is the best you've got, "Did you forget to take your meds today?" Seriously, you are slipping. Try something like, "Operaghost, have you stopped raping dogs yet?" it's super effective.
Seriously, though, how do you think that comes across to other people? Obviously, I know how you want it to come across, other people read it and think to themselves, "hah, hah Kupfernigk is crazy, he has to take psychological medications, and today he forgot, and now he is saying CRAZY things in public!" But do you really think that is what people reading your comment think? Personally, I believe most people reading your comment will think something along the lines of "That Operaghost is an asshole, he can't argue, so he insults people instead."
Honestly, that kind of poisoning the well fallacy is so hackneyed that it comes across as an insult to your readers, as well. People will think, "Really? Operaghost thinks I'm so stupid that I will be swayed by THAT?!? What a jerk."
Perhaps you just don't get the reference. The war of 1812 represents the last time something happened in America. Do you know what that is?
Troll mod? Seriously, going that far defeats the purpose. If you want to bury something, mark it overrated. Personally, I find the comment informative, as it rebuts Hangmn's obvious political spin.
When people use words that are by definition insulting to a large number of my good friends, it is my business. You were using "faggot" as an insult. What definition of faggot carries insulting connotations? Obviously not the bundle of sticks definition, so what DID you mean by "faggot?"
Shaming is not illegal, if that were all it were, I would be slightly more sympathetic, but Anonymous broke the law and caused actual monetary damage to this company. The fact that they deserved it is entirely beside the point, unless it can be shown that our legal system is so hopelessly corrupt that we can not achieve justice any other way. Even so, the correct response to that situation is to reform the legal system, not take up vigilantism.
She didn't deserve it. Yes, she's a tool, and a camwhore, but this part is VERY IMPORTANT: she was a thirteen year old girl. You have just exposed yourself as the kind of person who would viciously attack a thirteen year old girl for being, well, a thirteen year old girl. Here's hoping any future employers read these comments, and get a good idea of what kind of person they won't be hiring.
I'm saying, people who make $250,000 per year have more in common, and more shared goals, with people who make $25,000 than with people who make $5,000,000. People who make a quarter million a year should be supporting government policies that help their interests, which are the same as the average persons;s, not the interests of the ultra rich.
I'm not a victim, I make good money, have a house that is mostly paid off, and have a good life. But even though my life is good, I won't just sit back and say "anyone can do it," because that is demonstrably untrue. We have an unfair system, and I will continue to fight to make it more fair, because I want the chance of a good life for everyone.
How is this not vigilante justice? Anonymous went outside the law to punish someone they see as an evildoer. That is pretty much the definition of vigilante justice.
Normal countries, ones that are not run by kleptocrats, manage to defuse the power law problem. In America, we have far less social mobility than in any other first world country except the UK. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html And we should defuse the power law, it hampers innovation and excellence. If everyone just tends to go with what other people are doing or using, better alternatives get overlooked.
Do you really not understand the point I am trying to make, or are you being dense for rhetorical purposes? To the elite who control our country and take in ninety percent of the income, $250k/year is a joke, a sign that you aren't any sort of real player, but just a peon no different from the guy making $20k/year. If you are making $250k/year, some wealthier fellow is still eating most of your lunch.
Back to my original point, plenty of stupid people make more than enough money to blow $200,000 on a fake girlfriend and not even feel it. It does not take brains to make money, it takes connections and money to make money. Real money, that is. Brains and a whole lot of luck might get you into the $250k/year "Adorable Junior Capitalist Club" but without connections and a certain amount of sociopathic lack of empathy and remorse, you won't be making much more than that.
Simply put, there is no upward social mobility in America anymore. The children of the middle class are just as likely to make less than their parents as they are to make more, and things are even worse for the poor. We do not live in a meritocracy, that is my point. My point is not "$250k/year isn't that much to the average guy," of course it is! My point is that $250k/year isn't going to buy you a Senator, or even a Congressman, and therefore, is not real money to the people who can and do buy Senators and Congressmen.
And, more importantly, neither you nor anyone you know will never be one of those people, no matter how hard you try. If you want upward mobility, go to France. Or Sweden. Or, heck, almost anywhere but here: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html
I'm sure you didn't really mean to offend homosexuals, this kind of language is simply ingrained in most of us, especially men. But there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, and to use the word faggot as an insult suggests there is. So, are you claiming there is something wrong with homosexuals, or were you just using the word without thinking it through?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, so I am a secret homosexual? Anyone who defends gays must be one? Well, it's hardly a secret, I've tried it and found it isn't really for me. I like curves, and men don't have them. Sorry to dash your hopes. If you were a nicer person, I might be persuaded to have sex with you even though I'm not so into it, but given that you're kind of a jerk, that's not going to happen.
I don't want to win. I just want to help you get your point across. That is pure selfishness on my part, you see, I'm sick and tired of debating with people who only know how to insult. I'm like that guy in the Monty Python sketch (it used to be my sig here, for almost a decade), you know, I want an argument, but this is just abuse. Therefore, I selfishly try to make people better debaters, so they can better entertain me.
"Fuckstained cuntflap" is not a phrase that applies to a specific group of people. It does not connote a history of violence and oppression. It does not bring up memories of young men being tied to fences and beaten to death. Are you clear on the difference now, or do you need more of an explanation?
Hmmm, you said you were done responding, and yet, here you are, desperately trying to communicate with me. What are you hoping to accomplish? Personally, I feel good about the work I've done here. I'm willing to bet that, whatever your protests to the contrary, you will probably be less inclined to call people faggots. From here on out, you will find that you will be called on using that word more and more often, and eventually, you will stop.
Dude, give it a rest. All you have done here is make me more sympathetic to Americano, which is no small feat.
No, they are wonderful things, just like the poop that came out of me this morning was a wonderful thing (to me anyway.) I wouldn't want to be one, though.
That depends on what you mean by "libertarian." You see, libertarians are just anarchists. In America, they are what is known as "individualist anarchists," as opposed to "social anarchists." In the rest of the world, "libertarian" is just a synonym for "anarchist," and so you can find European libertarians espousing everything from unbridled lassez faire capitalism to pure communism. In America, "libertarianism" is merely a front group for a collection of powerful, wealthy interests who do not want anything like real anarchism. Anarchism means "no hierarchy" rather than "no government," and the moneyed interests behind American libertarianism absolutely desire a hierarchy, with them on top. So, to make a long explanation short, if by "libertarian" you mean "American libertarian," then no, you will not find any American libertarians who want a fair market rather than one where they are free to dominate.
Agreed, my only point being that, IMHO, people making a quarter million have the same or similar economic interests as those making $20,000. In general, people making a quarter million make most of it from labor, not interest. They are not "capitalists" in that they do not make most of their money by lending capital, they are "labor" in that they make most of their money through, well, working for it. It was badly put, an awful sidetrack to my original point, and I'm sorry I even brought it up at this point.
Fuck is just a curse, it has never had negative connotations. And I am calm, you can tell that because I am not insulting you. I am not offended, because, like I mentioned, I don't think you said it on purpose. In fact, I am trying to help you. You seem to think that "faggot" has some other commonly accepted meaning besides "homosexual." It doesn't. When you use the word, you will alienate large segments of your audience, and your message will not be heard. It is no longer socially acceptable to call people "faggots," sorry. Try finding another word or phrase to use as an insult, perhaps "Fuckstained cuntflap" which I find fun to use because it is so graphic.
I think "invest in renewable energy source" is the other idea. I don't think anyone, especially those reading Slashdot, want to live in the dark, or are in any way anti-progress. You see, poisoning others so that we may have light and heat is not "progress," it is just trading one misery for another. The net motion certainly isn't forward.
By making claims, and then not presenting any sort of evidence, you lose. When people argue against your points, and all you can do is take your ball and go home, you lose. By insulting others instead of debating, you lose. You have a long climb UPWARDS to reach the level of fuzzyfuzzyfungus.
Uh, that "philosophy" is not something anyone espouses. It is something people DO, while saying something different. Libertarians reject government regulations, such as environmental regulations. Yet they claim to want government to protect their person and property, as that is the only fitting role for government, providing police and an army. Well, how do you protect people's health and property from negative externalities like pollution without environmental regulations? Do you see, libertarians CLAIM they want government to protect people from assault, but they don't. Pollution is assault. It harms health and property, yet libertarians do not want government to protect you from THAT kind of assault. They want to be free to assault you in any possible way, without interference. When libertarians claim government has a monopoly on violence, what they really means is, "I wish I could use violence to get my way."
That is the best you've got, "Did you forget to take your meds today?" Seriously, you are slipping. Try something like, "Operaghost, have you stopped raping dogs yet?" it's super effective.
Seriously, though, how do you think that comes across to other people? Obviously, I know how you want it to come across, other people read it and think to themselves, "hah, hah Kupfernigk is crazy, he has to take psychological medications, and today he forgot, and now he is saying CRAZY things in public!" But do you really think that is what people reading your comment think? Personally, I believe most people reading your comment will think something along the lines of "That Operaghost is an asshole, he can't argue, so he insults people instead."
Honestly, that kind of poisoning the well fallacy is so hackneyed that it comes across as an insult to your readers, as well. People will think, "Really? Operaghost thinks I'm so stupid that I will be swayed by THAT?!? What a jerk."
Perhaps you just don't get the reference. The war of 1812 represents the last time something happened in America. Do you know what that is?
Troll mod? Seriously, going that far defeats the purpose. If you want to bury something, mark it overrated. Personally, I find the comment informative, as it rebuts Hangmn's obvious political spin.
When people use words that are by definition insulting to a large number of my good friends, it is my business. You were using "faggot" as an insult. What definition of faggot carries insulting connotations? Obviously not the bundle of sticks definition, so what DID you mean by "faggot?"
Shaming is not illegal, if that were all it were, I would be slightly more sympathetic, but Anonymous broke the law and caused actual monetary damage to this company. The fact that they deserved it is entirely beside the point, unless it can be shown that our legal system is so hopelessly corrupt that we can not achieve justice any other way. Even so, the correct response to that situation is to reform the legal system, not take up vigilantism.
She didn't deserve it. Yes, she's a tool, and a camwhore, but this part is VERY IMPORTANT: she was a thirteen year old girl. You have just exposed yourself as the kind of person who would viciously attack a thirteen year old girl for being, well, a thirteen year old girl. Here's hoping any future employers read these comments, and get a good idea of what kind of person they won't be hiring.
Just to be clear, the AC isn't me.
I'm saying, people who make $250,000 per year have more in common, and more shared goals, with people who make $25,000 than with people who make $5,000,000. People who make a quarter million a year should be supporting government policies that help their interests, which are the same as the average persons;s, not the interests of the ultra rich.
tl;dr;
I'm not a victim, I make good money, have a house that is mostly paid off, and have a good life. But even though my life is good, I won't just sit back and say "anyone can do it," because that is demonstrably untrue. We have an unfair system, and I will continue to fight to make it more fair, because I want the chance of a good life for everyone.
Last I checked, Batman doesn't beat up fat kids and camwhores.
How is this not vigilante justice? Anonymous went outside the law to punish someone they see as an evildoer. That is pretty much the definition of vigilante justice.
Normal countries, ones that are not run by kleptocrats, manage to defuse the power law problem. In America, we have far less social mobility than in any other first world country except the UK. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html And we should defuse the power law, it hampers innovation and excellence. If everyone just tends to go with what other people are doing or using, better alternatives get overlooked.
Do you really not understand the point I am trying to make, or are you being dense for rhetorical purposes? To the elite who control our country and take in ninety percent of the income, $250k/year is a joke, a sign that you aren't any sort of real player, but just a peon no different from the guy making $20k/year. If you are making $250k/year, some wealthier fellow is still eating most of your lunch.
Back to my original point, plenty of stupid people make more than enough money to blow $200,000 on a fake girlfriend and not even feel it. It does not take brains to make money, it takes connections and money to make money. Real money, that is. Brains and a whole lot of luck might get you into the $250k/year "Adorable Junior Capitalist Club" but without connections and a certain amount of sociopathic lack of empathy and remorse, you won't be making much more than that.
Simply put, there is no upward social mobility in America anymore. The children of the middle class are just as likely to make less than their parents as they are to make more, and things are even worse for the poor. We do not live in a meritocracy, that is my point. My point is not "$250k/year isn't that much to the average guy," of course it is! My point is that $250k/year isn't going to buy you a Senator, or even a Congressman, and therefore, is not real money to the people who can and do buy Senators and Congressmen.
And, more importantly, neither you nor anyone you know will never be one of those people, no matter how hard you try. If you want upward mobility, go to France. Or Sweden. Or, heck, almost anywhere but here: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html
I'm sure you didn't really mean to offend homosexuals, this kind of language is simply ingrained in most of us, especially men. But there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, and to use the word faggot as an insult suggests there is. So, are you claiming there is something wrong with homosexuals, or were you just using the word without thinking it through?