Some election observations (long winded)

oldsaw wrote: If my observation is accurate, why pursue the discussion?

None of these conversations will change anything. I can answer your question, but I'm not sure you'll like the answer. Bear in mind, I'm here and doing the same thing, so I'm not saying anything about you that I'm not saying about myself.

We have a need to deny that we're all products of this Earth, or Universe, or Godly Creation- whatever you want to call it. We grew out of it and we're here today. If we were to look at another planet and find it full of life, including plants and some vaguely frog like creature, we'd be more inclined to look at it as a single organism. A planet that has given rise to neat things.

But we don't like to think of ourselves that way. We prefer to see ourselves as very important individuals. That gives rise to Ego. Ego's job is to demonstrate that we are separate from "the other". Or more accurately, the myth of "the other". And of course, if we're separate, we're clearly superior.

So we pop on to the internet forum and invest useless hours to demonstrate to a handful of people how separate and superior we are.

When I'm stressed out I find that I waste way more time doing useless things like this. It's ironic- when I have the least time I waste the most of it. I also get angry at other drivers who dare to ignore my great importance by having the nerve to drive in a manner I deem inferior to my own.

There. How's that for a long winded dissertation on the nature of internet forum motivation? The great irony is that this post is absolutely dripping with Ego. Look how smart I am! I'm far superior to you lowly people I interact with.

With that, I'll make an effort to get on to more productive things, like cleaning the lint out of my belly button. Maybe do a bit of work while I'm here. But I'll undoubtedly pop back in to see what you all think of my brilliant dissertation.

Take care,

Ed

fast_eddie_72 wrote: If we were to look at another planet and find it full of life, including plants and some vaguely frog like creature, we'd be more inclined to look at it as a single organism. A planet that has given rise to neat things.

I put forth that we would look at it... then quickly take frog slaves - shove them in a ship, rape the women frog-like creatures, murder the ones wouldn't do our bidding and then exploit all the natural resources.

Otto_Maddox wrote:

OH! Good one. I forgot "Indoctrinate the savages". We always do that before committing genocide so as to make them peaceful first.

Jesus looks like some sort of mutant zombie rather than a crying child in that picture.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Actually, Eddie, I REALLY like your answer!

It's an honest and truthful statement that reflects the reality of internet debate; the sharing of ideas takes a secondary role to that of satisfying one's ego.

The sad difference between "this" manner of debate and the way the Constitution was developed and adopted is that the Founders were intent on finding a workable compromise. The end result is a document that has held the country together for over two centuries - in spite of regular (and temporarily different) interpretations.

And THAT is why we have elections. The people have the right to maintain an extra "check and balance" system to make certain the built-in version works.

oldsaw wrote: Actually, Eddie, I REALLY like your answer! It's an honest and truthful statement that reflects the reality of internet debate; the sharing of ideas takes a secondary role to that of satisfying one's ego.

Glad I checked back! Now I'm quite sure I drive better than that woman in the Jeep!

Seriously, thanks. And, seriously, going to try to go away now...

Otto_Maddox wrote: Jesus looks like some sort of mutant zombie rather than a crying child in that picture.

Well, they are alien frogs. We all look alike to them.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Seriously, thanks. And, seriously, going to try to go away now...

This is the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Debate the guy, or don't debate the guy. Whatever. But don't deride him for crazy ideas if you can't take the time to counter them. If you don't deem his input worth of response, then simply don't respond. No need to say "I'm responding to say I'm not going to respond". What's the point in that?

No response could be taken to mean that I didn't have a way to refute some clever argument that he made.

My response was crafted as to be condesending implying that his "argument" did not warrant a response.

;-)

As an alternative plan (to mimic his debating "style") I considered posting a link to a chart showing the price of tea in China...

It's sad, really. He is obviously of above average intelligence with an above average grasp of economics and history... but is so insistent on "winning" that he resorts to straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks when the facts don't support a particular point.

Bill

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: This is the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.

No it's not. I can... Damn!

wcelliot wrote: It's sad, really. He is obviously of above average intelligence with an above average grasp of economics and history... but is so insistent on "winning" that he resorts to straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks when the facts don't support a particular point.

or I just really enjoy confusing and irritating people

My berkeleying avatar is a toilet. duh.

I stand by my argument that the federalist papers and declaration of independence are not law and are merely position papers written by a bunch of folks. I took your refusal to refute that that you agree.

Frankly, you did neither; you just made me lose interest in pursuing what had been a pretty good conversation. Again.

Duke wrote: Frankly, you did neither; you just made me lose interest in pursuing what had been a pretty good conversation. Again.

I win again.

ignorant wrote: Now. this goes back to my other assertion that you are NOT stating facts, but merely opinions. But since they are veiled in facts or semi-truths most people like to believe them, sorta like Fox News.

Thank you for the Fox News reference. This nicely illustrates how narrow-minded you really are.

ddavidv wrote:

ignorant wrote: Now. this goes back to my other assertion that you are NOT stating facts, but merely opinions. But since they are veiled in facts or semi-truths most people like to believe them, sorta like Fox News.

Thank you for the Fox News reference. This nicely illustrates how narrow-minded you really are.

its so awesome missleading people. Or is it the ability for me to see through all their horrid half truths and you're blinded by bill o'reilly's awesome hair.

Iggy is a masterful troll, although I'm still waiting for his answer in the healthcare thread.

z31maniac wrote: Iggy is a masterful troll, although I'm still waiting for his answer in the healthcare thread.

what answer. Sorry to dissappoint.

So like in college we would play these pranks on counter strike servers that would take a vibrant and "productive" server and turn it into a complete clusterberkeley. It involved one guy named hitler and then one guy named isreal forever.. or zionist.. So good.

ignorant wrote:

ddavidv wrote:

ignorant wrote: Now. this goes back to my other assertion that you are NOT stating facts, but merely opinions. But since they are veiled in facts or semi-truths most people like to believe them, sorta like Fox News.

Thank you for the Fox News reference. This nicely illustrates how narrow-minded you really are.

its so awesome missleading people. Or is it the ability for me to see through all their horrid half truths and you're blinded by bill o'reilly's awesome hair.

So the major media doesn't do the same? To say they don't, is truly living up to your screenname.

I love how people equate capitalism with both christianity and democracy, without understanding why it is inherently at odds with both. Capitalism is Darwinistic. It does not say all men are created equal, it believes those with capital have an obligation to crush those with less. It does not say love your fellow man, it says beat him. Beat him bad. There are winners and losers, which one do you want to be.

Now don't get me wrong, I love capitalism. It beats the hell out of every other economic system that's been tried, and it's the only one that really accounts for human avarice, laziness, and ambition. It understands what we are, rather than what we might aspire to be. And it works.

But it's not a christian or a democratic philosophy at its core, and I think one of the reasons we might be in the mess we're in is because we've muddied all three of those things. Render unto God that which is God's and unto Caesar that which is Caesar, ya know.

^^^^^^^^ "The boy who kicked the hornet's nest"

Capitalism is tied closely to the philosophy of natural/individual rights... because it is the "natural" state of commerce and can exist without any Government involvement at all (though it is exists best with government protecting property rights and protecting against fraud, etc)

The 'idea' of democracy is often confused... to most people it means that the Government bows to the will of the people and not vice versa. But without strict controls, democracy can quickly turn into totalitarianism... it's the old story of three lions and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. So unlimited democracy has little to do with either individual rights or capitalism.

Christianity is another deal altogether... while Christinaity promotes voluntary charity and tithing (both worthy endeavors) mandatory charity enforced by Government is theft. So while Christian ideals are not bad guidelines to live by, the same ideals enforced by Government are often tyranny. There is little actual link to capitalism here...

But I agree that "big Government conservatives" (every bit as distasteful as big Government leftists) often try to veil their philosophy in faux capitalist dogma.

Tim Baxter wrote: I love how people equate capitalism with both christianity and democracy, without understanding why it is inherently at odds with both.

I don't think a single person in this whole thread has even mentioned religion in regards to a way of governing, besides you. And I don't know ANYBODY in socialist Canada (and I also live in redneck ville, Alberta) who equates such. I mean, I am sure there are people who do think such things, but I'd hazard a guess they are a (hopefully) small minority.

HiTemp, mostly I was, as Joey put it, kicking the hornets nest. How often does one get to skewer three sacred cows at one go? And I didn't even have to bring Hitler into it.

But I assure you, south of canada there are no shortage of people who see all three things as one and the same.

wcelliot wrote: The main difference is that capitalists detest both while leftists only detest fascism.

this leftist detests both. Once again you're caught projecting opinion as fact.

I only post this to educate you and as the winner of the argument you previous forfeited, I feel it is my duty to do such.