Rat's Milk
-
Ilíon wrote:
Ah, so it's not about reason, after all, but rather emotion?
oilFactotum wrote:
Sure it is. You've just chosen to take statements out of context ...
Don't be such a goose! I've even gone out of my way to resupply the context.
oilFactotum wrote:
... and deliberately misunderstand.
It's pretty effective, too, isn't it? But, the fuller truth is that I understand what you cannot allow yourself to understand.
oilFactotum wrote:
Ilíon: "Period." Period!? That sounds rather like you're attempting to turn this into some sort of a truth claim! That sounds as though you're asserting that one ought not smack around one's spouse regardless of what the fellow with the gun says about the matter. . oilFactotum: That's absolutely right. One shouldn't. Do you believe otherwise?
What could it possibly matter what *I* believe? You are the one making absolutist assertions about what other folk ought and ought not do. Though, one does wonder how you intend to enforce or back-up these absolutes you assert.
oilFactotum wrote:
oilFactotum: ... - you don't beat your spouse. Period. . Ilíon: So, it seems we're right back where we started! Why is it the case that "Anyone in their right mind would blame him?" . oilFactotum: Well, no we aren't - you are. You seem to believe that it is perfectly O.K. to 'smack her around'. I don't (and neither does American society) and you may very well end up in jail for exercising your personal belief.
But we are back where we started. We started with you, apparently on your own recognizance, declaring what others ought to think about an obvious throw-away line and what others ought to think about the hypothetical the lame joke depended upon.
oilFactotum wrote:
... and you may very well end up in jail for exercising your personal belief.
So, you're back to the man with the gun as the grounding of this "morality" thingie you were talking about earlier.
oilFactotum wrote:
oilFactotum: ... - you don't beat your spouse. Period.That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous. . Ilíon: Really? Is that
You seem to be hung up on the moral underpinnings of spousal abuse. Present your argument.
-
You seem to be hung up on the moral underpinnings of spousal abuse. Present your argument.
oilFactotum wrote:
You seem to be hung up on the moral underpinnings of spousal abuse. Present your argument.
Ilion and Mundo Donut don't argue. They keep asking what they want people to think are rational quesions. If you answer, they simply declare your answer a non answer and ask the same question again. :doh:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You seem to be hung up on the moral underpinnings of spousal abuse. Present your argument.
Ilion and Mundo Donut don't argue. They keep asking what they want people to think are rational quesions. If you answer, they simply declare your answer a non answer and ask the same question again. :doh:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
Yeah, I see that. "What does wrong mean?" X|
-
I saw no reason to hash it in the first place. You know, since the thread was about something else entirely.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
since the thread was about something else entirely.
In your first post you actually spent more time on your misogynistic rant against that woman, so that's not really true.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
But he's definitely an exception to the rule.
Look on the bright side: at least she isn't sharing her (supposed) toilet habits with you and insisting that you go and do likewise.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Yeah, I just wish there was more we could do. At least Bono isn't crazy. And he's open to other's opinions. And he seems to be for a decent cause. But he's definitely an exception to the rule.
Well here is the thing. I have a problem with that situation generally. You seem to have a problem with that situation only when the view being expressed differs from your own.
I don't know how you can say that, I don't believe I've said anything that would give you cause to come to that conclusion. In fact, I don't know of an example that could fit that situation. I don't see any celebrities with views anywhere near mine. But I think that's rather judgmental of you to assume that I would be a hypocrite if the opportunity presented itself. And why is that, because my views differ from yours?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
I don't know how you can say that, I don't believe I've said anything that would give you cause to come to that conclusion. In fact, I don't know of an example that could fit that situation. I don't see any celebrities with views anywhere near mine. But I think that's rather judgmental of you to assume that I would be a hypocrite if the opportunity presented itself. And why is that, because my views differ from yours?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
I don't believe I've said anything that would give you cause to come to that conclusion
BoneSoft wrote:
Yeah, I just wish there was more we could do. At least Bono isn't crazy. And he's open to other's opinions. And he seems to be for a decent cause. But he's definitely an exception to the rule.
My original point is that famous entertainers should not use their fame to push their political ideas. I read your reply as saying Bono is OK because you think his cause is decent.
BoneSoft wrote:
But I think that's rather judgmental of you to assume that I would be a hypocrite if the opportunity presented itself
Sorry, just called it like I saw it
BoneSoft wrote:
And why is that, because my views differ from yours?
No I completely agree she's a dim wit. As for the bigger issue of GW or whatever you want to call it I dont have an opinion
-
BoneSoft wrote:
since the thread was about something else entirely.
In your first post you actually spent more time on your misogynistic rant against that woman, so that's not really true.
No, I pointed out a specific instance of her insanity, then jokingly suggested that being that crazy might have had something to do with the reason Paul allegedly roughed her up. You, foaming at the mouth for an opportunity to pin me with negative traits to help dehumanize me so you can feel more comfortable and justified in your almost always opposing views, jumped all over the side joke. So did others. What should have struck you as out of place was the suggestion that we should use RAT MILK to save the planet from cow farts. Honestly, besides Sheryl Crow's single square of toilet paper, how often does somebody with full international media coverage say something THAT insane?!?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I don't believe I've said anything that would give you cause to come to that conclusion
BoneSoft wrote:
Yeah, I just wish there was more we could do. At least Bono isn't crazy. And he's open to other's opinions. And he seems to be for a decent cause. But he's definitely an exception to the rule.
My original point is that famous entertainers should not use their fame to push their political ideas. I read your reply as saying Bono is OK because you think his cause is decent.
BoneSoft wrote:
But I think that's rather judgmental of you to assume that I would be a hypocrite if the opportunity presented itself
Sorry, just called it like I saw it
BoneSoft wrote:
And why is that, because my views differ from yours?
No I completely agree she's a dim wit. As for the bigger issue of GW or whatever you want to call it I dont have an opinion
Ah Bono. It has nothing to do with his views, it's his approach. He's not cramming it down everyones throat, he's reasonable and he's not insane. He's not spouting pure hatred like Tim Robins and his ugly wife, or hanging out with dictators while trashing the president like Danny Glover. I don't like to see any entertainers parade their views as though we should all follow them just because their famous. But isn't Bono pretty much for charities? That I don't mind. Honestly, if there was a high profile entertainer preaching the perils of jumping on the AGW alarmist band wagon (just an example), I'd feel the same or worse. Entertainers tend to be pretty empty headed, and one of them arguing my side would probably do more damage than good anyway.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Don't think this is a repost, but it wouldn't surprise me... Heather Mills, further off the deep end.[^] This nut thinks that we should all drink rat's milk, or dog milk. If it comes to that, I'd say screw the planet. She's a class A fruit-loop. Who in their right mind would blame Paul for smacking her around? Unless he knocked something loose to create the blathering retard we see today. If that's the case, I say string him up and put her down.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
Sorry, but rat's milk just sounds so sick X|
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
To many people such jokes are quite offensive, make they at your own peril. I dont think anybody takes whats her name seriously or gives a rats arse (or a rats nipple for that matter) where she gets her milk.
Josh Gray wrote:
I dont think anybody takes whats her name seriously
Nope, not at all.
Josh Gray wrote:
gives a rats arse (or a rats nipple for that matter)
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I don't believe I've said anything that would give you cause to come to that conclusion
BoneSoft wrote:
Yeah, I just wish there was more we could do. At least Bono isn't crazy. And he's open to other's opinions. And he seems to be for a decent cause. But he's definitely an exception to the rule.
My original point is that famous entertainers should not use their fame to push their political ideas. I read your reply as saying Bono is OK because you think his cause is decent.
BoneSoft wrote:
But I think that's rather judgmental of you to assume that I would be a hypocrite if the opportunity presented itself
Sorry, just called it like I saw it
BoneSoft wrote:
And why is that, because my views differ from yours?
No I completely agree she's a dim wit. As for the bigger issue of GW or whatever you want to call it I dont have an opinion
Josh Gray wrote:
original point is that famous entertainers should not use their fame to push their political ideas.
Good point because I could really careless what some famous entertainer thinks. Just because they are a famous entertainer doesn't mean they are necessarily the sharpest tool in the shed.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
No, I pointed out a specific instance of her insanity, then jokingly suggested that being that crazy might have had something to do with the reason Paul allegedly roughed her up. You, foaming at the mouth for an opportunity to pin me with negative traits to help dehumanize me so you can feel more comfortable and justified in your almost always opposing views, jumped all over the side joke. So did others. What should have struck you as out of place was the suggestion that we should use RAT MILK to save the planet from cow farts. Honestly, besides Sheryl Crow's single square of toilet paper, how often does somebody with full international media coverage say something THAT insane?!?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Sheryl Crow's single square of toilet paper
That is just flat out gross.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Drinking rat's milk - wasn't this the premise for an old Simpsons episode?
Paul Marfleet "No, his mind is not for rent To any God or government" Tom Sawyer - Rush
pmarfleet wrote:
Drinking rat's milk - wasn't this the premise for an old Simpsons episode?
Yes. I think it was Tony the Mafia guy's idea, too.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Yes it was. My my, what has the world come to when people start looking to The Simpsons for answers.
My current favourite word is: PIE! I have changed my name to my regular internet alias. But don't let the 'Genius' part fool you, you don't know what 'SK' stands for. -
The UndefeatedSK Genius wrote:
what has the world come to when people start looking to The Simpsons for answers
Well, they've been around for quite a while now...
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
No, I pointed out a specific instance of her insanity, then jokingly suggested that being that crazy might have had something to do with the reason Paul allegedly roughed her up. You, foaming at the mouth for an opportunity to pin me with negative traits to help dehumanize me so you can feel more comfortable and justified in your almost always opposing views, jumped all over the side joke. So did others. What should have struck you as out of place was the suggestion that we should use RAT MILK to save the planet from cow farts. Honestly, besides Sheryl Crow's single square of toilet paper, how often does somebody with full international media coverage say something THAT insane?!?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
What should have struck you as out of place was the suggestion that we should use RAT MILK to save the planet from cow farts. Honestly, besides Sheryl Crow's single square of toilet paper, how often does somebody with full international media coverage say something THAT insane?!?
They're celebrities. Who actually gives a fuck when they open their mouths? I don't. They jet around everywhere, drive big giant cars, buy sprawling energy-inefficient houses and then castigate everyone for not doing their bit to be environmentally friendly. Riiiight. Seriously, the best thing that could ever happen to Hollywood is for it to disappear.
-
Ah Bono. It has nothing to do with his views, it's his approach. He's not cramming it down everyones throat, he's reasonable and he's not insane. He's not spouting pure hatred like Tim Robins and his ugly wife, or hanging out with dictators while trashing the president like Danny Glover. I don't like to see any entertainers parade their views as though we should all follow them just because their famous. But isn't Bono pretty much for charities? That I don't mind. Honestly, if there was a high profile entertainer preaching the perils of jumping on the AGW alarmist band wagon (just an example), I'd feel the same or worse. Entertainers tend to be pretty empty headed, and one of them arguing my side would probably do more damage than good anyway.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
He's not cramming it down everyones throat, he's reasonable and he's not insane.
Dont get me wrong I like his music, I've read his biography and I think his heart is generally in the right place. However when I saw them play last year he asked during the show for everyone to sms their name to a number and random names were displayed on the big screen while they played. It was a cool stunt that I'd never seen an a rock show before. What shits me is I still get bloody sms messages from Bono asking me to "Make Poverty history" etc. When you say "he's not insane" is that not a subjective assesment based on your own values? You seem to think gw alarmists are insane (I'd agree just for the record but so is fat boy and his ilk) but obviously if you held the same views as them you would not see them as insane.
BoneSoft wrote:
Tim Robins
never heard of him
BoneSoft wrote:
ugly wife
I cant imagine her appearance is relevant
BoneSoft wrote:
But isn't Bono pretty much for charities?
For you to call him reasonable and not insane I think you should be able to answer that question. As far as I know he does a lot for charity but I couldnt tell you what those charities stand for. It could easily be something to do with saving the third world for climate change for all i know. What I do know is that his fame gets him opportunities to express his views in forums that are inaccessable to most of us. He had an audience with our Prime Minister when he was here last year for example.
BoneSoft wrote:
Entertainers tend to be pretty empty headed
I think thats a tad unfair. Ronald Reagan comes to mind. I think you hear about things like this because they sell papers and generate income for the media. There are many loonies out there, why should I get more upset about a silly comment from her than one overheard on the bus?
-
You seem to be hung up on the moral underpinnings of spousal abuse. Present your argument.
oilFactotum wrote:
You seem to be hung up on the moral underpinnings of spousal abuse. Present your argument.
Hours before you made this post, Mundo Cani explained(*) my purpose. I can't help it that you (singular and plural) are unwilling (or, perhaps, it's merely that you are unable) to grasp what happened here. (*) I see that some of your fellow "free thinkers" couldn't abide even his post[^]. And you silly children have the gall to imagine (and demand) that anyone honestly watching the interactions between me and you all must conclude that I am such a wicked meanie beating up on you poor, defenceless (that part may be close to true), inoffensive 'atheists.'
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You seem to be hung up on the moral underpinnings of spousal abuse. Present your argument.
Hours before you made this post, Mundo Cani explained(*) my purpose. I can't help it that you (singular and plural) are unwilling (or, perhaps, it's merely that you are unable) to grasp what happened here. (*) I see that some of your fellow "free thinkers" couldn't abide even his post[^]. And you silly children have the gall to imagine (and demand) that anyone honestly watching the interactions between me and you all must conclude that I am such a wicked meanie beating up on you poor, defenceless (that part may be close to true), inoffensive 'atheists.'
Ilíon wrote:
Mundo Cani explained(*) my purpose
Mundo Cani wrote:
what is the nature of this law we call morality?
If that really is what you want to know, why didn't you simply ask? Don't expect me to explain the nature of morality, this is the soapbox.
Ilíon wrote:
I see that some of your fellow "free thinkers" couldn't abide even his post[^]. And you silly children have the gall to imagine (and demand) that anyone honestly watching the interactions between me and you all must conclude that I am such a wicked meanie beating up on you poor, defenceless (that part may be close to true), inoffensive 'atheists.'
You sound a whole lot like someone else who use to post on this board. You really think that anyone other than yourself thinks that you are ' a wicked meanie beating up on you poor, defenceless inoffensive 'atheists.''? What I see is a tiresome troll. Atheists? Christians beat their spouses and atheists and "free thinkers" don't? Is that the way you see things?
-
Don't think this is a repost, but it wouldn't surprise me... Heather Mills, further off the deep end.[^] This nut thinks that we should all drink rat's milk, or dog milk. If it comes to that, I'd say screw the planet. She's a class A fruit-loop. Who in their right mind would blame Paul for smacking her around? Unless he knocked something loose to create the blathering retard we see today. If that's the case, I say string him up and put her down.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Who in their right mind would blame Paul for smacking her around?
Those who are in their right mind - may I smack them around?