"So, when did the original poster who wrote about the American continent mention anything about seeing it on a map? He didn't, that's your ad hoc criteria, and it's bogus."
The names on a map are MY criteria? No, that's THE criteria. If you don't like it, take it up with the cartographers.
"People call New York the Big Apple, but you won't find that on most maps."
Right and if someone asked me the NAME of the city, it wouldn't be the Big Apple. I realize you're an imbecile, but even you can understand the difference.
Your argument says nothing other than "because some people are too ignorant of the CORRECT name, they use an INCORRECT one, and that INCORRECT name should count too".
But it doesn't. No matter how much you try to claim it does, nothing changes.
You can't find a single OFFICIAL instance of the TWO SEPARATE continents being called "america". There is NO continetn of America, regardless of what you call it.
"Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you should press this issue further."
PROVE I'M WRONG. You say it, but give NO evidence. NONE.
All you have to do is point to one official source, of credible MODERN cartographers, and I'll buy your stupid argument.
But you can't.
"I am, because I don't have anything more to prove."
You're right. You have no point to prove, so shut up and stop insiting you're right without ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE.
Latly, I think you're a jackass. By your argument, you ARE a jackass, because that's what I call you.
The rest of your post is a pathetic attempt to explain why it doesn't matter what the REAL name is. I DOn't give two shakes what a bunch of primives call it. Their ignorance, and yours, changes nothing.
By the way, I love that
"I can't find a map, but that doesn't matter because, well, because I have to be right"
I'm going to let you in on something. Ready?
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK, OR HOW MANY LINKS YOU POST, NOWHERE ON ANY CURRENT MAP IS THERE A CONTINENT NAMED "AMERICA".
So you think because people like you are too stupid to use the correct names, and instead lump the two ENTIRELY SEPARATE continents into one, that you've proven something?
Find a current map that agrees. Wikipedia, the source anyone can edit before using as a citation, doesn't count. 400 year old maps don't count either.
One current, official map. That's it.
But since such a thing doesn't exist, you can choke on my dick.
"I definitely cannot express how hurtful it is to see that word spelled out in all caps in your previous post of blatent disrespect."
I definitely cannot express in words how little I'm interested in what you CHOOSE to be offended by.
But, because I'm in the mood to spread the love, I'll do this.
YOU ARE A FILTHY, STINKING, LAZY-ASS N-WORD.
Yeah, I can see how that's so much better.
Re:Oooh look who though he made a point!
on
Africa, The MMOG
·
· Score: 1
"Why would it be called North America if there is no America?"
It's a NAME. N-A-M-E.
"You're really not making any sense here."
Hmm, funny coming from a guy claiming there is a continent named "America". And interestingly, you didn't post any links that show this mystery continent.
It's a name. There is NO other context.
I can't figure out if you're really this stupid, or just acting like it for fun.
And you STILL didn't support your argument, you just keep insisiting that you're right, when EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE OF FACT says you're not.
Seriously, shut up now. You're making a fool of yourself.
Great but you're not a political lobby, and your personal moitivations aren't relevant.
As soon as you find me a poltical lobby that doesn't want to extend their "rights" at the expense of others "rights" we'll talk.
"I don't see how a gay person asking for political equality suddenly become the enemy "gay polical lobby" that wants to trample on other peoples' rights"
Well, that wasn't my argument, so don't ask me. Nice try with the straw man though. Actually, no it really wasn't. I've definitely seen better.
"The Religious Right has made this a political issue, when in fact it is not even an issue."
I refuted you, and I think you knew when you posted it that your statement was wrong.
"You're missing the point of the argument; I don't think Homosexuals would be parading up and down the streets asking for the same rights as everyone else if they wheren't having their rights infringed upon for no apparent reason."
I didn't miss the point, you never made it. However, if you'd like to show me where you made that point in your previous post, I'll reasess what I've said.
Finally, YOU missed MY point. The gay lobby is JUST LIKE any other political organization, and your blind assumption that they are "asking for the same rights as everyone else" betrays your ignorance. They are a POLITICAL LOBBY, and like ALL the other political lobbies, they are about self interest. Make no mistake, if they could get what they wanted by trampling your rights, it would happen in a second.
In the future, replace every instance of "gay" with "fundie" in your argument, and reconsider how you feel about it then.
"So, all the fuck-tards wailing "fag" as an insult are going to disappear? Ditto the hateful "Don't get the AIDS!" bits when plague makes the rounds?"
News flash, you don't have a right to avoid being offended, or even avoid being called names.
And it's funny how you disparage the "fuck-tards" for name calling. I have to assume that while you seem open to homosexuality, you're a raging bigot when it comes to mental disability.
I've never seen a parade of fundies strolling down the street of my town demanding "political equality NOW!", but I've seen it three separate times from The gay lobby.
And I'm not saying it doesn't happen, so don't try that crap.
Both side politicize the issue, why you thought you could get away with claiming otherwise I don't know.
"This argument makes little sense to me. How would having a timetable make terrorists more likely to attack after the US withdraws than not having a timetable? If terrorists are waiting for the US to leave before stepping up attacks, why wouldn't they go into hiding and stop their attacks, then resume once the Bush Administration declares that we've won, packs up their things, and goes home?"
Because the general consensus is that US troops won't pull out until after the Iraqis are sufficiently trained to protect themselves. Coming out of hiding then would be politically stupid, because Iraqi "freedom fighters" who kill legitimate Iraqi policemen would (IMO) have a much harder time justifying their murderous ways.
"The only answer I can come up with is that it's the very presence of the US forces that are provoking the attacks. "
(Smirking) I wonder why that is. First of all, you assume here that US forces are "provoking" attacks. The term is loaded, and I doubt you used it by accident.
Second, US service men are their in Iraq under threat of imprisonment. Stop acting like we marched in with a gang of Viking raiders to rape and pillage, it's not accurate, and it's childish.
Perhaps if you allowed yourself a moment to view the world without your overwhelmingly corrupting bias, you'd realize that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, the terrorists are power hungry despots looking for an opportunity to gain the upper hand in a rapidly developing country.
It's easy to jump on the "blame US" bandwagon. It's much harder to use your intellect to analyze what is actually happening. Now that you've mastered the first, perhaps you could try the second.
A) taken out of context which makes them worthless
B) About how the IRAQIS will use their own oil resources to reconstruct their own country.
Nowhere in there was any statement claiming the Iraqis will reimburse the US for the cost of the war, and even if there were, THE WAR ISN'T OVER YET, AND NONE OF THE QUOTES GIVE A TIMELINE.
"Because the fact that he finally decided to speak up at all, ever, is in and of itself an admirable thing."
Why? He's prove that he'll do the politically expedient thing, so explain why it's admirable that he's doing it now?
It's still just the politically expedient move. The fact that you like what he had to say changes nothing. He's shown his motivation isn't doing what is right, it's doing what is popular.
"Most of the rest of the world wants as silent of a car as they can find, which is why the vast majority of new cars are completely silent."
I'm not going to get into politics here, as much as you might like, but the reason most new cars are "silent" (they're not, they're actually quiteloud from the OUTSIDE) is because the most common type of engine, a 4 cylinder, has a terrible exhaust note.
Funny though how you automatically assumed the "rest of the world" shared your ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
"We also have some sense of where all the different parts of us are, though that one may be a derived sense."
It's seems that it's not, it's a distinct sense, as demonstrated in people with specific types of aphasia.
And it's called "proprioception".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception
"So, when did the original poster who wrote about the American continent mention anything about seeing it on a map? He didn't, that's your ad hoc criteria, and it's bogus."
The names on a map are MY criteria? No, that's THE criteria. If you don't like it, take it up with the cartographers.
"People call New York the Big Apple, but you won't find that on most maps."
Right and if someone asked me the NAME of the city, it wouldn't be the Big Apple. I realize you're an imbecile, but even you can understand the difference.
Your argument says nothing other than "because some people are too ignorant of the CORRECT name, they use an INCORRECT one, and that INCORRECT name should count too".
But it doesn't. No matter how much you try to claim it does, nothing changes.
You can't find a single OFFICIAL instance of the TWO SEPARATE continents being called "america". There is NO continetn of America, regardless of what you call it.
"Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you should press this issue further."
PROVE I'M WRONG. You say it, but give NO evidence. NONE.
All you have to do is point to one official source, of credible MODERN cartographers, and I'll buy your stupid argument.
But you can't.
"I am, because I don't have anything more to prove."
You're right. You have no point to prove, so shut up and stop insiting you're right without ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE.
Latly, I think you're a jackass. By your argument, you ARE a jackass, because that's what I call you.
Ok, I guess in that case you might have a point.
"It's not on a current map I kind find"
That's all you had to say.
The rest of your post is a pathetic attempt to explain why it doesn't matter what the REAL name is. I DOn't give two shakes what a bunch of primives call it. Their ignorance, and yours, changes nothing.
By the way, I love that
"I can't find a map, but that doesn't matter because, well, because I have to be right"
I'm going to let you in on something. Ready?
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK, OR HOW MANY LINKS YOU POST, NOWHERE ON ANY CURRENT MAP IS THERE A CONTINENT NAMED "AMERICA".
Refute that, or STFU.
What is a black man born Japan called?
So you think because people like you are too stupid to use the correct names, and instead lump the two ENTIRELY SEPARATE continents into one, that you've proven something?
Find a current map that agrees. Wikipedia, the source anyone can edit before using as a citation, doesn't count. 400 year old maps don't count either.
One current, official map. That's it.
But since such a thing doesn't exist, you can choke on my dick.
"I don't understand what the "political lobby" has to do with the discussion."
Um, what do you think "lambda legal" is?
The article is about a gay rights organization pressuring Blizzard.
If you don;t know what that has to do with lobbying organizations, I suspect it's because of that extra chromosome you have.
How's your grasp of "equality under the law?"
Better than yours clearly.
As soon as you show me a single straight person who is allowed to marry a member of the same sex, you'll have a point.
As it is now, it's opposite sex only, for EVERYONE.
That's the definiton of equality, but you'll never admit it.
Now, if you want to discuss a new institution to encompass spousal rights for gay couples, I say go for it.
But don't act like it's about equality. That's a lie, and it serves no purpose.
"I definitely cannot express how hurtful it is to see that word spelled out in all caps in your previous post of blatent disrespect."
I definitely cannot express in words how little I'm interested in what you CHOOSE to be offended by.
But, because I'm in the mood to spread the love, I'll do this.
YOU ARE A FILTHY, STINKING, LAZY-ASS N-WORD.
Yeah, I can see how that's so much better.
"Why would it be called North America if there is no America?"
It's a NAME. N-A-M-E.
"You're really not making any sense here."
Hmm, funny coming from a guy claiming there is a continent named "America". And interestingly, you didn't post any links that show this mystery continent.
It's a name. There is NO other context.
I can't figure out if you're really this stupid, or just acting like it for fun.
And you STILL didn't support your argument, you just keep insisiting that you're right, when EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE OF FACT says you're not.
Seriously, shut up now. You're making a fool of yourself.
Great but you're not a political lobby, and your personal moitivations aren't relevant.
As soon as you find me a poltical lobby that doesn't want to extend their "rights" at the expense of others "rights" we'll talk.
"I don't see how a gay person asking for political equality suddenly become the enemy "gay polical lobby" that wants to trample on other peoples' rights"
Well, that wasn't my argument, so don't ask me. Nice try with the straw man though. Actually, no it really wasn't. I've definitely seen better.
I always claim "asian" because my grandparents were from Siberia.
Oh, and just because I hate it, it's NIGGER.
When you say "N-word" as some lame attempt to avoid using it, you empower the "n-word" in exactly the same way. Stop doing that.
So you're saying that because generations of EUROPEAN whites engaged in villainous acts, it's ok to punish their ancestors?
What's that saying about two wrongs...
I don't see anywhere in that post where he claimed it was ONLY white christian males that founded the US.
So, what led you to believe that was what he meant?
PS, we all know what it was, but I'm interested to see if you'll admit it.
"Blizzard's actions were to allow hatred to go unchecked"
NO, Blizzard's actions were to allow a WORD to go unchecked. That word is not equvalent to hatred.
Add to that the fact that you are allowed to hate anyone you want for any reason, and your point doesn't have much merit.
I've always thought it strange that people can simultaneously crusade for civil rights while condeming others for exercising them.
Well? WELL?
Right. I said something you disagree with, and you're not smart enough to refute it, so you censor it.
How sad.
And the worst part is, you're probably one of those "free speech" hypocrites who blather on about your rights while ignoring those of others.
"If there is no 'America', then what is 'North America' the 'North' part of?"
Nothing. It's a continent named "North America".
"If there is no continent of America, then what are the 'United States of America'? United states of a place that doesn't exist?"
Then kindly point out the continent of "America" on a map. Shouldn't be too hard.
And while you're at it, point to "carolina" and "dakota".
Why is it so hard for you to understand?
You said
"The Religious Right has made this a political issue, when in fact it is not even an issue."
I refuted you, and I think you knew when you posted it that your statement was wrong.
"You're missing the point of the argument; I don't think Homosexuals would be parading up and down the streets asking for the same rights as everyone else if they wheren't having their rights infringed upon for no apparent reason."
I didn't miss the point, you never made it. However, if you'd like to show me where you made that point in your previous post, I'll reasess what I've said.
Finally, YOU missed MY point. The gay lobby is JUST LIKE any other political organization, and your blind assumption that they are "asking for the same rights as everyone else" betrays your ignorance. They are a POLITICAL LOBBY, and like ALL the other political lobbies, they are about self interest. Make no mistake, if they could get what they wanted by trampling your rights, it would happen in a second.
In the future, replace every instance of "gay" with "fundie" in your argument, and reconsider how you feel about it then.
"So, all the fuck-tards wailing "fag" as an insult are going to disappear? Ditto the hateful "Don't get the AIDS!" bits when plague makes the rounds?"
News flash, you don't have a right to avoid being offended, or even avoid being called names.
And it's funny how you disparage the "fuck-tards" for name calling. I have to assume that while you seem open to homosexuality, you're a raging bigot when it comes to mental disability.
Self-hatred can be a bitch.
I've never seen a parade of fundies strolling down the street of my town demanding "political equality NOW!", but I've seen it three separate times from The gay lobby.
And I'm not saying it doesn't happen, so don't try that crap.
Both side politicize the issue, why you thought you could get away with claiming otherwise I don't know.
"This argument makes little sense to me. How would having a timetable make terrorists more likely to attack after the US withdraws than not having a timetable? If terrorists are waiting for the US to leave before stepping up attacks, why wouldn't they go into hiding and stop their attacks, then resume once the Bush Administration declares that we've won, packs up their things, and goes home?"
Because the general consensus is that US troops won't pull out until after the Iraqis are sufficiently trained to protect themselves. Coming out of hiding then would be politically stupid, because Iraqi "freedom fighters" who kill legitimate Iraqi policemen would (IMO) have a much harder time justifying their murderous ways.
"The only answer I can come up with is that it's the very presence of the US forces that are provoking the attacks. "
(Smirking) I wonder why that is. First of all, you assume here that US forces are "provoking" attacks. The term is loaded, and I doubt you used it by accident.
Second, US service men are their in Iraq under threat of imprisonment. Stop acting like we marched in with a gang of Viking raiders to rape and pillage, it's not accurate, and it's childish.
Perhaps if you allowed yourself a moment to view the world without your overwhelmingly corrupting bias, you'd realize that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, the terrorists are power hungry despots looking for an opportunity to gain the upper hand in a rapidly developing country.
It's easy to jump on the "blame US" bandwagon. It's much harder to use your intellect to analyze what is actually happening. Now that you've mastered the first, perhaps you could try the second.
Those quotes are
A) taken out of context which makes them worthless
B) About how the IRAQIS will use their own oil resources to reconstruct their own country.
Nowhere in there was any statement claiming the Iraqis will reimburse the US for the cost of the war, and even if there were, THE WAR ISN'T OVER YET, AND NONE OF THE QUOTES GIVE A TIMELINE.
Stop trying so hard.
Could that have anything to do with the fact that so many countries pop in and out of existence in Africa?
I freely admit that my African geography needs work, but that's mainly because I don't want to bother relearning it every six months.
"It's in America. You know, the continent."
Sorry smart guy, but there is no continent of "America".
There is "North America" and "South America", but NO "America".
Just thought I'd point that out.
Stop acting like a smug asshole, especially when you're totally wrong.
"Because the fact that he finally decided to speak up at all, ever, is in and of itself an admirable thing."
Why? He's prove that he'll do the politically expedient thing, so explain why it's admirable that he's doing it now?
It's still just the politically expedient move. The fact that you like what he had to say changes nothing. He's shown his motivation isn't doing what is right, it's doing what is popular.
This is another example of the same thing.
"Most of the rest of the world wants as silent of a car as they can find, which is why the vast majority of new cars are completely silent."
I'm not going to get into politics here, as much as you might like, but the reason most new cars are "silent" (they're not, they're actually quiteloud from the OUTSIDE) is because the most common type of engine, a 4 cylinder, has a terrible exhaust note.
Funny though how you automatically assumed the "rest of the world" shared your ignorance.