I would too. In fact, I would put a bet on you getting your guts chewed out by a nice big kitty-cat. If only I could find a half-assed bookie.

What DO you smoke in your spare time, and will you please send some this way? :p

By the by, how does one go to TWO places FIRST? Is that a sucker's bet?

kthxbai

that would be a free money bet.
try william hill

i'm in law enforcment, so no, i don't smoke anything that'll get me fired.
what i meant was, the first 2 places i'd go to.
the second place i'd go to is around the same time.

a lot of people say that if they'd go back in time, they'd go back to kill hitler, to prevent the death of the jews.

now, thats nice and all, but despite not being on the side our species, there is one man that was responsible for more innocent deaths than hitler.
i would go back in time, and kill this man the day he was born.
to honour the tens of millions of innocent people who died in his name.

Why am I slightly disturbed by this?

Don't worry, he means mall security.

jesus, thats funny

lol...I was thinking Paul Blart.

"we are the scum of the earth"

as i mentioned up-thread, whip: speak for yourself, speak only for yourself

if 'scum' is your self-assessment, then who am i to disagree?

judge me as 'scum'...*shrug*...like i give a fuck

attempt to restrain or hobble me based on that judgment and, then, we -- you and me -- have a problem

it's good, i think, you are a small person with small ideas and no real power

otherwise: you just might get a bullet 'tween the eyes


"i'm in law enforcment"

HA!

like i say: no real power


"i would go back in time, and kill this man the day he was born.
to honour the tens of millions of innocent people who died in his name"

the typical monomania of the one who thinks he knows better than all the rest

*yawn*

when, when, when is someone with an actual A-game gonna step up and tussle?

Hey Monmaniacal Kettle? This is the pot. You're black.

I am so glad I don't live in a world as full of rhetoric and bitterness as Henry's and Whip's.

In my mind/eyes freedom is subjective. Nuff said.

Hey Monmaniacal Kettle? This is the pot. You're black.

(((HA!)))


I am so glad I don't live in a world as full of rhetoric and bitterness as Henry's and Whip's.

(((and still i wait for someone with an A-game... ;) )))


In my mind/eyes freedom is subjective. Nuff said.

((('freedom' is not subjective...it doesn't exist...it's fiction)))

henry, your posts are hard on the eyes. Work on some legibility, bro! . . . :2cents:

i'll see what i can do...

I'm just sayin' is all...

no prob...

who the fuck do you think i'm speaking for?
what are you, stupid or something?

Uh oh, we got ourselves another "knife to the gunfight" guy. ;)

lol - s123, you are in rare form today.

I aim to please.

:blush:

lol
 

dearest whip:

when you write, 'we are the scum of the earth' you most certainly ARE attempting to speak for all

you make an assessment, you state it as though it were fact, you show offense when refutation is offered

again: if you wish to self-assess as 'scum', feel free

i have no reason at this point to disagree with that self-assessment

my only complaint is the certainty with which you generalize that self-assessment to everyone else

in my experience: there are many who are most surely not 'scum'...so: your universal assessment is in error, is refuted, and you, sir/madam, stand corrected

now: go to your room... --henry

He wasn't speaking for all; he was speaking of all. When he says 'we' that is because he is making his personal assessment of 'us' (mankind).

*shrug*

to each his (or her) own...

I have to agree with Dana. I thought at first it was as you believed, but since we all recognize that he can only speak for himself, then there is no other reasonable determination. It is simply his opinion.

*sigh*
 

'since we all recognize that he can only speak for himself'

*shrug*

again: to each his own

ultimately: does it really matter that we disagree on whip's intent?

seems to me -- outside of whip and me -- no one else should give a damn

as always: there's the tedious 'taking of sides'...you know, folks: sometimes it's okay to be a witness, and not a participant...and sometimes it's fine to participate and NOT take any sides other than your own... --henry

well I think it fair to address the fact since you took umbrage with it in post #140 and then contradicted yourself in 144. What exactly was the point you were making again? I'll play devils advocate with you. :devil:

there was no contradiction

in 140 i took my compliant to whip...not to you

in 144 i expressed the opinion that -- really -- the issue is between whip and me

you, of course, may express an opinion in this thread, on this topic...i just don't quite understand why you'd want to

*shrug*

but, again: no contradiction on my part


when i say, 'to each his own', i mean you and dana or anyone may side with whip or with me or with neither

i don't care much how it plays out with you all

my issue is with whip

why?

because he parades simplicities as profundities, as fact, and dumbs down an already retarded discourse

if he's too delicate, in your estimation, to stand for himself, then -- please -- present a note from his doctor describing the nature of his fragility, and i'll leave the boy alone

otherwise: when the emperor wears nothing, someone ought to say so...and when the village idiot vomits on the dining room table, he ought to chastised…

Nor I you - have a nice day. To me, it appears you want nothing more than to pick a fight. have at it... without me.

Originally Posted by henry quirk
'since we all recognize that he can only speak for himself'

(((i quoted you, classicman...that's your thought, not mine, from post 143)))


To me, it appears you want nothing more than to pick a fight

(((if i do, it's not with you...so: why interpose yourself?)))

Therefore a great example of why you might want to try using the tools on the board so others know who you are quoting instead of (((((())))))).

Care to try again? It is clearly YOU who assumed that not I.

you wrote, 'since we all recognize that he can only speak for himself' in post 143

this is the whole of it: 'I have to agree with Dana. I thought at first it was as you believed, but since we all recognize that he can only speak for himself, then there is no other reasonable determination. It is simply his opinion.'

in the following post: i disagreed with you

in 145 you say i contradict

in 146 i show there was no contradiction

in 147 you said good bye

in 148 i bid you adieu

in 149 you task me for ((( )))

in 150 i haven't a clue what's you're doing or asking

for the record: if one takes the time to read my posts, it's very clear what i'm saying and what i'm quoting

if you aren't up to the effort: then stop responding…

If you want a private conversation with Whip the facility is there for a private message and/or a private room in Chat. This is a public area.

wow, i can't believe i missed all those posts.
guys, thanks for cleaing my intent up.
henry, learn to quote ..... first press [ , then quote, then ] write the quote inbetween, then close it by pressing [ , then /, then quote, and the final button .... ] ...its pretty easy, and it makes it a lot easier to read.
oh yeah, what was your purpose in this thread again ...to defend mankind...good luck with that.
you'd have to be ignorant or stupid to fight that battle.
you have no chance of winning.

the only defence one could have for humanity is that we're at an infant state.
we would have to survive our own self destructive nature and evolve.
of course that would not change the actions we've taken to this point.

"If you want a private conversation..."

i don't, dana: i just don't get why anyone 'feels' the need to poke around in my issue with whip...or: why anyone thinks i'm obligated to dance with them

*shrug*

-----

"what was your purpose in this thread again ...to defend mankind"

nope: read again, whip

henry, instead of pressing reply, press quote on the post you want to quote and it will do all the work for you.

look, i've spent to much time educating you on mankind and on how to use this forum.
you're obviously too stupid to learn on either of the topics, so i'm done with you.

fine by me whip

i note, however, no attempt to refute me, only the useless posturing of poking at the meaningless issue of my (non)style

as i say elsewhere in this forum: much easier to complain about ((( ))) than to address what's inside ((( )))

"what we each have is far more powerful and real than 'freedom' or 'free will': we have agency, or, the capacity to choose"

So isn't that freedom of choice? I see a lot of opinion and posturing in this thread and it upsets me because I think Glatt brought up a valid point. We hear so many "defending" their "freedom" yet do they really know what they claim to be defending? After reading this thread I have discovered that freedom seems to be completely left up to the interpretation of its posessor, or those who don't believe they posess it at all. I know my true freedom is limited, but I enjoy the freedoms that I believe I do have.

"freedom of choice"

i think the two words, 'freedom' and 'choice', exclude one another

if you follow my postings in this thread, i equate the individual and choice...i believe them equivalent, synonymous

that is: to BE an individual one must choose, and to choose one must BE an individual

if 'freedom' is a fiction, a fiction most often offered up as privilege to the governed by the governors, then it can't have anything to do with 'choice' since 'choice' is integral to the individual who exercises it

that is: 'choice' can't be taken away from the agent, nor can it be granted to the agent by another

so: 'freedom of choice' is an error...in my opinion... --henry

Okay. Fair enough.

Hey Dana - wanna dance. Apparently this thread is not a public anymore.

Hey Dave....why you not in chat? why you not?

I don't get it. I googled Toby Keith, and I still don't get you. Seems like he'd say the sort of thing any American country-music hat-act musician would. Do you reckon he'd get the cuffs out for you?

Griff, from post #1:
Mulling over radar (a/k/a Paul Ireland), I believe him to be temperamentally unsuited to genuine freedom. It is the narcissisist in him that does this -- his cast of mind is to be an absolute ruler. He can pretend for considerable stretches of time to be a libertarian, but that is not where his heart of hearts is. His ideas of what constitute violations of rights seem on closer examination to be mainly offenses to the Ireland ego.

To say that I say "You submit to my freedom" is not to hear what I am saying at all, but instead to hear only what you imagine I'm saying. Clearly not the same thing. Makes me rather indignant, to be sure. I want you free and happy too. That's a point of deep difference between me and radar, who has never found any such desire in his heart, and his posts repeatedly show this.

DanaC has not to my understanding ever expatiated on liberty. She clashes with me out of a belief in socialism, a less free way than libertarianism. Which is not something she bellyfeels.

Ah.

"Nothing ever ends, Adrian. You of all people should know that."

--Watchmen. The book rather than the movie, which used a similar line, from a different character.

yup. That is his opinion of mankind.

At the very least you could use color to distinguish between your posts and quotes. Like this.

Now why on earth would a self-absorbed Ayn Rand Jr do that?

I don't grok this.

How do you know what she feels?

"You are taking something from someone, so that is doing harm"

and that matters to the sum total of 'zero'

if joe is an enemy of mine (he killed my nephew, fucked my wife, ate my dog, etc.), and i hurt joe, 'harm' him, by stealing from him, this is a concern for me, how?


"Nothing wrong with eating meat, as long as you humanely kill the animal and don't waste anything"

why do i have to be 'humane' in the killing?

define: 'humane'

if i eat what i need and discard viscera and bones, i'm 'wasting', yes?

so what?


"Of course there are reasons not to do those things; there are morals and ethics and decency"

morals, ethics, decency: who establishes the baselines for these?

what 'authority' promotes, safeguards, enforces, these?

why is 'your' morality, ethics, decency superior to mine and why should i abandon mine for yours?


"I would say we are more like a virus than fleas"

more self-loathing from the peanut gallery…*sigh*

-----

ayn rand: a plagiarist...a half-assed philosopher...a hypocrite

try again...

"we are fleas on this planet"

when i say 'fleas' i mean in scale, not in value

the pedestrian musings of the whip and the sugarpop are, i think, value-statements i disagree with

to be a flea in scale still allows for nobility and greatness

to be 'scum' or a 'virus' in essence, in nature, allows only for stasis and parasitism

*shrug*

"if joe is an enemy of mine (he killed my nephew, fucked my wife, ate my dog, etc.), and i hurt joe, 'harm' him, by stealing from him, this is a concern for me, how?"

this raises, of course, the bullshit argument of: well you reap what you so, mr quirk

if joe 'hurts' you then why are you complaining?

he just doing what 'you' do, isn't he?

yes he is...and if he does it to 'you', unless 'you' have some value to 'me', i could not care less

since however, i am everything to myself: i tend to take a dim view of being treated as resource, though -- certainly -- if suits my cause, i will use joe as resource

and since there is a small number of folks who 'matter' to me: i take also take a dim view of joe using any one of them as resource

morality, ethics, decency, justice, equality, and on and on are the sometimes useful fictions used to allow for a semblance of 'peace'

these fictions are tools used to craft another, sometimes useful, fiction: civilization

sure as shit: the next major catastrophe that slams into the world will illustrate how thin the veneer is on civilization and how angel farty 'morality, ethics, decency, justice, equality, and on and on' are

this, of course, is deplorable and you all should shun me, avert your eyes, write letters to the local papers, and report me to the net police...

Wow henry. Just wow. Are you really so bored and bitter that you feel the need to reply to your own posts?

Have a Blessed Day.

He's just talkin to his friend.... (the imaginary one :eek:)

...about eight feet tall......with whiskers, right?

Fixed it for ya.

Really, bandwagon jumping makes you look common.

Go kiss someone's ass, that at least looks nicer.

:lol2:

:confused:Bandwagon jumping? hm? Guess you missed my posts in this thread.

And I've already kicked enough ass today to make Chuck Norris proud. Just don't always post about it on the Cellar.

Thanks for playing.

Have a Blessed Day.;)

"Wow henry. Just wow. Are you really so bored and bitter that you feel the need to reply to your own posts?"


wow, queenie: are so really so dense you don't understand the concept of 'expansion'?

dumb question: of course you are...dense, that is

now: go and have one of those 'blessed days' why don't ya... ;)

nope, not dense. just bored with your "expansion." I see it more as "reiteration" or "redundancy."

WE GET IT. You are angry and see us all as ants or drones with no free will and no value. Take what you want, the rest be damned. WE GET IT.

"just bored with your "expansion."

so bored you just HAD to stick in two, worthless, cents

now: that makes sense...


"WE GET IT"

no: really, you don't...but if you think you do, then, stop responding

by the way: my little posts were directed to sugarpop, were in direct response to sugarpop...or: hadn't you noticed?


"...see us all as ants or drones with no free will and no value. Take what you want, the rest be damned."

not that you will: but if that's what you think i've been posting, you really need to go back and READ again...

This is a PUBLIC thread - you're "responses" to Sugar appear more opinion for public consumption. After reading and re-reading the myriad of posts, the strongest OPINION I can glean from you is that there is no such thing as freedom in any form, so you might as well grab what you can when you can no matter how it effects or affects those around you.

In my OPINION you took a nice harmless thread where it was asked what YOU HEAR when you hear the word freedom, and you turned it in to your own personal diatribe to disprove the existence of freedom. Guess that's why I am not walking away. No, I don't speak the eloquent language of Academia that you and Sugar and Dana seem to enjoy - I guess that makes me seem "dense" in your opinion. No sir. I am very well educated, well read, well informed. I just prefer good old down-to-earth language to convey my thoughts rather than Randish incomplete sentences. It just irks me when I come to the Cellar to be enlightened and informed and entertained, and I end up being preached to by the Academics. Yes I could walk away, but where's the fun in that?