|
Post by MOHC TheGirl on Jan 15, 2004 18:57:10 GMT -6
10 points for direct constitutional application to everyday life. tourtillott would be sooooo proud. I'd throw a jolly rancher at you if I had one!
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Jan 16, 2004 18:27:32 GMT -6
That's what this whole... blasted argument is about??!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ionix on Jan 16, 2004 19:14:10 GMT -6
Swanson say's, YES!!!!
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Jan 17, 2004 19:00:51 GMT -6
... Okay...
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Jun 4, 2004 20:03:28 GMT -6
Huu, (Oh! However you spell it!) I feel like refuting some points. First off... Wait, I should probebly read those previous posts first; though it is somewhat dificult to even determine what Swanson was saying. Okay, first off. Swanson, you've actually hit upon one of the major points I've been trying to make for the past 7 years or so. Let's not just say, "This is a contriversial and sensative subject, so let's not talk about it." I absolutly hate that philosophy and I wish I could make it sentient and burn it slowly to the ground as it screams. It is retarded. If people disagree, they should freaking argue about it! Not just ignore it because doing so because it is "politically incorrect" (May that mentality burn in Hell too!)! It absolutly sickens me to see such things done. Right or wrong, people can say whatever they feel. I may believe and even argue vehmentantly that it is incorrect and stupid, but they can still argue their point of view. In fact, the world as a whole would be a much better place if people actually argued their conflicting points. And Swanson, no, the point was not that you sounded communist; I don't know how Ionix meant it, but I meant it as to mean that you didn't sound like the Radical Communist, who, of course, was just me anyways... So, Swanson, in fact you have been stating things I actually agree with.
|
|
|
Post by The Admin on Jun 15, 2004 20:42:00 GMT -6
Hmm... As Co-Founder I declare that anyone who actually read BC's whole post gets three extra points for extraordinary effort.
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 11, 2005 7:23:08 GMT -6
Hey, if you think that's hard, you should try reading my Worlin Musings on the debate board...
|
|
|
Post by JerOD on Feb 11, 2005 10:27:16 GMT -6
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 11, 2005 18:28:41 GMT -6
I have too much respect for myself and mankind to give in and read a worlins random musing on the debate board.
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 11, 2005 18:46:30 GMT -6
Then if you argue something I've already covered in it it's your own stupid fault.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 11, 2005 22:54:40 GMT -6
No, because you don't really "cover" anything in those pieces of crap. You just whine and complain and all I get is "I'M A FLAMING IDIOT REPUBLICAN WHO WANTS MY RELIGION TO BECOME THE LAWS OF AMERICA"
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 12, 2005 15:51:30 GMT -6
Not just that. We argued about the environment for the longest time, and whether atheism was a religion, the nature of opinions, etc.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 14, 2005 21:09:25 GMT -6
and yet your viewpoint on all those subjects is overly predictable because you base everything on ridiculous postulates.
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 16, 2005 18:52:10 GMT -6
Untrue, because mine actually have a begining. Your's is simply, "Um, you can't legistalte morality... Because rights are relative... because everyone's opinions are different... because it's a fundemental right... because it just is... Face it, Maymer, your side has no ultimate justification other than "We said so!"
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Mar 12, 2005 19:17:40 GMT -6
well, even "we said so" is better than g od, a possibly ficticious character, said so.
|
|
|
Post by zoel on Mar 15, 2005 10:23:34 GMT -6
Acutally, no. We should bash liberals because CLVLND said so.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Mar 15, 2005 23:44:44 GMT -6
yes, go sell your daughters into prostitution because clvnd said so....
|
|
|
Post by Confused Preacher on Mar 19, 2005 10:31:34 GMT -6
What or who is clvnd?
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Mar 19, 2005 14:00:15 GMT -6
just shut up, i don't want to hear anything you have to say, you don't deserve to know....why don't you just go become a monk and never open your mouth again.
|
|
|
Post by The Radical Communist on Mar 20, 2005 21:32:18 GMT -6
The biggest difficulty in arguing with Maymer is that her thoughts and perceptions are so restrained by societal influences. She can't think outside the box provided her...
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Mar 22, 2005 20:53:46 GMT -6
...the box provided for me....that is such balogna....I am about as far out of the box provided for me as one can get. The box and views I was given are partly Jewish views and partly Christian views coming from my mother and father respectively. I am completely outside the limits of both of those views. True Judaism is against homosexuals, as is Christianity. I refuse to be cooped up inside of any box like you so choose to think I am. You, on the otherhand, believe what you have been told your entire life, and that is all. You can't even see the other side of things, your religion has blinded you so much. Just because I disagree with you don't go and claim that I am ignorant and blind and I only believe what I have been influenced to believe.
|
|
|
Post by zoel on Mar 22, 2005 22:09:07 GMT -6
On boxes: A brilliant tactic, get people to stay in the box by first convincint them the box does not exist.
On CLVLND: He is our god, who does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Mar 24, 2005 20:07:43 GMT -6
logan, i have to hand it to you, you are a very tactile jerk....
|
|
HCM Brain Candy
High Cleve Person
Supreme Overlord of TPWLP
The problem with the universe is you.
Posts: 4,008
|
Post by HCM Brain Candy on Mar 25, 2005 12:33:57 GMT -6
Once again you prove your limited perspective in assuming religion does all what you said. By attacking it you have demonstrated a limited comprehension of how the world works. You insist on clinging to superficial viewpoints that humanity has propogated for thousands of years in thier own pathetic understanding of what is or even how it is. It shall avail you none. And you are still stupid because you are so shallow in perspective.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Mar 25, 2005 14:47:46 GMT -6
i simply cannot believe that you're saying i'm the one who's shallow on perspective....I'm not even going to argue with you about my perspective because you clearly have no idea what it is and your arguements all stem around the little safe box you call your religion. There's no way to prove it to you because I can't put you inside my head, and I would never want to put you inside my head, but I am positive that I have a lot more broad of a perspective than your little box will ever allow you to have. You don't even know what my religious views are, yet you try to trash them. No one knows what the entirety of my religious views are because that is part of them. Sure, be proud of your religion, but I will give you this much of a view into my religion. Look at that one bible verse, i have no idea which one...but somewhere about the teachings of Jesus about being proud of your religion but not announcing it and flaunting and exploiting it. I think its sick how people exploit the church. Am I a Christian....not in the same sense that you are. Am I Jewish, no, am I Hindu, no...amd I Catholic, no, amd I buddhist, no.....Come see the musical Godspell....it shows about believing in Jesus without exploiting it...I bet it would do you some good.
|
|
|
Post by The Radical Communist on Mar 26, 2005 14:01:43 GMT -6
Actually Maymer, many of my arguments aren't based off of religion, but by a, shall we say, extreame dislike, of postmodernism. Of which you obviously subscribe to in some way shape or form. And postmodernism is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Mar 26, 2005 15:07:54 GMT -6
if i knew exactly what postmodernism is, i'm sure i would be happy to discuss it.
|
|
HCM Brain Candy
High Cleve Person
Supreme Overlord of TPWLP
The problem with the universe is you.
Posts: 4,008
|
Post by HCM Brain Candy on Mar 27, 2005 17:26:02 GMT -6
A recent movement that says people have different opinions, but they can all actually coexist and no one is really wrong and it's impolite to say one can be wrong. (Something like that, ask Logan for a more technical definition).
|
|
|
Post by Turin on Mar 28, 2005 20:22:19 GMT -6
okay, now that we've got worlins explanation, we can desect it and actually find what it means.
"A recent movement that says people have different opinions, but they can all actually coexist..."
that's about where it ceased to be fact, and not worlin bantering his own opinion. shame on you worlin, if you're going to argue about something, at least give your opponents the unbiased definition of what they're supposed to be arguing.
Now, we have worlins take, or you have an alternative, which happens to make a bit more sence. Worlin is always searching for the 'truth' we'll say, the ultimate answer. Now, when you're dealling with people, that's not such a good idea. With people, you have some that always take things to far. They do bad things when you give them absolute ideals, look at what the beat christanity into, along with islam. So, instead of this system where you have to find a definate answer, they believe that while perhaps only one, or even none of the suppositions may be correct, pursing one so zealotusly is not a good idea. Not everybody is correct, but everybody has a right to freedom of thought. Something religions like christanity hate with a passion, because it is the antithesis of what it is, a system of exclusion. You're either with us, or going to hell, vs. I don't think there is any afterlife, and ergo the only purpose religion serves, is to sedate people, however, while I think I'm right, there's not a darn thing I want to do to stop you, so long as you keep inquisitions out of the picture.
Now, logan thinks that I should be even more tolerant, and not preach my values. Good advice, but I'm too weak for that. I simply am not a good enough person to lead by example, and the world is simply to volitile to go without at least a warning of what it's doing. So worlin, to you you're right. to many religeous people you're right. Religion has intrinsic value. To the rest of us, you're wrong. What does that mean, it means everything is relative, we're both right. (Sorry, I know you're going to hate that, because it is anything but definitive, and doesn't grant you victory, but I think it's true, and that I think is more important than victory.)
|
|
HCM Brain Candy
High Cleve Person
Supreme Overlord of TPWLP
The problem with the universe is you.
Posts: 4,008
|
Post by HCM Brain Candy on Mar 30, 2005 14:01:52 GMT -6
"Viewpoints that pass certain judgements on people are intrisically bad. Such a viewpoint cannot possibly be right because that would be inconcivable" ;D On another note, what if I value truth over your functionality?
|
|