Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Diogenes
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ScottL wrote:Terribly funny sites there Dio, gave me a good laugh. About as true as the tea party being racist due to a handful of invitees. :)

"OMG They smell, they must be the devil!"

It's liket he dumbass webcam pics all over the net telling them to get a job when 91% of the "occupation" are currently employed and join in after work hours. *Golf Clap*

Of course you know better than this and are just posting these things to stir the pot so to speak.

I think you are missing the point of this thread. My purpose in posting the articles in this thread is to show that given enough time, things which people consider unthinkable will eventually become normalized.

Did you watch the video at the link? They actually Do say "You can have sex with animals or anything else..."
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

choff wrote:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092109.htm

If brain defects are the cause, eventually early screening and treatment may be developed. For now all we can do is ankle monitors and incarceration. I wonder what they'd do with Lewis Carroll if he were alive today.

Okay, now you've done it. You've shown the scientific basis for why they were "born" that way, and can't help it. Pretty soon it will be considered a "hate crime" to say anything bad about them.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Diogenes wrote:
ScottL wrote:Terribly funny sites there Dio, gave me a good laugh. About as true as the tea party being racist due to a handful of invitees. :)

"OMG They smell, they must be the devil!"

It's liket he dumbass webcam pics all over the net telling them to get a job when 91% of the "occupation" are currently employed and join in after work hours. *Golf Clap*

Of course you know better than this and are just posting these things to stir the pot so to speak.

I think you are missing the point of this thread. My purpose in posting the articles in this thread is to show that given enough time, things which people consider unthinkable will eventually become normalized.

Did you watch the video at the link? They actually Do say "You can have sex with animals or anything else..."
I think the chanting was taken out of context, but as I wasn't there and I didn't see what what caused this chant I can't say. I did notice how the person recording cherry picked what to show. Same old tactics, but that really doesn't matter. This nation is to ideologically split, I don't think there is the possibility of unity any more.

Scupperer
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Post by Scupperer »

ScottL wrote:I think the chanting was taken out of context, but as I wasn't there and I didn't see what what caused this chant I can't say. I did notice how the person recording cherry picked what to show. Same old tactics, but that really doesn't matter. This nation is to ideologically split, I don't think there is the possibility of unity any more.
Here's the transcript of the guy's speech: http://occupywallst.org/article/today-l ... voj-zizek/

It's not really out of context.

The crowd chanting back whatever the speaker says is apparently the new "thing" to prove their individuality?
Perrin Ehlinger

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Scupperer wrote:
ScottL wrote:I think the chanting was taken out of context, but as I wasn't there and I didn't see what what caused this chant I can't say. I did notice how the person recording cherry picked what to show. Same old tactics, but that really doesn't matter. This nation is to ideologically split, I don't think there is the possibility of unity any more.
Here's the transcript of the guy's speech: http://occupywallst.org/article/today-l ... voj-zizek/

It's not really out of context.

The crowd chanting back whatever the speaker says is apparently the new "thing" to prove their individuality?
I think he's confused on what's legal and what isn't legal, but I don't think he's condoning the behavior, just saying if by some (in that one instance weird) chance people can do something, but somehow can't fix the economy. Mind you he is not the voice of the movement so I wouldn't put too much merit in his speech.

As for the crowd repeat part, as I understand it, they banned megaphone usage down there so the crowd has resorted to repeating the speeches for those further back.

Obviously this whole movement makes you uncomfortable, but aside from a few weirdos comments, you might want to ask yourself why? I suspect you'll see a lot more of these movements in the coming years.

Diogenes
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ScottL wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
ScottL wrote:Terribly funny sites there Dio, gave me a good laugh. About as true as the tea party being racist due to a handful of invitees. :)

"OMG They smell, they must be the devil!"

It's liket he dumbass webcam pics all over the net telling them to get a job when 91% of the "occupation" are currently employed and join in after work hours. *Golf Clap*

Of course you know better than this and are just posting these things to stir the pot so to speak.

I think you are missing the point of this thread. My purpose in posting the articles in this thread is to show that given enough time, things which people consider unthinkable will eventually become normalized.

Did you watch the video at the link? They actually Do say "You can have sex with animals or anything else..."
I think the chanting was taken out of context, but as I wasn't there and I didn't see what what caused this chant I can't say. I did notice how the person recording cherry picked what to show. Same old tactics, but that really doesn't matter. This nation is to ideologically split, I don't think there is the possibility of unity any more.
Even if all you say is true, who would think it was reasonable to assert that "you can have sex with animals" ?

As for the ideological split, I read over at "curmudgeonly and skeptical" that the proprietor wishes p51s would strafe the lot of them. I wouldn't go that far, but I certainly understand the sentiment. :)

Anyways, I am fond of recalling what one commenter said regarding threats of civil unrest from the left: (and I paraphrase)


"I and all my friends are highly armed and trained professional killing machines. The current status quo does a lot more to protect them from us, then it does to protect us from them. "


And as Andrew Breitbart said just recently, "We have the guns."
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Diogenes wrote:
ScottL wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
I think you are missing the point of this thread. My purpose in posting the articles in this thread is to show that given enough time, things which people consider unthinkable will eventually become normalized.

Did you watch the video at the link? They actually Do say "You can have sex with animals or anything else..."
I think the chanting was taken out of context, but as I wasn't there and I didn't see what what caused this chant I can't say. I did notice how the person recording cherry picked what to show. Same old tactics, but that really doesn't matter. This nation is to ideologically split, I don't think there is the possibility of unity any more.
Even if all you say is true, who would think it was reasonable to assert that "you can have sex with animals" ?

As for the ideological split, I read over at "curmudgeonly and skeptical" that the proprietor wishes p51s would strafe the lot of them. I wouldn't go that far, but I certainly understand the sentiment. :)

Anyways, I am fond of recalling what one commenter said regarding threats of civil unrest from the left: (and I paraphrase)


"I and all my friends are highly armed and trained professional killing machines. The current status quo does a lot more to protect them from us, then it does to protect us from them. "


And as Andrew Breitbart said just recently, "We have the guns."
I think it was pretty unreasonable myself, but that doesn't say anything about my ideology or political leanings.

As for the part about violence and guns, to assume the left don't have guns in just silly. I reserve the right at any point to defend myself, my rights, and the rights of those around me by force against any tyrannical power foreign or domestic. Layman's translation, you come this way looking for trouble, you'll find it.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

KitemanSA wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:All these things MAY be true, but the difference between "homophiliacs" and "pedophiliacs" is that the homo type is only legal between consenting individuals, and with the pedo type, children by definition can't consent to sexual activity. Pedophilia MAY be "normal" but statutory rape is still rape.
The concept of "consent" is a legal artifice. 50 years ago Homosexuals couldn't legally consent either.
IIUIC, homosexuals couldn't consent because they were considered mentally ill. Children aren't mentally ill, they are just young. And they, by definition, will always be the young.
Children are as naive and immature as their parents raise them to be. I know 40 year old children and 12 year old adults. The baby boomers have long been engaged in infantilizing their children in order to prolong their own sense of youth.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Interesting related comment from the radio this morning. If the <successful> argument for gay rights is "consenting adults", then how low will it be before it becomes the successful argument for biligamy/polygamy?

Diogenes
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ladajo wrote:Interesting related comment from the radio this morning. If the <successful> argument for gay rights is "consenting adults", then how low will it be before it becomes the successful argument for biligamy/polygamy?
That was warned about decades ago. Interestingly enough, I found this article which indicates this very thing has happened in Holland.

http://conservativeoutpost.com/slippery_slope

The Dutch journey towards the destruction of marriage began when they legalized homosexual civil unions in 1998. This was then followed in a mere three years time by the legalization of homosexual marriage and adoption of children. Now, just four years later, they passed another threshold when they certified the civil union of one man and two women. Currently, their marriage laws, (such as they are), don't allow polygamy, but the civil union laws do and now they have their first gay polygamous union to show for it.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ScottL wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
ScottL wrote: I think the chanting was taken out of context, but as I wasn't there and I didn't see what what caused this chant I can't say. I did notice how the person recording cherry picked what to show. Same old tactics, but that really doesn't matter. This nation is to ideologically split, I don't think there is the possibility of unity any more.
Even if all you say is true, who would think it was reasonable to assert that "you can have sex with animals" ?

As for the ideological split, I read over at "curmudgeonly and skeptical" that the proprietor wishes p51s would strafe the lot of them. I wouldn't go that far, but I certainly understand the sentiment. :)

Anyways, I am fond of recalling what one commenter said regarding threats of civil unrest from the left: (and I paraphrase)


"I and all my friends are highly armed and trained professional killing machines. The current status quo does a lot more to protect them from us, then it does to protect us from them. "


And as Andrew Breitbart said just recently, "We have the guns."
I think it was pretty unreasonable myself, but that doesn't say anything about my ideology or political leanings.

As for the part about violence and guns, to assume the left don't have guns in just silly. I reserve the right at any point to defend myself, my rights, and the rights of those around me by force against any tyrannical power foreign or domestic. Layman's translation, you come this way looking for trouble, you'll find it.
The First (well known) Socialist revolution was the French Revolution. The policy of the rulers of France for a long time prior was to deprive the citizenry of weapons. This served in a large part to keep them poor and obedient until the pot exploded, at which time custom and law worked no longer.

The Next best well known Socialist revolution was the Russian Revolution. Again, desperately poor peons were dealing with the landed gentry and their hired armies, and there were few who would stand with the gentry.

America is a very different nut. The middle class forms a formidable barrier between the Wealthy and the Poor, and it mitigates disputes between the two in both directions. American's grew up with a sense of rugged individualism but a common belief in some basic rights, among them the right to own stuff, and defend it with violence when necessary.

The Socialists in this nation tend to congregate in the cities, while the Anti-Socialists tend to be more rural. They also tend to congregate on both coasts while their opposition tends to be in the center of the Country.

It is my belief that in THIS nation, the Socialist Army would fold up like wet toilet paper. The Bulk of the population would be in opposition to them, just as in the former two mentioned cases, the bulk of the population was in favor of them. America is constituted as a very different nation than was Tsarist Russia or the Kingdom of France.

In a confrontation, people would be defending their own property from the Proletariat, and not that of a hated and envied Gentry class. Sometimes I wish we could have such a confrontation because it would certainly solve a lot of problems.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

I don't think the majority owns much property. Rent? Sure, owns, not so much. In the end you don't really own land in the U.S. but that's another issue entirely.

It's fine Diogenes, we disagree, it's ok.

Diogenes
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ScottL wrote:I don't think the majority owns much property. Rent? Sure, owns, not so much. In the end you don't really own land in the U.S. but that's another issue entirely.

It's fine Diogenes, we disagree, it's ok.

One of my long standing issues has been the annoying tendency of people to rent rather than buy. When I got out of High school, I told myself I would live in a cardboard box if necessary, to save up enough money to buy a piece of land. Then I would buy a Travel Trailer or a Mobile home and live in it until I could afford to build a house. And that is what I did. I have since owned and own several properties.

I don't believe in credit, and I don't believe in rent. Rent is paying for someone else's house. The country is much more stable when people are paying for their own. I try and spread this message as often as I can. "Rent" is a fool's game.

I think a majority of the people that live in the conservative part of the nation, own their own properties. (At least among those people who are employed.)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

In a confrontation, people would be defending their own property from the Proletariat, and not that of a hated and envied Gentry class. Sometimes I wish we could have such a confrontation because it would certainly solve a lot of problems.
As well as Darwin cull the herd.

I really do try to take a moderate approach to most things, but I must say that the more I watch my tax money get pissed away on foolish endeavors, to include, IMO, a ridiculously large government sponsored "free stuff" program in an attempt to buy re-elections, I am increasingly annoyed and more inclined to protect my basic rights.

If anyone needs to understand where a "free stuff" economy leads, please go to Haiti and other similar places as I have. I see much simliarity to haitians with a sense of "free stuff" entitlement as I do here with the US "underpriviledged" with a sense of "free stuff" entitlement.

We have run out of other peoples (my) money, and no one that spends it wants to admit it. It reminds me of a radio callin show where the woman had an argument over the welfare she received coming from Obama. When the host asked her where she thought Obama got the money, she fervently believed it came from his pocket. She was asked if she had ever paid taxes, and she said no, she has only ever received welfare, to wit, only folks who work pay tax.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Diogenes wrote:
ScottL wrote:I don't think the majority owns much property. Rent? Sure, owns, not so much. In the end you don't really own land in the U.S. but that's another issue entirely.

It's fine Diogenes, we disagree, it's ok.

One of my long standing issues has been the annoying tendency of people to rent rather than buy. When I got out of High school, I told myself I would live in a cardboard box if necessary, to save up enough money to buy a piece of land. Then I would buy a Travel Trailer or a Mobile home and live in it until I could afford to build a house. And that is what I did. I have since owned and own several properties.

I don't believe in credit, and I don't believe in rent. Rent is paying for someone else's house. The country is much more stable when people are paying for their own. I try and spread this message as often as I can. "Rent" is a fool's game.

I think a majority of the people that live in the conservative part of the nation, own their own properties. (At least among those people who are employed.)
That may be your outlook, but for instance in my case, owning is not an option. I have no plans to stay in my current location past my better half completing her doctoral program and so renting is an ideal situation. What makes it further ideal is that the cost of payments here are ridiculous vs rent so more fuel to my rent argument within my individual situation.

Post Reply