I should know better, but [modified]
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
One short thread not even created by me.
responding to a troll empowers the troll, not your peers and not you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
I want to discuss 9/11 - it's an intellectual exercise. All you ever do is be condescending, which sucks for conversation.
-
Jon and I see eye to eye on many things. I've argued with him time and again on many things and I'll say with all honesty, learned quite a bit from the man. He's smart, been through a lot, knowledgeable, articulate and is not easily fooled. If I ever get to meet him in person it would be a privilege. Your point was?
If the post was helpful, please vote! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
If I ever get to meet him in person it would be a privilege.
Ditto. I like men (and women) who have their b.s. detectors turned up high. Doesn't matter whether they agree with me, just so long as they can tell the difference between shit and shinola. (A phrase that dates, me, I'm sure.) Interesting isn't it, how kool-aid drinkers pick far more fights with folks who simply demand honesty from those they interact with than with folks whose kool-aid is a different color but who down it just as quickly?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
I want to discuss 9/11 - it's an intellectual exercise. All you ever do is be condescending, which sucks for conversation.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
sort of libertarian to me
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Seems to me you have the wrong definition
fred_ wrote:
Seems to me you have the wrong definition
No, that sounds about like my definition - radical individualism. Not to be confused, of course, with the radical eqalitarianism of collectivism. But both are unworkable for any practical purpose, not to mention intellectually unsound. My comment above was simply based upon my observations of libertarians who tend to hang around here.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
All you ever do
That, of course, is a great conversation starter. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
OK, I don't know how to talk to people; is that what you want to hear?
-
Jon and I see eye to eye on many things. I've argued with him time and again on many things and I'll say with all honesty, learned quite a bit from the man. He's smart, been through a lot, knowledgeable, articulate and is not easily fooled. If I ever get to meet him in person it would be a privilege. Your point was?
If the post was helpful, please vote! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
He's smart, been through a lot, knowledgeable, articulate and is not easily fooled.
Really? I find him to be arrogant and intellectually dishonest. Pretty good at googling for things that make him sound smart though. Anything that tends to trully challange his world view is quickly ridiculed and demonized.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Your point was?
You both tend to tell rather unbelievable stories which you seem to actually expect people to simply accept at face value. Without actually calling you a liar (because I tend to be a sekptical person to begin with) I frankly don't believe your father was either picked up by the FBI or on his to LA on 9/11 anymore than I believe Jon is someone who is missed by the lessor members of mensa, fought in vietnam, made a fortune in software (or whatever it was) and comes from some sort of elite Bostonian academic clan. If he actually has all those rather incredible credentials, he has certainly wasted his life.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
fred_ wrote:
Seems to me you have the wrong definition
No, that sounds about like my definition - radical individualism. Not to be confused, of course, with the radical eqalitarianism of collectivism. But both are unworkable for any practical purpose, not to mention intellectually unsound. My comment above was simply based upon my observations of libertarians who tend to hang around here.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You need to grow the f*** up and accept reality
9/11 was a planed event by the US government to help establish a police state. Over 90% of the family members of someone that died believe 9/11 was a fraud. Google about building 7, it was imploded. You are a science geek right? Research it.
Obloga Obama Blog[^] Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age to produce the sort of character and sort of beliefs that authorities consider desirable. Any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.
Is this
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
/11 was a planed event by the US government to help establish a police state. Over 90% of the family members of someone that died believe 9/11 was a fraud
hoestly for real? If so perhaps you need a chill pill or at least a shrink
-
Is this
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
/11 was a planed event by the US government to help establish a police state. Over 90% of the family members of someone that died believe 9/11 was a fraud
hoestly for real? If so perhaps you need a chill pill or at least a shrink
fred_ wrote:
hoestly for real?
Yes for real duuuude. :rolleyes:
Obloga Obama Blog[^] Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age to produce the sort of character and sort of beliefs that authorities consider desirable. Any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
your belief of things that are plainly ludicrous, are one reason I've decided you're schizophrenic, and why I've stopped replying to you, because I don't want to encourage you're illness. I am being serious. Only someone who is delusional, or retarded, would believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
I'm not schizophrenic. I know more about psychology than you do, I don't have little friends in my head. I don't here people talking to me, I don't see things, I don't believe in ghosts. :rolleyes:
Christian Graus wrote:
Only someone who is delusional, or retarded, would believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
Over 90% of the family members of someone that died believe 9/11 was a fraud by the government. You need to wake the fuck up. Google around about Building 7. It was a controlled implosion.
Obloga Obama Blog[^] Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age to produce the sort of character and sort of beliefs that authorities consider desirable. Any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's a big production, one that certainly would not have gone unnoticed by the thousands of people working there every hour of every single day.
It was noticed, and not everyone is in every part of the building 24 hours a day 7 days a week. You should know that. Building 7 was not hit by any plane, it just fell. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steal to cause a collapse like that in any of those buildings. You think you know science? You can't even figure this shit out, you just go with the flow.
Obloga Obama Blog[^] Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age to produce the sort of character and sort of beliefs that authorities consider desirable. Any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steal to cause a collapse like that in any of those buildings.
I am not sure what fire does to steal, but elevated temperatures does cause steel to become weaker, softer, and more ductile. The process is called annealing. With your google skilz, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You think you know science?
More narrowly, material science.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
radical individualism
Interesting .. I happen to fall in the definition I linked to. And I don't feel like any kind of a radical.
fred_ wrote:
I happen to fall in the definition I linked to. And I don't feel like any kind of a radical.
So this: force and fraud must be banished from human relationships actually sounds reasonable to you? The basis of a practical form of government? If so, I have one simple question, who actually gets to do the banishing?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
fred_ wrote:
I happen to fall in the definition I linked to. And I don't feel like any kind of a radical.
So this: force and fraud must be banished from human relationships actually sounds reasonable to you? The basis of a practical form of government? If so, I have one simple question, who actually gets to do the banishing?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If so, I have one simple question, who actually gets to do the banishing?
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. It's a individual responsibility !!! no government involved, therefore the answer is each one of us individually
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If so, I have one simple question, who actually gets to do the banishing?
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. It's a individual responsibility !!! no government involved, therefore the answer is each one of us individually
fred_ wrote:
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
But without authoritarian power, where does the ability legal pretext to defend anything come from? Without authoritarian power how does a socieety manage to arrive at definitions of which activities are peaceful and honest?
fred_ wrote:
It's a individual responsibility
So, we just individually decide to go out and what... kill those who appear to be compelling people to do things which they otherwise would rather not be doing? Do we ask first, or do we just start blasting away? I simply do not understand how such a society would be structured.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
fred_ wrote:
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
But without authoritarian power, where does the ability legal pretext to defend anything come from? Without authoritarian power how does a socieety manage to arrive at definitions of which activities are peaceful and honest?
fred_ wrote:
It's a individual responsibility
So, we just individually decide to go out and what... kill those who appear to be compelling people to do things which they otherwise would rather not be doing? Do we ask first, or do we just start blasting away? I simply do not understand how such a society would be structured.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But without authoritarian power, where does the ability legal pretext to defend anything come from? Without authoritarian power how does a socieety manage to arrive at definitions of which activities are peaceful and honest
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Stan Shannon wrote:
simply do not understand how such a society would be structured.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. ( as you cite) Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
your belief of things that are plainly ludicrous, are one reason I've decided you're schizophrenic, and why I've stopped replying to you, because I don't want to encourage you're illness. I am being serious. Only someone who is delusional, or retarded, would believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
I'm not schizophrenic. I know more about psychology than you do, I don't have little friends in my head. I don't here people talking to me, I don't see things, I don't believe in ghosts. :rolleyes:
Christian Graus wrote:
Only someone who is delusional, or retarded, would believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
Over 90% of the family members of someone that died believe 9/11 was a fraud by the government. You need to wake the fuck up. Google around about Building 7. It was a controlled implosion.
Obloga Obama Blog[^] Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age to produce the sort of character and sort of beliefs that authorities consider desirable. Any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm not schizophrenic.
Good to hear. One of you is more than enough...
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
He's smart, been through a lot, knowledgeable, articulate and is not easily fooled.
Really? I find him to be arrogant and intellectually dishonest. Pretty good at googling for things that make him sound smart though. Anything that tends to trully challange his world view is quickly ridiculed and demonized.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Your point was?
You both tend to tell rather unbelievable stories which you seem to actually expect people to simply accept at face value. Without actually calling you a liar (because I tend to be a sekptical person to begin with) I frankly don't believe your father was either picked up by the FBI or on his to LA on 9/11 anymore than I believe Jon is someone who is missed by the lessor members of mensa, fought in vietnam, made a fortune in software (or whatever it was) and comes from some sort of elite Bostonian academic clan. If he actually has all those rather incredible credentials, he has certainly wasted his life.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You both tend to tell rather unbelievable stories which you seem to actually expect people to simply accept at face value. Without actually calling you a liar (because I tend to be a sekptical person to begin with) I frankly don't believe your father was either picked up by the FBI or on his to LA on 9/11
See, this is a difference between you and Jon and I. We don't BS. Because we don't have a history of BSing, we get what is known in the community as credibility. That's when people believe you because they know that you are honest. Have you heard of that idea Stan? Intellectual Honesty stems from it. You keep blurbing about it enough, I'd expect you to know it. Funny enough, you are honest in your own way. Your googlefu is quite good too and you also manage to draw out quotes and references that make you sound smart. But you see, instead of calling you an idiot and a liar, I call you myopic. In the end Stan, and I just know you're going to say I told you so but you never did, no one can influence your ideas if you're not going to listen. You can't shake hands if your hands are fists. You are lost in you own bubble and I do feel sorry for you. What a waste.
If the post was helpful, please vote! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
If I ever get to meet him in person it would be a privilege.
Ditto. I like men (and women) who have their b.s. detectors turned up high. Doesn't matter whether they agree with me, just so long as they can tell the difference between shit and shinola. (A phrase that dates, me, I'm sure.) Interesting isn't it, how kool-aid drinkers pick far more fights with folks who simply demand honesty from those they interact with than with folks whose kool-aid is a different color but who down it just as quickly?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Ditto. I like men (and women) who have their b.s. detectors turned up high. Doesn't matter whether they agree with me, just so long as they can tell the difference between sh*t and shinola. (A phrase that dates, me, I'm sure.)
:)
Oakman wrote:
Interesting isn't it, how kool-aid drinkers pick far more fights with folks who simply demand honesty from those they interact with than with folks whose kool-aid is a different color but who down it just as quickly?
Yep.
If the post was helpful, please vote! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You both tend to tell rather unbelievable stories which you seem to actually expect people to simply accept at face value. Without actually calling you a liar (because I tend to be a sekptical person to begin with) I frankly don't believe your father was either picked up by the FBI or on his to LA on 9/11
See, this is a difference between you and Jon and I. We don't BS. Because we don't have a history of BSing, we get what is known in the community as credibility. That's when people believe you because they know that you are honest. Have you heard of that idea Stan? Intellectual Honesty stems from it. You keep blurbing about it enough, I'd expect you to know it. Funny enough, you are honest in your own way. Your googlefu is quite good too and you also manage to draw out quotes and references that make you sound smart. But you see, instead of calling you an idiot and a liar, I call you myopic. In the end Stan, and I just know you're going to say I told you so but you never did, no one can influence your ideas if you're not going to listen. You can't shake hands if your hands are fists. You are lost in you own bubble and I do feel sorry for you. What a waste.
If the post was helpful, please vote! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
Actually, Mustafa, an honest person does not actually expect improbable stories to be believed even when they are true, unless they can be independently varified, of course. I am the very epitome of honesty. Most of the things I relate about myself tend to be the more negative aspects of my life, because, frankly, I wouldn't expect anyone to believe the more self-aggrandizing things I might relate. The fact of the matter remains that you and Jon share a particular world view, and you don't like having your underlieing precepts challanged in any significant way. My hands are not in fists, and I am not lost in any bubble. I simply disagree with your most cherised philosophical constructs. And the notion that it is I who would benefit most by some exchange of ideas with you is actually a very telling statement. I am no more unreceptive to well formed arguments than any one here. But neither yours, nor Jon's, are well formed.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But without authoritarian power, where does the ability legal pretext to defend anything come from? Without authoritarian power how does a socieety manage to arrive at definitions of which activities are peaceful and honest
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Stan Shannon wrote:
simply do not understand how such a society would be structured.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. ( as you cite) Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
fred_ wrote:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
But how do you intend to enforce that principle?
fred_ wrote:
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. ( as you cite) Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
And doesn't that suggest anything to you? This is my issue with libertarians, it boils down to constructing a government which is empowered to force people to not force people. Even a libertarian government would necessarily require force to ensure its principles were ahered to by the citizenry. That force is what 'radical individualism' is all about - the use of the state to protect the individual from being in any way affected by any sort of socially defined restraints upon their own behavior. It is ultimately no different from liberalism, it merely has a slightly differenct orientation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.