[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Funny that you are offended more by gay hater then evil muslim, perhaps it’s redundant?
I kid, I kid.
Seriously, I believe that you mentioned or implicated more then once you strongly dislike them; for example, in some thread about Iran, you basically shrugged your shoulders about [sic: “meh”]their fate, like being harrassed, even shot.
As an excuse, you told us how some gay violated you in the disco.[/quote]
Well, I found your characterization unfair given that I’ve taken quite a few beatings standing up for homosexuals (not to mention the subsequent name-calling and finger pointing). And trust me, I was skinny as hell at the time…
In any case, I believe you’re referring to the following thread:
What two consenting adults put in their assholes is their own business. What I have a problem with, is the parades and other flashy crap. That’s the thing that I have trouble tolerating. And to me, everytime somebody uses the term “gay”, I take it literally. Celebrating sexuality in public is not something I find particularly healthy in a society, be it the hetero or same-sex kind.
And I’m sick of people talking about Iran when the Arab world (and a good chunk of the third world) is no better in their legal treatment of homosexuals.
I do have an aversion towards this whole “gay” crap, but speaking of hate implies discrimination. I don’t discriminate against homosexuals in the sense that I don’t expect heterosexuals to be flaunting their sexuality and be “gay” about it.
[quote]Cpl. Mongo wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Cpl. Mongo wrote:
Fucking idiot did not post here, unless that’s what “Schwarzfahrer” means in dutch. Which one is fucking idiot?
It’s actually “fare dodger” or “black rider” I am curoius if he feels he is the motorbiker, loudmouthed old woman, or the oppressed man. I think the woman
if your wondering what the hell I am talking about.
Mongo,
my T-Nation name means “fare dodger” in german (why dutch?), and if you’re curious about it, you can PM me or ask me here, not that it’s story is particularly interesting or special.
Rainjack, of course, is the subject of my animosity.
I really believe you can come here to debate things, which means that either side can learn something or at least profit somehow in learning about other people’s point of view.
When someone posts solely to abuse and libel others, his posts literally a collection of ill-bred four letter words, should you try to continue a debate? When that person consistently turns threads into a shit flinging contest, will you still try to keep your cool?
For instance, I seldom agree with Zap and our exchanges aren’t exactly super friendly. But he argues at least, tries to defend a position.
I really have no clue why rainjack posts here. Does he feel better as an internet strongman?
At least, I’m gonna feel better skipping his drivel!
You misunderstood I was quoting and responding pat, I already researched you name as I also was curious as to why he thought dutch.
I also agree that discussing and learning should be the purpose and not pissing all over each other, that gets a little hard to do when you could post just about anything and lixy will try and turn into anti-American propaganda which i believe is the source of RJ’s frustration.
That said thank you for your civilty, and you getting me interested in this forum with you soldiers are soldiers thread.[/quote]
I meant deutsch. I am sick as fuck, forgive my diminished capacity.
Is there any way to get the time back I wasted reading the nonsense in this thread?
As to say no one ever heard of OBL before Bush made him “well known” - even a cursory overview of OBL shows he was a well-known figure.
Let’s take the stupid, stupid claim at face value - ignorant Muslims throughout the world, with no legitimate media at their disposal (hence the ignorance) suddenly started getting a media deluge about a previously unknown OBL, which apparently was accomplished by Bush.
So, prior to Bush, we have a total media blackout among the “Muslim street”, but suddenly, after 9/11, we have an ad campaign introducing OBL the Rock Star to millions of people who didn’t know him.
Couldn’t possibly be explained by advances in internet technology. Couldn’t possibly be explained by the quantum leap in the transmission of video clips and written information in the digital age. Couldn’t be a wireless revolution among electronic communications.
Nope - none of that. It was Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuush - apparently by identifying the mastermind of the attacks as OBL, which by the way, most Americans had assumed done the deed before the official determination came out (amazing that can be done with no one knowing about OBL prior, but I digress), Bush unleashed a tsunami of information over unsuspecting Muslims in the barbarian nations of the world…all by himself.
Perhaps Bush could have kept the identity of the 9/11 mastermind secret so as to prevent elevating him to a “rock star” - but wait, then we would have half-educated Europeans menstruating on internet chat boards that Bush has something to hide, isn’t being honest with the people, was behind the attacks…fill-in-the-blank with the lunatic claim of choice.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
New tape with a speaker claiming to be Osama.
Eh, my bet is that he’s dead - no new videos in how long?
I don’t know whether he’s alive or not, but in times of ubiquitous internet bandwidth and video recording devices, the fact that he would only release audio footage is awfully fishy.[/quote]
The US has the ability to eavesdrop on all kinds of eletronic communications, including video. There are not that many households in Afghanistan or the Pakistan tribal areas that would have video recorders, so making a video would be a very high risk move.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
New tape with a speaker claiming to be Osama.
Eh, my bet is that he’s dead - no new videos in how long?
I don’t know whether he’s alive or not, but in times of ubiquitous internet bandwidth and video recording devices, the fact that he would only release audio footage is awfully fishy.
The US has the ability to eavesdrop on all kinds of eletronic communications, including video. There are not that many households in Afghanistan or the Pakistan tribal areas that would have video recorders, so making a video would be a very high risk move. [/quote]
Sifu has a point. The Taliban has threatened to blow up cell phone towers and companies because the US has the ability to zero in on cell phone signals.
He thinks my post is stupid because it undermines his position. The NSA set up a company in Canada many years ago that has the ability to monitor all electronic information. It is part of Echelon.
Because the company is in Canada it is not subject to US laws regarding tapping phones in the US and there is nothing in the law to stop the NSA from buying this info from a foreign company.
[quote]pat wrote:
Cpl. Mongo wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Cpl. Mongo wrote:
Fucking idiot did not post here, unless that’s what “Schwarzfahrer” means in dutch. Which one is fucking idiot?
It’s actually “fare dodger” or “black rider” I am curoius if he feels he is the motorbiker, loudmouthed old woman, or the oppressed man. I think the woman
if your wondering what the hell I am talking about.
Mongo,
my T-Nation name means “fare dodger” in german (why dutch?), and if you’re curious about it, you can PM me or ask me here, not that it’s story is particularly interesting or special.
Rainjack, of course, is the subject of my animosity.
I really believe you can come here to debate things, which means that either side can learn something or at least profit somehow in learning about other people’s point of view.
When someone posts solely to abuse and libel others, his posts literally a collection of ill-bred four letter words, should you try to continue a debate? When that person consistently turns threads into a shit flinging contest, will you still try to keep your cool?
For instance, I seldom agree with Zap and our exchanges aren’t exactly super friendly. But he argues at least, tries to defend a position.
I really have no clue why rainjack posts here. Does he feel better as an internet strongman?
At least, I’m gonna feel better skipping his drivel!
You misunderstood I was quoting and responding pat, I already researched you name as I also was curious as to why he thought dutch.
I also agree that discussing and learning should be the purpose and not pissing all over each other, that gets a little hard to do when you could post just about anything and lixy will try and turn into anti-American propaganda which i believe is the source of RJ’s frustration.
That said thank you for your civilty, and you getting me interested in this forum with you soldiers are soldiers thread.
I meant deutsch. I am sick as fuck, forgive my diminished capacity. [/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Is there any way to get the time back I wasted reading the nonsense in this thread?
.[/quote]
I honestly find it ironic that you would ask the above question. This thread started by Sloth posting a link to an article in which Bin Laden threatened european countries. You immediately responded to that with the following non-sequitur:
<<Clearly, this is the fault of US foreign policy. >>
You wanted the thread to go off on a non-sensical tangent, and now you complain because it has done so.
Let me ask everybody this. Does anybody listen to other people anymore? Is anybody capable, even for a moment, of putting themselves in another person’s shoes to try to understand their perspective sympathetically? It seems to me that HONESTLY trying to understand another person’s opinion, trying to honestly grasp the other person’s perspective should be the foundation of critical thinking and an absolutely essential component of dialogue/conversation.
That is not what I see going on in this Political Forum at all. It is a series of dogmatic, sound-bytes in which one political tag-team can get the other members of his tag-team to re-enforce the beliefs that they started out with.
Does that seem like a wise expenditure of time? Does it seem like real dialectic?
Engaging in such, you would do better to just go and yell your opinions in a tunnel where you can listen to the sound of your own voice. In any case, if all you want to do is hear your own opinions echoed back to you by others, that is INDEED a HUGE WASTE OF TIME.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Is there any way to get the time back I wasted reading the nonsense in this thread?
.
I honestly find it ironic that you would ask the above question. This thread started by Sloth posting a link to an article in which Bin Laden threatened european countries. You immediately responded to that with the following non-sequitur:
<<Clearly, this is the fault of US foreign policy. >>
You wanted the thread to go off on a non-sensical tangent, and now you complain because it has done so.
Let me ask everybody this. Does anybody listen to other people anymore? Is anybody capable, even for a moment, of putting themselves in another person’s shoes to try to understand their perspective sympathetically? It seems to me that HONESTLY trying to understand another person’s opinion, trying to honestly grasp the other person’s perspective should be the foundation of critical thinking and an absolutely essential component of dialogue/conversation.
That is not what I see going on in this Political Forum at all. It is a series of dogmatic, sound-bytes in which one political tag-team can get the other members of his tag-team to re-enforce the beliefs that they started out with.
Does that seem like a wise expenditure of time? Does it seem like real dialectic?
Engaging in such, you would do better to just go and yell your opinions in a tunnel where you can listen to the sound of your own voice. In any case, if all you want to do is hear your own opinions echoed back to you by others, that is INDEED a HUGE WASTE OF TIME.
[/quote]
What would you call your post? If no one cares, if it is just a bunch of yelling in a tunnel - would not your post be even more of a waste of time?
Show me anywhere in this forum where anyone is considering their posts in the political forum a wise expenditure of time?
I can only speak for me, but it is nothing but a waste of time. But it is time I would be wasting for the most part anyhow, so why not get a little enjoyment out of it?
I need not be empathetic with terrorists, or their sympathizers. I need not walk a mile in a moral relativist’s shoes. I need not be empathetic to a card carrying liberal.
I honestly find it ironic that you would ask the above question. This thread started by Sloth posting a link to an article in which Bin Laden threatened european countries. You immediately responded to that with the following non-sequitur:
<<Clearly, this is the fault of US foreign policy. >>
You wanted the thread to go off on a non-sensical tangent, and now you complain because it has done so.[/quote]
Incorrect - I wanted to offer humor to mock the idiots who constantly project this mindless theory. How could I possibly have expected that someone would, in fact, come in and try to suggest it’s Bush’s fault for the threats to Europe’s liberal institutions of free speech on the basis of Islamic apostasy?
Seriously, I am surprised as anyone.
That has been tried, repeatedly. A handful are interested. Part of an honest dialog is dealing with facts and arguments that are not on your side in a good faith manner. That is the essence of critical thinking, but here we have characters uninterested in meeting ideas on their merits - when confronted with rational arguments, they react with ideological expletive and have no interest in hearing an alternative to their “narrative”.
[quote]That is not what I see going on in this Political Forum at all. It is a series of dogmatic, sound-bytes in which one political tag-team can get the other members of his tag-team to re-enforce the beliefs that they started out with.
Does that seem like a wise expenditure of time? Does it seem like real dialectic?[/quote]
You are right - and the PWI used to be so much better. Good fights, but mostly people knew their stuff, and could recognize and deal with arguments from their opponents.
That changed.
And you have heard me lament this loss in the PWI forums. I don’t come here to speak in an echo chamber - I love to debate sharp opponents who disagree with my opinions. That is what makes it fun.
But PWI has become amateur hour - not amateur because we aren’t all experts in certain fields of knowledge, but rather because a number of posters can’t even be bothered to engage in good faith. It has been bad for a while, but if you need to see it at its nadir, review the Ron Paul threads. Horrid.
And, when someone gets shown to be wrong, say, as a matter of logic, no way in the age of Internet bravado and warriorism is anyone going to say “I concede that” or “oh, you are right and I was wrong on that”, no matter how bad their argument or reasoning.
In the 2004 election, it was much more interesting around here. We had a more diverse crowd, too.
What would you call your post? If no one cares, if it is just a bunch of yelling in a tunnel - would not your post be even more of a waste of time?
[/quote]
Yes, it obviously was/is a waste of time.
Well, I certainly wasn’t calling for moral relativism. I was asking for people to try and listen and stop painting EVERYBODY with different opinions in such broad strokes.
Incorrect - I wanted to offer humor to mock the idiots who constantly project this mindless theory. How could I possibly have expected that someone would, in fact, come in and try to suggest it’s Bush’s fault for the threats to Europe’s liberal institutions of free speech on the basis of Islamic apostasy?
[/quote]
Ok, sorry I did not catch your sarcasm. I apologize for targeting you. That said, I would like to see others respond to my questions, perspective.