What do you hear when people say freedom?
There is often a difference between what people think they're saying and what they are saying.
ex: UG thinks he's saying freedom for everyone. I'd say what people generally hear is submit to my freedom. That is why he and Radar and Dana collide, they all want a version of freedom to reign, but their definitions are incompatible.
My current definition shifts with what I see. It may not look that different from Radar's except that I do think that, despite its moral hazards, a social saftey net is in order. I do believe in the freedom to fail, which has become unpopular in governmental circles, meaning I'd rather see Wagoner on welfare than running GM. I believe the Supreme Court got it right, we have a individual right to self defense. I believe in a lot of stuff, but what do you hear?
Depending upon the speaker and context, unfortunately I usually hear "license." You know doing what you want without concern for the consequences.
Sometimes I hear Richie Havens singing "Freedom" this one time I saw him in New Hampshire decades ago. He sang himself into a trance, fell off his stool, and continued singing and playing his guitar: Freeeeedommm Freeeeedommm Freedommmm.
He wasn't talking about license, he was singing about freedom. He was invoking freedom in all its manifestations.
Wait, he wasn't singing about smoking dope?
When MLK says it, I get a tear in me e'e.
When Team America says it, I giggle.
When Toby Keith says it, I want to punch him in the mouth.
Depending upon the speaker and context, unfortunately I usually hear "license." You know doing what you want without concern for the consequences.
smart
FRENCH FRIES
yummy
When MLK says it, I get a tear in me e'e.
When Team America says it, I giggle.
When Toby Keith says it, I want to punch him in the mouth.
Well said.
Free will is a rather new discovery in the history of the human race. I guess it's those thoughts, choices, and actions you take independently, without depending on the god(s), society/tribes, or other people in your life.
~snip~
When Toby Keith says it, I want to punch him in the mouth.
:notworthy:
A lot of people think 'freedom' means free to do what you like unless you violate MY moral code. Then that is just 'wrong' and should be stopped immediately.
A lot of people think 'freedom' means free to do what you like unless you violate MY moral code. Then that is just 'wrong' and should be stopped immediately.
Pedophiles are always doing that, thinking they are free to rape children.
My point being, where does one draw the line?
Ah, there's the rub.
Which line? I see a lot of them. In fact, I just see one gray blob.
~snip~In fact, I just see one gray blob.
Well then, quit spying on me. :p
I think of it in the way that UT thinks of it...But there is also all the little subatomic particles around, and outside forces that interfere with free will.
Do I really have free will with gravity holding me down? How free is freedom? I am more and more convinced that freedom exists only in varying degrees, if at all. It might have been manufactured to make us feel better. Great in theory..the practice..Not so much.
When I hear someone say freedom I wonder what's really on their mind. Usually, if I listen long enough, they get around to what their bitch really is.
Freedom is a much overused word. As is revolutionary.
Both of these concepts are now just useful tropes with which to sell us mobile phones and hair gel.
Freedom is independence. Which includes independence from anybody else's freedom. So when all the dependencies are removed from everybody's differing versions, what's left is real freedom.
What you need to know about freedom. The history of it is here:
http://cellar.org/discoveryoffreedom.pdf
You get a free PDF, hosted at the Cellar. I had to buy the book back in the day.
I understand that Ms. Lane admitted to some errors due to her haste in writing. The quality of her prose and the mighty fire it burns in your spine more than make up for it.
I never got that line.
So when you have nothing left you are free?
Perhaps if Janis Joplin had traded places with someone who actually had nothing that could be taken away then she might have thought twice about writing it. Easy to speak for everyone when you define everyone as everyone except yourself.
In the U.S. freedom meant freedom from interference and control by Europe. At that time, in all the European countries (I'm including Britain), the have-nots were at the mercy of the haves. If you didn't own land your livelihood, indeed your life, depended on the people that did. It was a centuries old system with no way to break that cycle of poor, beget poor, beget poor. The excess poor, the ones the rich didn't need as help, were deported, or starved to death.
The fortunate people that came here, where there was land out the kazoo, had an opportunity the break that cycle and become independent. To survive and even flourish, by busting their butts. But if Europe remained in control, the system these people had escaped would be back to haunt them. Remember the European countries were still bickering over control of the "New World".
So freedom was the basis of the American Revolution, freedom from Europe and the old system... also freedom from their own fledgling government. That meant to the citizens just what was promised, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It didn't promise the government wouldn't set up rules, pass laws and control the country, it only promised it wouldn't kill you for no reason, that you were free to go live anywhere you could afford, and by your own labor make or break your fortune/future.
That's all they promised, and they spelled it out in the Bill of Rights, so the people would know what they were supporting, what they would fight and die for.
But then came the philosophers and the "freedom" that was clear and simple in 1776, got massaged like it was turkish taffy until the word didn't have a clear definition anymore.
The country has gotten populated, in some areas crowded, and life is much more complicated. So freedom, now without a clear definition, has been stretched to umbrella and justify every want.
I take my definition of freedom from whence it came. :us:
I never got that line.
So when you have nothing left you are free?
Perhaps if Janis Joplin had traded places with someone who actually had nothing that could be taken away then she might have thought twice about writing it. Easy to speak for everyone when you define everyone as everyone except yourself.
She didn't write it. Kris Kristofferson wrote it. Janis Joplin just sang the most famous version of it. Sang it with Bob Dylan in mind I believe.
Freedom is a Sweet Word
Freedom is a sweet word
I heard it and my spirit leapt
But when I came to taste it
I found a free man there who'd crept
Right in and stolen all my children's freedom, precious freedom away
And he laughed because he'd bought the judge
The morning of the same day
Oh yes freedom is a sweet word
But freedom without justice
Is a freedom for a few
Who have bought the right to tell us
That their freedom lie is true
Oh freedom without justice
Grows up into slavery
If you're not a Barclaycard carrying
Member of the free
Freedom is a sweet word
It shines and glistens like a star
But where's the joy in freedom
When you're free to obey the colour bar
You're free to starve and free to die
And free to do anything but express
That Jesus never gave to anyone the freedom to oppress
You know that freedom is a sweet word
But freedom without justice
Is a freedom for a few
Who have bought the right to tell us
That their freedom lie is true
Oh freedom without justice
Grows up into slavery
If you're not a Barclaycard carrying
Member of the free
Dated now of course - apartheid was still a way of life when we were singing this. And I was still a Christian. It still moves me though.
When I hear someone say freedom I wonder what's really on their mind. Usually, if I listen long enough, they get around to what their bitch really is.
Everyone has an agenda.
When someone says they're free or that something else is free, I laugh to myself.
Don't we know by now that nothing in life is free. There is a price for everything. It's just a matter of when you have to pay for it.
There is no such thing as freedom. Only levels of obligation.
I never got that line.
So when you have nothing left you are free?
There is no such thing as freedom. Only levels of obligation.
That's what it means, only when you've nothing left to lose, no level of obligation, are you free.
And very few people ever believe they have nothing left. Most of us are constrained by some ties whether they be emotional, physical or financial.
That's what it means, only when you've nothing left to lose, no level of obligation, are you free.
I interpret "nothing left to lose" as having nothing left that someone can take away from you which includes freedom. So to me, the state of having nothing left that can be taken away from me is
captivity.
Being left alone to do as I wish without impacting others or being impacted by others is freedom. And that freedom comes with no obligation.
To say that there is no such thing as freedom but only levels of obligation is incomprehensible to me.
No, freedom is having no levels of obligation, and that's only possible when you have no stuff and no relationships... ie nothing left to lose. See? :)
He gets it right becuase it pisses off liberals. :lol2:
Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American)
Toby Keith
American girls and American guys will always stand up and salute;
Will always recognize
When we see ol' glory flying,
There's a lot of men dead,
So we can sleep in peace at night when we lay down our head.
My daddy served in the army,
Where he lost his right eye.
But he flew a flag out in our yard 'til the day that he died.
He wanted my mother, my brother, my sister and me
To grow up and live happy in the land of the free.
Now this nation that I love has fallen under attack.
A mighty sucker punch came flying in from somewhere in the back.
Soon as we could see clearly through our big black eye,
Man we lit up your world like the Fourth of July.
Hey Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,
And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.
And the eagle will fly,
And there's gonna be Hell,
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell!
It's gonna feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you...
Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue!
Oh, Justice will be served and the battle will rage.
This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage
You'll be sorry that you messed with the US of A
'Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass
It's the American way.
Hey Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,
And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.
And the eagle will fly,
And there's gonna be Hell,
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell!
And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you...
Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue!
Of the Red, White and Blue..
Of my Red, White and Blue...
In the U.S. freedom meant freedom from interference and control by Europe. At that time, in all the European countries (I'm including Britain), the have-nots were at the mercy of the haves. If you didn't own land your livelihood, indeed your life, depended on the people that did. It was a centuries old system with no way to break that cycle of poor, beget poor, beget poor. The excess poor, the ones the rich didn't need as help, were deported, or starved to death.
The fortunate people that came here, where there was land out the kazoo, had an opportunity the break that cycle and become independent. To survive and even flourish, by busting their butts. But if Europe remained in control, the system these people had escaped would be back to haunt them. Remember the European countries were still bickering over control of the "New World".
So freedom was the basis of the American Revolution, freedom from Europe and the old system... also freedom from their own fledgling government. That meant to the citizens just what was promised, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It didn't promise the government wouldn't set up rules, pass laws and control the country, it only promised it wouldn't kill you for no reason, that you were free to go live anywhere you could afford, and by your own labor make or break your fortune/future.
That's all they promised, and they spelled it out in the Bill of Rights, so the people would know what they were supporting, what they would fight and die for.
But then came the philosophers and the "freedom" that was clear and simple in 1776, got massaged like it was turkish taffy until the word didn't have a clear definition anymore.
The country has gotten populated, in some areas crowded, and life is much more complicated. So freedom, now without a clear definition, has been stretched to umbrella and justify every want.
I take my definition of freedom from whence it came. :us:
Actually, bruce nails it. Bravo.
In the U.S. freedom meant freedom from interference and control by Europe. At that time, in all the European countries (I'm including Britain), the have-nots were at the mercy of the haves. If you didn't own land your livelihood, indeed your life, depended on the people that did. It was a centuries old system with no way to break that cycle of poor, beget poor, beget poor. The excess poor, the ones the rich didn't need as help, were deported, or starved to death.
The fortunate people that came here, where there was land out the kazoo, had an opportunity the break that cycle and become independent. To survive and even flourish, by busting their butts. But if Europe remained in control, the system these people had escaped would be back to haunt them. Remember the European countries were still bickering over control of the "New World".
So freedom was the basis of the American Revolution, freedom from Europe and the old system... also freedom from their own fledgling government. That meant to the citizens just what was promised, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It didn't promise the government wouldn't set up rules, pass laws and control the country, it only promised it wouldn't kill you for no reason, that you were free to go live anywhere you could afford, and by your own labor make or break your fortune/future.
That's all they promised, and they spelled it out in the Bill of Rights, so the people would know what they were supporting, what they would fight and die for.
Yup, all that still holds true to this day.
No, freedom is having no levels of obligation, and that's only possible when you have no stuff and no relationships... ie nothing left to lose. See? :)
Clarity such as this is a gift. Perfectly, clear now. Outlook adjusted. Thank you. :)
I'm a child of the 60s, so I've got to go along with ft^3, I hear Richie Havens.
Freedom is just about having a will.
Will thats free:D
No, freedom is having no levels of obligation, and that's only possible when you have no stuff and no relationships... ie nothing left to lose. See? :)
Your freedom doesn't sound very free to me.
A free person is not allowed to relate to anything?
Freedom is being allowed to do what you want. This is Individual Freedom.
The concept Freedom becomes more interesting once other people enter the picture(i am assuming that all people are considered to be (at least theoretically) equal)
When you say everybody is Free you are talking about something completely different. Namely your individual Freedom insofar as it does not infringe on the individual Freedom of all others within your sphere of influence.
I just realised this is all semantics, if we imagine a scale going from absolute freedom(everything is allowed) to absolute robotdom(everything that isn't forbidden is manditory) then half of the people here would say that the absolute freedom is The One And Only True Freedom(TM) and the other half would say that the golden mean is The One And Only True Freedom(TM).
This division would put the 'freedom does not exist' crowd under category 1.
Oh, pip pip tallyho and whatnot.
I think I agree.
Absolute freedom is impossible to accomplish.
If we are free to do whatever we want we will then take away other people's freedoms. If we make sure no one can take away anyone else's freedom, we can not do whatever we want. To me, freedom is the subjective equilibrium between the two.
No, freedom is having no levels of obligation, and that's only possible when you have no stuff and no relationships... ie nothing left to lose. See? :)
Your freedom doesn't sound very free to me.
A free person is not allowed to relate to anything?
That's not my definition, that's my explanation of Janis Joplin's definition.
My definition is back in post 22. ;)
'What do you hear when people say 'freedom'?'
a fiction
really: what are any of us 'free' of?
each of us is bound up in, and by, 'the world' (both within and without)
none of us are 'free', so: 'freedom' is a nice fiction, a convenient, and sometimes useful, fiction, but still a fiction
what we each have is far more powerful and real than 'freedom' or 'free will': we have agency, or, the capacity to choose
not an unlimited capacity to choose, but -- at all times, in all circumstances -- a capacity, a possibility, nonetheless
and synonymous with agency is self-possession, that is: the willful claiming of one's self and the defense of that claim
i claim my 'self' as my first, best, property and do as i like within the broad boundaries of 'the world'
your job -- if you want it -- is to defend yourself against my possible predation on you (just as i must defend myself against predation by you)
up-thread, Shawnee123 wrote, 'Pedophiles are always doing that, thinking they are free to rape children'
i counter: they are not 'free' to rape children, but they -- the pedophiles -- are doing just that...not because it's their 'right' but simply because 'they can'
if for example, my nephew (who is very important to me) were molested, i'd want the molester's liver (as an act of revenge, which is real; not an act of justice, which is fiction)...if i successfully hunt down the person and claim my revenge, then he loses...but: if the molester can safely evade me or my proxies (the police, a hit man, etc.) then he wins
all the moralizing in the world won't change this fact, nor will all the talk of 'freedom' (or limits on 'freedom'), or 'justice' (a fiction resting on the fiction of 'law' which is a fiction resting on the fiction of 'morality' which is nothing more than the median of successful behaviors exhibited by large numbers of folks across expanses of time)
seems to me: you defend against the predator simply because you value yourself (a subjective, idiosyncratic, perception), not because of a 'moral', or 'law'
certainly: climbing atop a soapbox (on a street corner, or, in the statehouse) and droning on about the sanctity of your 'freedom' nets a body nothing... --henry quirk
what we each have is far more powerful and real than 'freedom' or 'free will': we have agency, or, the capacity to choose
Nice definition. I like that.
really: what are any of us 'free' of?
Not free of, free to. You call it agency but it's the same thing.
Freedom, is free to... take away freedom and you are no longer free to do what you wish, as least not without dire consequences.
'Not free of, free to'
i don't see the distinction
to be 'free to' means one is 'free of <restraint>'
also: 'freedom', 'free', is not the same as agency
again: to 'be free', to have 'freedom', means -- to me, at least -- one is unrestrained
and we each are restrained: by our own flesh (the way reality works) at the least; by the esoterica of the culture (all the fictions foisted up on us) at the most
agency, on the other hand, is simply a placeholder for the very real exercise of choice, that is: choosing and doing
again: our choices and the actions extending from those choices are not unlimited...in fact: very often, our options are severely limited in both choice and action, and still we can -- must -- choose
'freedom' and 'free will' are, i think, the sphere of god (if it exists) while agency is for us, IS us
'take away freedom and you are no longer free to do what you wish'
indeed!
but as 'agent' (agency) even if shackled (made un-free) one can still choose and act...not always as one likes or wants, but, even the shackled man led to the gallows has the capacity to choose
such a man may only have the choice of whether to walk with a measure of dignity to death (and therefore 'own' the death), or, dissolve into a puking puddle begging for mercy (becoming a slave of the death), but he still has the capacity, the possibility, of choice
'freedom', again, is a nice idea, a useful fiction, but it's a fiction nonetheless
agency, which is the agent, which is the self-possessed individual, is real, demonstrable, and intuitively 'correct'
'Not free of, free to'
i don't see the distinction
to be 'free to' means one is 'free of <restraint>'
Free of restraint, yes, but not free of other people (and possibly their choices and behaviors.) If your neighbor is religious you do not have the right to be
free of any exposure to him in public places, for example, but you are
free to go back inside your house.
in the first post of the thread: griff talks a bit about 'free' and 'freedom'...he muses on the semantic difficulties of the words and hints at -- i think -- the philosophical foundation of the concept
my posts have been in the same vein: attempting to pin down 'freedom', illustrate it has no real foundation (is fiction), and lobbying for the very real alternative, agency
certainly: one is 'free'to go back into his or her house but, superficially, this is only a poor way of saying one 'goes in' the house...first and foremost: 'going in' is an action extending from a choice, which of course, is what agency is all about
'going in' is no more an expression of 'freedom' than is 'freedom of speech' (a privilege and fiction, not a right or reality)
by the way: agency as reality takes into account 'other people' and their choices...as i posted up-thread, 'each of us is bound up in, and by, 'the world' (both within and without)', and, 'and we each are restrained: by our own flesh (the way reality works) at the least; by the esoterica of the culture (all the fictions foisted up on us) at the most'
'the world' is full of 'other people' and 'other people' are the source of 'culture'
another way to look at it: there is political 'freedom' or liberty, which may be what most posting in this thread are commenting on
'liberty' is a nice way of saying: the community, the gov, the king, etc. will not screw with you...as such, it's fiction and privilege
anything codified and secured for you by another is privilege
in fact, all the rights most folks are accustomed to crowing about are just that: privileges
agency, however, is integral to the individual...it can't be taken away except by killing the individual...agency is not dependent on who sits in power or on how that power is exercised
fundamentally: agency is, again, about self-possession in even in the midst of imprisonment
and as i think on it: even death doesn't take away agency, it merely ends it (agency/agent)
Have to bear in mind though, that there are different kinds of agency. Political (or historical) agency is not always open to everyone. Power often rests in political agency as does the ability or opportunity to change the structures of society. Those with political agency build the walls in which we live; those without political agency rarely get to design the world, and so the world is not often slanted in their favour.
That also depends upon which type of society you live in.
Usually I hear bleating mouths of politicians and shrill propagandists, lying through their teeth, when I hear the word "freedom".
I had some good notes on a pretty interesting understanding of freedom I read recently...I'll see if I can remember where they were and dig them out. Suffice to say, it was more interesting, and internally coherent, than most people's use of the word, not that this is especially hard when one considers the above and how often they spend talking about freedom, usually in the context of defending it by locking it up in an underground bunker, with an armed guard.
For its own safety, naturally.
Pedophiles are always doing that, thinking they are free to rape children.
My point being, where does one draw the line?
Ah, there's the rub.
I think the line is, as long as you aren't hurting another being (that would include animals, because I believe animals are as important and as sacred as people), then you should be able to do whatever you want. I also think we should not being doing harm to the earth. We should only take what we need.
In other words: harm none, but do what thou will.
When I hear the word freedom coming from a government, I hear: coercion, money, greed, power. Because everyone's definition of freedom is not the same, and other cultures are not the same, how can we define freedom for another?
To me, freedom would be no money, no government, no religion. Just people taking care of one another. Everyone would have everything they need. No one would have control over anyone else. I suppose I am just an anarchist, but at the same a socialist. I believe in the "village" mentality.
"I think the line is, as long as you aren't hurting another being (that would include animals, because I believe animals are as important and as sacred as people), then you should be able to do whatever you want."
why are other people sacred?
if joe has what i want, and i successfully take it, then joe loses
if i'm unsuccessful in taking it, then i lose
if i have something joe covets, and joe is successful is taking it, then he wins
if joe is unsuccessful, then i win
as for animals: nuthin' like a thick, juicy, rare, steak to fortify a body
my point: there's no reason not to steal, lie, cheat, or kill another other than pragmatism (and individual preference)
certainly: the great fictions of morality and law -- being fictions -- are next to useless
"I also think we should not being doing harm to the earth. We should only take what we need."
we are fleas on this planet...it'll be 'round long after humans kick off...i say: get now while the getting’s good...
Oh you are going to be popular around here.
Oh you are going to be popular around here.
TW, without the capital letters.
if joe has what i want, and i successfully take it, then joe loses
No, Joe blows your head off.
But that isn't really success, now is it?
For anyone because henry quirk is dead and Joe is in jail. Which is why henry quirk's view is not acceptable.
If henry quirk is dead and joe is in jail, then henry did not successfully take anything.
He was successful in taking it, but he didn't allow for repercussions. There are always repercussions.
At what point was he successful? He had the possession in his hands, then got his head blown off? What's the statute of limitations on success?
He was successful in doing what he set out to do.
Then he gets his head blown off, or other people find out and refuse to associate with him, or what he took has a curse on it, etc.
That is why henry quirk's simple views are invalid. Nothing is that simple, there are always repercussions.
I see your point.
But say henry quirk steals a pack of gum from joe's desk. Joe had forgotten he had that pack of gum; he never notices. henry quirk chews the gum, doesn't get any kind of strange illness, the wrappers don't clog up the garbage system, the gum biodegrades either inside or outside henry quirk...the world goes on and henry quirk dies of lyme disease related not to gum but to a camping trip he had gone on.
Short of eternal hellfire, there are no repercussions.
;)
Until his apparent success spurs him to bigger and better crimes for which he pays dearly.
or
Until he brags of his success to his wife during pillow talk and she refuses to ever have sex with him again.
lol
"You LIED to me. You said you bought that gum with your own money. I can never trust you again. "
So there isn't any "free-gum" here?
"henry quirk is dead and Joe is in jail"
a false assumption...two of them, actually
first: i may not die...in fact: if i'm cunning enough, no one may die
two: assuming joe knocks me off, AND is cunning about it, my body may never be discovered
"There are always repercussions"
sure
the job of the wise criminal is to anticipate and minimize the repercussions
"Until his apparent success spurs him to bigger and better crimes for which he pays dearly"
a false assumption...the wise man possesses himself...that is: he possess the appetite, not the other way around
"henry quirk's simple views are invalid"
open your pollyanna eyes and LOOK at the world...what i describe up-thread is the way it works...always has, always will
you can dress it up anyway you like: the essential transaction is prey versus predator
choose your poison...
"there are different kinds of agency. Political (or historical) agency is not always open to everyone"
yes: but i'm talking about a very specific, and real, thing when i refer to 'agency'
that is: agency = the agent
the capacity for self-deliberation, self-determination, choice is integral to the individual...in fact: that capacity is synonymous with the individual
political/historical agency is another topic completely, one in keeping with that great, sometimes useful, fiction 'liberty/freedom'...
open your pollyanna eyes and LOOK at the world...what i describe up-thread is the way it works...always has, always will
No. You're trying to distill life to elements. Life will always be compounds.
"You're trying to distill life to elements"
not at all!
my comments are meant to clarify, not reduce
murder, theft, propaganda, stupification.
"What do you hear when people say freedom?"
W.HI.P wrote: murder, theft, propaganda, stupification.
me: care to expand on that?
a non police state
1776
I can go to any church I want or not.
"What do you hear when people say freedom?"
W.HI.P wrote: murder, theft, propaganda, stupification.
me: care to expand on that?
this thread asks a specific question.
its asking me what i hear when when people say freedom.
the first thing that comes to my mind when i hear the word freedom is the usa.
first thing that pops to my mind when mentioning the usa is murder.
the purpose of murder being theft.
propaganda is whats being pumped out of the media to cover up this theft and murder
stupification is the result of the system which is structured in a way to keep the masses stupid and powerless.
its a matter of control and power, not freedom.
Uh, long winter up there WHIP? :haha:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#United_States
However, the rate of property crimes is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US. Since violent crimes are a small fraction of all crimes, this means that the overall crime rate is actually lower in the U.S. than in Canada.
first thing that pops to my mind when mentioning the usa is murder.
the purpose of murder being theft.
I wonder why you think murder when the USA is mentioned? Personally, I think murder and theft more when when I hear Colombia, or South Africa. I don't generally think "Ahh, freedom!"
I wonder why you think murder when the USA is mentioned? ~snip~
It's all the hobo-killin' what makes him mad.
"It's all the hobo-killin' what makes him mad."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
let me get this right...
'usa' leads to 'murder' leads to 'theft' leads to 'propaganda' leads to
'stupification' leads to 'stupid and powerless masses'
...this is the formula, yes?
i'm sure my sequencing is wrong...doesn't matter...no matter how the above is arranged, it's all bullshit...cog philosophy/politics conduited from those in the would-be politburo to folks who kinda think communitarianism is -- at best -- naive, and -- at worst -- criminal
of course, whip, you can do as you like with your life, time, and resources...orchestrate revolution, if that's what blows your hair back
me: i decline to participate
"its a matter of control and power, not freedom."
on this we agree...'freedom' is a fictional carrot dangled by another
self-possession, on the other hand, is reality
I don't hear "freedom" come up in a conversation too often. When it does come up it is generally someone who wants to do whatever the hell they feel like.
lol
i'm refering to the murder of innocent people away from the usa.
the theft being the cause of the usa sending their military overseas.
i'm refering to the brainwashing of the media that has you all stupified as to whats really going on.
the reason why the word freedom makes me think of these things is because freedom is the word thats used as an excuse for this murder and theft to occur.
this thread asks me to speak my mind.
i'm doing so as honestly as possible.
if you're living in the states and feel some sort of security by this word freedom, than all the power to ya.
keep in mind though, that the only real reason you feel free is cause you're comparing where you live to a third world country.
horseshit, when compared to bullshit may seem like something superior, but nothing changes the fact that its shit.
But our shit and your shit is better than their shit. That's why so many want to leave their shit and come to our shit or your shit. Preferably our shit 'cause your shit is too cold.
thats pretty good bruce.
lets take a few steps back and take a close look at what all this hate is really about.
you have blacks hating whites, and whites hating blacks.
christians hating muslims, and muslims hating christians.
you've got jews hating gentiles, gentiles hating jews
irish hating english, english hating irish.
greeks hating turks, turks hating greeks.
and all those things that they're all saying about each other, pointing.
what they're all talking about is one thing....
all the above are people.
the problem here is not the jew, muslim black or white, greek english, irish or turkish.
its our species...we're all these things we hate so much
lets take an even closer look in the mirror.
we kill, torture or imprison all life, including our own.
it is, without doubt, our nature to do so.
we do so for greed, sport.
we have no respect for any life on this planet, including our own.
face it, we are the scum of the earth.
thread/Fookin' A, W.HI.P got shit goin on outside of the sports arena./pause
"we are the scum of the earth"
speak for yourself, and only for yourself
i applaud, as you say, you speaking your mind 'as honestly as possible'
this is a good thing
i too simply speak my mind as honestly as possible
so: when i say you are as hobbled, reactionary, and stupefied as those you decry, you'll take my comment within the context of this thread, and my previous comments in this thread...that is: as an honest expression of opinion
all this...
"we kill, torture or imprison all life, including our own.
it is, without doubt, our nature to do so.
we do so for greed, sport.
we have no respect for any life on this planet, including our own.
face it, we are the scum of the earth"
...which seems to be a summation of your view, is nothing less or more than mickey mouse, high school, pedestrian, bullshit
whip, are you presently torturing or imprisoning anyone?
whip, are you currently tortured or imprisoned by anyone?
whip, are you wholly without respect for any-one or -thing?
whip, if YOU are not tortured, imprisoned, or, are not torturing or imprisoning anyone, then your little coggish diatribe is meaningless
whip, if YOU can muster even one little erg of respect for some-one or -thing, then your little coggish display is for shit.
sure: lots of folks 'kill, torture or imprison' for all kinds of reasons, but not ALL of us do
living is way more colorful and complex than you seem to think
of course: as i said before, you can do as you like with your life, time, and resources...if this means wallowing in a teen's nihilism, then get to it
again: i decline to participate... --henry
what i find most deplorable about the simplicities of folks like whip: such simplicities are based on generalizations of behavior, medians of behavior, which tend toward fictionalizations of behavior, which tend toward ignoring the extraordinary in favor of the ordinary
that is: even if 99 assholes shit on the floor, it's criminal to ignore the 1 person who uses the toilet
*shrug*
we determine the nature of the wolf by observing the wolf.
the actions of the wolf determine the wolf's nature.
basically, wolves tend to sink their teeth into the sheeps neck and drinks its blood. thats how it feeds.
humans consume millions of bird fetus's a day.
you could easily say that bird fetus's[eggs] is on our species menu.
now, should there be a wolf in the pack who choses not to sink its teeth into the sheeps neck as to drink its blood... it does not make drinking blood from a sheeps neck any less the nature of the wolf.
should there be a human who chooses not to eat a bird fetus, it does not remove bird fetus's as one of our species main courses.
we've been watching the wolf for quite some time, we kinda have a general idea what the wolf's nature is.
how much do we know about human nature?
we've always killed, we will always kill.
war always was and always will be.
by stepping back and watching our species, we can determine, by the actions of this species throughout time, that we are the crudest thing on this planet.
not that this planet is not crude by nature, but we certainly do take it a step further.
religion intervines here trying to make you believe that you're some kind, gentle, loving species.
how could someone believe in something like that when reality proves otherwise.
you think we own this planet?
cause we don't.
we are without doubt, the earths greatest enemy.
we determine the nature of the wolf by observing the wolf.
the actions of the wolf determine the wolf's nature.
basically, wolves tend to sink their teeth into the sheeps neck and drinks its blood. thats how it feeds.
.
That's why she's in the nuthouse.....
you think we own this planet?
cause we don't.
we are without doubt, the earths greatest enemy.
Without us, what purpose does the Earth serve?
Do you place inherent value in dirt? We are not getting rid of that any time soon.
Do you place inherent value in plants? We are not getting rid of it all, and cultivating much in its place.
Do you place inherent value in animals other than humans? We are not getting rid of them all, and cultivating much that would not normally survive.
The way I see it, humans are the end-all-be-all of reality. Without us there is no reason to be concerned about the world. As for your moral issues with humanity... morality is not in keeping with the nature of humanity, it is true. It never is, and never will be. Morality is a goal that we work toward; we are always trying to better ourselves, and history records that we are quite good at it. We see how we can become better and set a standard to strive for, that is morality. Claiming that we are horrible because we cannot live up to a standard which keeps being increased as we improve is folly.
We also cycle. If we get too destructive with our environment or each other, we just end up winnowing our numbers down and starting over again. We rebound and so does the earth and its other inhabitants. At least maybe. :P
murder, theft, rape, don't make us bad in my eyes, they make us human.
its those who seperate themselves from the rest of humanity, pointing at some the others with terrible accusations that i'm looking at.
everytime you point at someone else, you're pointing at yourself.
...of course religion makes you feel better with the idea that they're gonna pay in hell, while you're on your way to heaven.
reality says that its all right here and now.
you have this great idea of your kind phaege.
Without us there is no reason to be concerned about the world
without us, no, the majority of problems that concern the earth would not exist.
we are the earths plague.
i'm sure the ant see's the ant as the center of the universe as well.
i don't see a greater value in the human... you're just as small
That's the difference between life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" vs "peace, order and good government". ;)
It depends. If someone says "Freedom" in the woods and there's nobody else around, does it make a difference?
Without us, what purpose does the Earth serve?
[snip]
The way I see it, humans are the end-all-be-all of reality.
You are the crown of creation.
No, I am the crown of creation. Puh.
Will the real crown of creation please stand up?
"we determine the nature of the wolf by observing the wolf. the actions of the wolf determine the wolf's nature."
so, in your view: the wolf (a kind of bio-automaton…determined and generic) is the equivalent of a self-aware, self-determining, unique, human individual
if this is the foundation of your thinking, then it's no wonder you're on the wrong track
"we are the crudest thing on this planet."
if you judge humanity by the single measure of 'we've always killed, we will always kill', then we're not better or worse than any other animal
i prefer to judge humanity by the actions of the individuals who comprise humanity, and i prefer to judge humanity not only by way of the profane but also the holy
you, my dear whip, are a cog (a knucklehead mcspazatron)...does this mean all humans are cogs?
of course not: only the willfully blind, stupid, and simple are cogs
*shrug*
Yes, Wolf is "a self-aware, self-determining, unique, human individual"... more so than most. :haha:
quirky, you're going to argue on the value of human life?
well lets see what humans have done on this planet vs all other life.
humans have poisoned the waters.
we've poluted the air.
we've raped the earth.
if in your mind, sefl awareness seperates us from the rest of life, then where is our will to survive?
we can be as self destructive as we want, its just that we're taking all other life with us.
what makes you so proud to be human?
you see yourself as superior to all other life, your actions prove the opposite.
self awareness hasn't served us that well.
you're in prison, and you call yourself free.
i see humanity as being at a pre-infant state.
which is the only excuse that could be made for our actions as a whole.
now you can point all you want bird fetus gobbler, but you're only pointing at yourself.
"quirky, you're going to argue on the value of human life?"
no
i'm arguing the value of the human individual, the single one, the idiosyncrat, the philosophical ego
"well lets see what humans have done on this planet vs all other life"
a pointless comparison: no other animal on this benighted globe, no matter how extraordinary it may be, does what any average human does or can do
find me a non-human to debate with and your view will hold water more cleanly
'till you can find me a non-human debate partner: your position, as stated, is simplistic, one-dimensional, pedestrian, and unoriginal
the fact that we -- you and me -- can have this back 'n forth dickering says an awful lot about the capacities and capabilities of the human individual, as individual, and in alignment with other individuals
koko ain't got nuthin' on me (or you, for that matter)
"humans have poisoned the waters."
and all manner of life still thrives in ocean, sea, and river
"we've poluted the air."
still seems breathable to me and to most of the life i spy 'round me
"we've raped the earth."
oh please: there's not a one of us with a cock big enough to accomplish that!
so (melo)dramatic of you, whip...
"where is our will to survive?"
i can't, and won't speak, for the fictional 'will' of the fictional 'collective'
however: speaking for myself, i intend on lingering 'round for another 40 years or so
you?
"we're taking all other life with us"
so what?
yeah: we kill things, we eat things, we waste things....so what?
"what makes you so proud to be human?"
not a question of pride in the species...the species i'm a party to is incidental...i do, however, take a great deal of pleasure in being 'me'
does that count for anything?
"you see yourself as superior to all other life"
certainly seems that way to me
i eat cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, deer, etc
some of these i kill myself...some i buy from the market...in either case: 'i' eat 'them', not the other way around
i certainly see myself as superior to YOU...your head is full of coggish bullshit, your eyes dimmed by (dead) rose-color
"your actions prove the opposite"
so: what actions are those?
"you're in prison, and you call yourself free"
nope...i say i self-possess; 'freedom' has nothing to do with anything
"i see humanity as being at a pre-infant state."
i see 'humanity' (mostly comprised of wingnuts) as obstacle
"now you can point all you want bird fetus gobbler, but you're only pointing at yourself"
in my experience: self-loathing is foundational for cogs like you
as the magic jew said: go pull the fucking log outta yer own eye, then you can tell yer neighbor about the splinter in his... --henry
My shit meter overfloweth.
"My shit meter overfloweth"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Henry, the views you espouse regarding human superiority make me feel sick. I'm not saying that I totally agree with WHIP. However, your complete disregard for all other life seems to support WHIP's view on human nature far more that it supports your own.
Henry, the views you espouse regarding human superiority make me feel sick.
(((good)))
(((the truth hurts...it should hurt...it should make you sick)))
(((the notion that you -- a single human individual -- have more value than all the chickens, cows, pigs, deer, geese, etc. put together should scare the bejeezus out of you)))
(((being a human individual is an awe-full responsibility)))
(((that so many abdicate that responsibility by way of adopting bullshit, namby-pamby, hippyisms, or by way of consistent poor choices, is a fucking shame...but -- really -- not my god damned problem)))
(((so: abcde, as i told the whip, you should feel absolutely free to discharge yourself on whatever foolishness you like...if elevating mere animals to the status of human is your bag, then have at it)))
(((if denigrating yourself, making yourself 'mere animal', is your thing, then -- again -- have at it)))
(((i'm very tolerant of all manner of insanities and inanities...i simply refuse to participate in them)))
...your complete disregard for all other life seems to support WHIP's view on human nature far more that it supports your own.
(((i don't disregard 'all other life'...i simply put 'all other life' into its proper place in the great, natural, hierarchy)))
(((again: find me a non-human debate partner and i'll be glad to reassess the circumstance and adjust my view...)))
Henry, you damm non-conformist. :lol:
nah
non-conformity is too much work
yo wanna talk about freedom?
this song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01fj9Niso_g
was silenced in the usa, cause it had the word 'revolution' in its title.
aimee allen was quieted over the next five years from the goverment via her record label/contract.
the silence of this cool artist is now ending as her contract expires and she's releasing her new album.
thank ron paul for being able to watch the video above which caused her silence. [ron paul clips have been added to the original video.
It's always amazing, what different kinds of bullshit people develop.
Allmusic.com lists 1482 songs merely titled "Revolution".
this song is actually good, and had started to make some noise and caused some reaction in people that they didn't like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVoxPe3TCrYThat's some really remarkable bullshit. The interviewer is apparently a premier 9/11 "truther", so you know the bullshit is absolutely top-notch compost.
"caused some reaction in people that they didn't like" is a great bullshit sentence construction too. The best bullshit is always non-specific so that it can't actually, you know, be verified in any way.
the iraq war, had nothing to do with 9/11 is what that message is about.
so you agree with them silencing her?
is that what freedom of speech is all about?
i couldn't give a fuck about the poitical message.
i was disturbed by the fact that i didn't own the song.
i couldn't get a hold of the album.
i couldn't even hear the song online until she hooked up with ron paul.
i like aimee, i like the song.
so you agree with them silencing her
This is how bullshit is reinforced in echo chambers. It doesn't really work so well here.
The CIA did not make a call to Elektra Records to complain about a message board somewhere. That's simply bullshit, either made up of whole cloth or formulated out of bizarre rumor or outright lies.
Elektra Records, faced with an artist that might become popular for any reason at all, would not squelch them on any basis. Money is their god and their empire is crumbling. Making sure that artists do not sell is not in their operational way of thinking.
Much more likely is that she was sold on the basis of being hot, which everybody knows how to sell, and then proceeded to become political, which nobody in the business knows how to sell. Maybe somebody had to explain to her that they were not going to sell her, which is what happens to 90% of artists signed to labels.
I wonder how they had time to pressure the label and radio when they were so busy ensuring Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United would never ever play in the same division again?:rolleyes:
whip wrote: "aimee allen was quieted over the next five years from the goverment via her record label/contract"
from wikipedia: "She was previously signed to Elektra Records and her album I'd Start a Revolution If I Could Get Up In the Morning, featuring tracks produced by Mark Ronson and Don Gilmore, was never released due to a corporate merger"
my comment: i think this has less to do with 'freedom' (that great, useful, fiction) and more to do with a lack of intelligence and insight on the part of a pop singer who apparently can't tell a 'good' contract from a 'bad' one
boo hoo.... --henry
based on the fact that we are the scum of the earth.
it would be for the good of all, if there was species that existed that we couldn't conquer, that fed on us.
another species that didn't feed on us, but hunted us.... for sport.
that would bring us the balance we lack.
Take your medication WHIP, those voices seem to be getting too loud again.
medication?
wtf are you on about lookout?
are you having a hard time looking in the mirror?
Leave witty comments to the professionals WHIP, you aren't suited for it.
if i could go back in time, there are two places in time that i would go first.
the first place i'd go, is to the roman empire, where it was lions vs humans and tens of thousands of people watched as the superior cat fought to victory.
i would really enjoy that.
if i could go back in time, there are two places in time that i would go first.
the first place i'd go, is to the roman empire, where it was lions vs humans and tens of thousands of people watched as the superior cat fought to victory.
i would really enjoy that.
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
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.
that would be a free money bet.
try william hill
What DO you smoke in your spare time, and will you please send some this way? :p
i'm in law enforcment, so no, i don't smoke anything that'll get me fired.
By the by, how does one go to TWO places FIRST? Is that a sucker's bet?
kthxbai
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.
~major snippage follows~
i'm in law enforcment.
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.
Don't worry, he means mall security.
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! [COLOR="White"]. . .[/COLOR] :2cents:
i'll see what i can do...
I'm just sayin' is all...
speak for yourself, speak only for yourself
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.
Uh oh, we got ourselves another "knife to the gunfight" guy. ;)
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.
'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…
dearest whip:
when you write, 'we are the scum of the earth' you most certainly ARE attempting to speak for all
'since we all recognize that he can only speak for himself'
there was no contradiction
you, of course, may express an opinion in this thread, on this topic...i just don't quite understand why you'd want to
i don't care much how it plays out with you
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 (((((())))))).
dearest whip:
when you write, 'we are the scum of the earth' you most certainly ARE attempting to speak for all --henry
(((i quoted you, classicman...that's your thought, not mine, from post 143)))
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…
seems to me -- outside of whip and me -- no one else should give a damn
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
"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*
-----
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?
When MLK says it, I get a tear in me e'e.
When Team America says it, I giggle.
When Toby Keith says it, I want to punch him in the mouth.
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:
There is often a difference between what people think they're saying and what they are saying.
ex: UG thinks he's saying freedom for everyone. I'd say what people generally hear is submit to my freedom. That is why he and Radar and Dana collide, they all want a version of freedom to reign, but their definitions are incompatible.
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.He was successful in taking it, but he didn't allow for repercussions. There are always repercussions.
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.
"I think the line is, as long as you aren't hurting another being (that would include animals, because I believe animals are as important and as sacred as people), then you should be able to do whatever you want."
why are other people sacred?
if joe has what i want, and i successfully take it, then joe loses
if i'm unsuccessful in taking it, then i lose
if i have something joe covets, and joe is successful is taking it, then he wins
if joe is unsuccessful, then i win
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]You are taking something from someone, so that is doing harm.[/COLOR]
as for animals: nuthin' like a thick, juicy, rare, steak to fortify a body
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Nothing wrong with eating meat, as long as you humanely kill the animal and don't waste anything.[/COLOR]
my point: there's no reason not to steal, lie, cheat, or kill another other than pragmatism (and individual preference)
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Of course there are reasons not to do those things; there are morals and ethics and decency.[/COLOR]
certainly: the great fictions of morality and law -- being fictions -- are next to useless
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]:headshake[/COLOR]
"I also think we should not being doing harm to the earth. We should only take what we need."
we are fleas on this planet...it'll be 'round long after humans kick off...i say: get now while the getting’s good...
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I would say we are more like a virus than fleas.[/COLOR]
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).
yup. That is
his opinion of mankind.
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.
At the very least you could use color to distinguish between your posts and quotes. [COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Like this.[/COLOR]
Now why on earth would a self-absorbed Ayn Rand Jr do that?
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.
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.... [COLOR="White"](the imaginary one :eek:)[/COLOR]
...about eight feet tall......with whiskers, right?
Wow henry. Just wow. Am I really so bored and bitter that I feel the need to care what you post?
Have a Blessed Day.
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?
"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."
that i ain't what i wrote...not by a long shot
should i go though the thread and cite myself, perhaps list the post numbers for you so you can -- with ease (heaven forbid you should be taxed!) -- find and read exactly what i DID post?
no, of course not: that would be an act of 'redundancy' which i know you find so distasteful
so: you -- of course -- may misinterpret as you like...don't, however, be surprised when i, or someone else, corrects you
it's one thing to be dense...it something else entirely to be a liar...
'What do you hear when people say 'freedom'?'
a fiction
really: what are any of us 'free' of?
each of us is bound up in, and by, 'the world' (both within and without)
none of us are 'free', so: 'freedom' is a nice fiction, a convenient, and sometimes useful, fiction, but still a fiction
what we each have is far more powerful and real than 'freedom' or 'free will': we have agency, or, the capacity to choose
not an unlimited capacity to choose, but -- at all times, in all circumstances -- a capacity, a possibility, nonetheless
and synonymous with agency is self-possession, that is: the willful claiming of one's self and the defense of that claim
i claim my 'self' as my first, best, property and do as i like within the broad boundaries of 'the world'
your job -- if you want it -- is to defend yourself against my possible predation on you (just as i must defend myself against predation by you)
seems to me: you defend against the predator simply because you value yourself (a subjective, idiosyncratic, perception), not because of a 'moral', or 'law'
certainly: climbing atop a soapbox (on a street corner, or, in the statehouse) and droning on about the sanctity of your 'freedom' nets a body nothing... --henry quirk
So am I incorrect in stating that your opinion is that freedom does not exist, and we have no reason to care for others, other than what we can take from them?
so: based on one post -- ignoring all my others which expand and clarify -- you judge me and my positions
nice...typical
hell: even in the one post you do cite there are things which refute this, 'see us all as ants or drones with no free will and no value'
dense
Nope. Disagreeing with you does not make me dense. Speaking in complete sentences does not make me dense. Citing one example of your opinion does not make me dense. I simply didn't see a reason to cite posts 41, 45, 47, 48, 53, 68, 101, 105, 169, and 171 which ALL pretty much say the SAME THING. AGAIN. And AGAIN.
I have the FREEDOM to express my opinion of your opinion on this thread.
you claim this: '(henry) see(s) us all as ants or drones with no free will and no value'
this is my refutation...
-----
Post 87:
"we are the scum of the earth"
speak for yourself, and only for yourself
i applaud, as you say, you speaking your mind 'as honestly as possible'
this is a good thing
i too simply speak my mind as honestly as possible
so: when i say you are as hobbled, reactionary, and stupefied as those you decry, you'll take my comment within the context of this thread, and my previous comments in this thread...that is: as an honest expression of opinion
all this...
"we kill, torture or imprison all life, including our own.
it is, without doubt, our nature to do so.
we do so for greed, sport.
we have no respect for any life on this planet, including our own.
face it, we are the scum of the earth"
...which seems to be a summation of your view, is nothing less or more than mickey mouse, high school, pedestrian, bullshit
whip, are you presently torturing or imprisoning anyone?
whip, are you currently tortured or imprisoned by anyone?
whip, are you wholly without respect for any-one or -thing?
whip, if YOU are not tortured, imprisoned, or, are not torturing or imprisoning anyone, then your little coggish diatribe is meaningless
whip, if YOU can muster even one little erg of respect for some-one or -thing, then your little coggish display is for shit.
sure: lots of folks 'kill, torture or imprison' for all kinds of reasons, but not ALL of us do
living is way more colorful and complex than you seem to think
of course: as i said before, you can do as you like with your life, time, and resources...if this means wallowing in a teen's nihilism, then get to it
again: i decline to participate... --henry
-----
Post 88:
what i find most deplorable about the simplicities of folks like whip: such simplicities are based on generalizations of behavior, medians of behavior, which tend toward fictionalizations of behavior, which tend toward ignoring the extraordinary in favor of the ordinary
that is: even if 99 assholes shit on the floor, it's criminal to ignore the 1 person who uses the toilet
*shrug*
-----
post 98:
"we determine the nature of the wolf by observing the wolf. the actions of the wolf determine the wolf's nature."
so, in your view: the wolf (a kind of bio-automaton…determined and generic) is the equivalent of a self-aware, self-determining, unique, human individual
if this is the foundation of your thinking, then it's no wonder you're on the wrong track
"we are the crudest thing on this planet."
if you judge humanity by the single measure of 'we've always killed, we will always kill', then we're not better or worse than any other animal
i prefer to judge humanity by the actions of the individuals who comprise humanity, and i prefer to judge humanity not only by way of the profane but also the holy
you, my dear whip, are a cog (a knucklehead mcspazatron)...does this mean all humans are cogs?
of course not: only the willfully blind, stupid, and simple are cogs
*shrug*
-----
Post 101:
quirky, you're going to argue on the value of human life?"
no
i'm arguing the value of the human individual, the single one, the idiosyncrat, the philosophical ego
"well lets see what humans have done on this planet vs all other life"
a pointless comparison: no other animal on this benighted globe, no matter how extraordinary it may be, does what any average human does or can do
find me a non-human to debate with and your view will hold water more cleanly
'till you can find me a non-human debate partner: your position, as stated, is simplistic, one-dimensional, pedestrian, and unoriginal
the fact that we -- you and me -- can have this back 'n forth dickering says an awful lot about the capacities and capabilities of the human individual, as individual, and in alignment with other individuals
koko ain't got nuthin' on me (or you, for that matter)
"humans have poisoned the waters."
and all manner of life still thrives in ocean, sea, and river
"we've poluted the air."
still seems breathable to me and to most of the life i spy 'round me
"we've raped the earth."
oh please: there's not a one of us with a cock big enough to accomplish that!
so (melo)dramatic of you, whip...
"where is our will to survive?"
i can't, and won't speak, for the fictional 'will' of the fictional 'collective'
however: speaking for myself, i intend on lingering 'round for another 40 years or so
you?
"we're taking all other life with us"
so what?
yeah: we kill things, we eat things, we waste things....so what?
"what makes you so proud to be human?"
not a question of pride in the species...the species i'm a party to is incidental...i do, however, take a great deal of pleasure in being 'me'
does that count for anything?
"you see yourself as superior to all other life"
certainly seems that way to me
i eat cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, deer, etc
some of these i kill myself...some i buy from the market...in either case: 'i' eat 'them', not the other way around
i certainly see myself as superior to YOU...your head is full of coggish bullshit, your eyes dimmed by (dead) rose-color
"your actions prove the opposite"
so: what actions are those?
"you're in prison, and you call yourself free"
nope...i say i self-possess; 'freedom' has nothing to do with anything
"i see humanity as being at a pre-infant state."
i see 'humanity' (mostly comprised of wingnuts) as obstacle
"now you can point all you want bird fetus gobbler, but you're only pointing at yourself"
in my experience: self-loathing is foundational for cogs like you
as the magic jew said: go pull the fucking log outta yer own eye, then you can tell yer neighbor about the splinter in his... –henry
-----
post 105:
Henry, the views you espouse regarding human superiority make me feel sick.
(((good)))
(((the truth hurts...it should hurt...it should make you sick)))
(((the notion that you -- a single human individual -- have more value than all the chickens, cows, pigs, deer, geese, etc. put together should scare the bejeezus out of you)))
(((being a human individual is an awe-full responsibility)))
(((that so many abdicate that responsibility by way of adopting bullshit, namby-pamby, hippyisms, or by way of consistent poor choices, is a fucking shame...but -- really -- not my god damned problem)))
(((so: abcde, as i told the whip, you should feel absolutely free to discharge yourself on whatever foolishness you like...if elevating mere animals to the status of human is your bag, then have at it)))
(((if denigrating yourself, making yourself 'mere animal', is your thing, then -- again -- have at it)))
(((i'm very tolerant of all manner of insanities and inanities...i simply refuse to participate in them)))
...your complete disregard for all other life seems to support WHIP's view on human nature far more that it supports your own.
(((i don't disregard 'all other life'...i simply put 'all other life' into its proper place in the great, natural, hierarchy)))
(((again: find me a non-human debate partner and i'll be glad to reassess the circumstance and adjust my view...)))
-----
Post 140:
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
-----
post 170:
"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*
-----
Post 171:
"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...
-----
done and done... --henry
"I have the FREEDOM to express my opinion of your opinion on this thread"
actually, no, you don't
you've been given the privilege to do so by the owner/mods
if you were truly 'free' to post here, then no one could pull your plug
*shrug*
as for your 'opinion': as i said, 'you -- of course -- may misinterpret as you like...'
i also said: 'don't, however, be surprised when i, or someone else, corrects you'
so: consider yourself corrected...or not...can't work up much of a 'care' either way...
when i say 'fleas' i mean in scale, not in value ok fleas. not ants. sorry.
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
hence, no value, unless it benefits you.
Freedom: See all of your other posts I just referenced.
You will not change my opinion of you sir, no matter how hard you try. I still see you as a bitter Academic with a sad sour view of the world and those around you. That is all.
@ Queenie: Whoah, whoah whoah there. Please do not lump me and Sugar in with Henry as some kind of academic contingent. Please. Not given the rest of your post.
@ Henry: please, don't take this as some kind of attempt at infringing upon your creative freedom (pun intended) but I find your posts very difficult to read. It really does make for an easier and more enjoyable reading experience if the quotes are clearly marked out, especially if they're separated from the body of the text and visually marked out as different.
All I have to say is, "OH MY FUCKING GOD!" (and I don't even know if god exists...or fucks for that matter...oh shit, I'm going to hell!)
Look me up when you get there.
We can have a cellar.org reunion. ;)
I do hope you realize that I have already signed on to be satan's girlfriend. I get the good room. I'll invite you over for drinks sometimes, though.
Yes well, as the first lady of hell, you wont get as much time to party as we will, having less responsibility and all you know. ;)
He is one demanding devil! Sigh, such is my lot in life, um, I mean death.
"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?
ummm, if you had been a good student of mine, you would have quoted sugarpop so people know who you're talking to.
"...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...
people have taken time out,l to show you [the little h'cap boy]
how to use the quote button so that people can read your posts.
you say that we should argue what you post not how you post.
i think , what you post is so fucking stupid, you need a distraction like, people not being able to read your posts to hide your stupidity.
there are other sites that don't have these features to help out the readers, maybe you should go to one of them and post your little [[['''' and what not.
Sorry Dana, not meant as an insult. You and Sugar and Henry and Whip are obviously way more well read than I. All I was trying to say to Henry is BACK THE F OFF. The point of the post was to discuss what YOUR OWN PERSONAL concept of freedom is; not to belittle everyone else's as he has done. I was just sooooo tired of him shouting in incomplete sentneces from his soapbox about how right he is. I felt the need to speak up, no matter how DENSE he might think I am.
Why am I in this handbasket, and why is it so hot?
"I have the FREEDOM to express my opinion of your opinion on this thread"
actually, no, you don't
you've been given the privilege to do so by the owner/mods
if you were truly 'free' to post here, then no one could pull your plug
Wrong, in the Cellar you have "freedom" to post your crap. If that wasn't so, someone would've "pulled your plug" long ago. :p
Sorry Dana, not meant as an insult. You and Sugar and Henry and Whip are obviously way more well read than I. All I was trying to say to Henry is BACK THE F OFF. The point of the post was to discuss what YOUR OWN PERSONAL concept of freedom is; not to belittle everyone else's as he has done. I was just sooooo tired of him shouting in incomplete sentneces from his soapbox about how right he is. I felt the need to speak up, no matter how DENSE he might think I am.
Why am I in this handbasket, and why is it so hot?
*smiles* wasn't insulted. My tongue was in my cheek when I posted.
Thank you Bruce. My opinion of your opinion of Henry's opinion of my opinion is that I like your opinion.
K great Dana. You are an extremely bright woman. I think I used to be, but real life has burned away the educated section of brain cells. It's all been reduced to practicality.
I elected to burn away all practicality instead :P
but... that's besides the point; which is:
You are an extremely bright woman. I think I used to be, but real life has burned away the educated section of brain cells.
Oh stuff and nonsense. What piffle.
K great Dana. You are an extremely bright woman.
Bah, she's just a burned out old hippie. :haha:
"You will not change my opinion of you sir, no matter how hard you try. I still see you as a bitter Academic with a sad sour view of the world and those around you. That is all."
you misunderstand, queenie: i don't give a flip of your opinion about 'me'...i'm simply defending what i posted (my words and the meanings of those words) against misinterpretation
think of 'me' whatever you like
---
"i think , what you post is so fucking stupid"
and i, dear whip, think you're a fucking idiot: pedestrian, unoriginal, boring
-----
"All I was trying to say to Henry is BACK THE F OFF"
if you, queenie, can comment 'freely' about my posts and -- in the process -- characterize me as 'a bitter Academic' (which as far as i can see, has no relevance at all to the substance of my posts in this thread), then i can continue to post what i like, as i like, till a mod takes away the privilege
it seems what's good for the goose is indeed good for the gander...
-----
"I was just sooooo tired of him shouting in incomplete sentneces from his soapbox about how right he is."
but queenie: the whole point of philosophy (which is what this sub-forum is all about) is the on-going debate of ideas...this is not the 'nothingland', this is 'philosophy'
my 'shouting' in this thread, within this forum, is what happens when ideas are debated
seems to me: if you want to 'play nice', 'be nice', there are plenty of other sub-forums and threads to meander 'round in
you'll note: i'm mostly confined to a handful of threads, a smattering of sub-forums...mainly, because so many others (many where you are quite prominent, i must add) are useless ego strokes and vehicles for virtual and public flirtations
do i walk through, stick my nose in, and comment about how vapid you are there and there and there?
no: i do not
i leave you to your idiocies and feel no compulsion to 'attention seek' at your expense
you, however, haven't addressed anything i've written in this thread other than to essentially say, 'henry makes me 'feel bad'!
now: i can't stop you or anyone from doing that...but, then: you can't stop me either...you can't stop me from being, as you say, bitter and angry, and you can't stop me from carrying on an act of philosophical debate with anyone who cares to engage me
(and when is someone gonna do that? there's lots of poo-pooing, but no real attempts at refutation)
-----
"in the Cellar you have "freedom" to post your crap"
a 'freedom' given to you, bruce, by another (the owner and mods allowing your membership, allowing you to post without editing) is not a 'freedom' in the sense of being 'free' of anything
it's privilege: pure and simple
as for my 'crap': the owner/mods can pull the plug on me any time...not a dammed thing i can do about it
that i'm still here says a lot about the owner/mods tolerance for different views, or, perhaps it says something for the owner/mods AGREEING with me
hmmm...
regardless of owner/mods motivation(s): i'm here, you're here, we're all HERE only because the guy/gal with the power allows it...this is not 'freedom', this -- again -- is privilege
to be redundant (HA!): if you rely on another to provide or secure a 'right' or 'freedom' for you then you have no 'right' or 'freedom' only a privilege
the owner/mods give; the owner/ mods taketh away...
Feel free to call me dense, an idiot, vapid, etc. I will continue to disagree, and you sir can continue to be bitter and defensive. (The purpose of those threads is to enjoy being vapid - glad you haven't polluted them with your redundant debate.) Have a Blessed Friggin Day.
"I will continue to disagree"
please do, queenie...and i will continue to point out your errors
seems like we've defined our relationship...how nice...many married couples, after loads of years, never reach such a definitive understanding
"and you sir can continue to be bitter and defensive."
i will, queenie, i will... ;)
(The purpose of those threads is to enjoy being vapid - glad you haven't polluted them with your redundant debate.)
i'll give you this, queenie: i've never met anyone who readily admitted to being vapid, to enjoying vapidity...kudos!
"Have a Blessed Friggin Day."
you too... ;)
by the way: someone via a private message, tells me you, bruce, are a mod
if so: thanks allowing my bitter, defensive, redundant self the privilege of posting unencumbered... ;)
in fact: i have a great appreciation for any and all mods and the owner for being at least somewhat less reactionary and skittish than some members...kinda refreshing...
:moon: you missed a spot.
"I will continue to disagree"
please do, queenie...and i will continue to point out your errors
seems like we've defined our relationship...how nice...many married couples, after loads of years, never reach such a definitive understanding
Not my errors, but the points we disagree on. And I agree with your comment about marriage: We agree to disagree.
(And yes at times it feels good to be vapid. It's freeing. You should try it. Maybe lighten up a little. Unless you enjoy your bitterness. Then, as you were.)
Bah, she's just a burned out old manc tart. :haha:
Fixed that for ya:)
[eta] one man's vapidity is another man's light-heartedness. Frivolity and whimsy have their place. Personally, I spend way more time posting frivolous 'vapid' stuff than anything of any weight. Which is nice. I think.
Jebus H Cripes, I can't read your formatting up thar.
Sorry Shawnee. FTFY. (For some reason my quotey button didn't do it's job correctly.)
All I have to say is, "OH MY FUCKING GOD!" (and I don't even know if god exists...or fucks for that matter...oh shit, I'm going to hell!)
Well, offhand it looks like an essential qualification for God the Father, if perhaps not for God the Son... (is hell a flash of insight?!)
... apropos of absolutely nothing in this thread, the excessively trinitarian use only 3-in-1 Oil...
... apropos of absolutely nothing in this thread, the excessively trinitarian use only 3-in-1 Oil...
Please tell me you made that up...