Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
> Rott: The problem, at least as I see it, is you aren't coming across as gentlemanly, but more casually condescending. Your previous statement is a prime example: whether or not you intended it, many will read that post as "I'm a Christian Gentleman, of course those liberals would be offended." If you can't see the condescension in that, then that may be the root of the issue.
Meeble speaks truth. Rott, if you could change your word choice and phrasing to evoke less of a sense that your philosophical views are definitely and obviously right, that would help greatly.
> Condescension and a superiority feeling are important parts of being a gentleman. Gotta fight these Godless egalitarian deMOCKratic ideals that are responsible for the mercantilist, degenerate state of our society.
I'm rather amused how we're turning this mindset clock back so far that even big business is newfangled and progressive.
> Sure, I get that. That's the problem with not considering all opinions equal. If I recognize superiors (a necessary precondition for taking a role model to inspire cultivation of virtue), then Hierarchy's Box is open, and all the evils in the world come out (from a modern point of view). However, I sincerely agree with the philosophers I do and disagree with most of the fashionable ones, so I can't be other than who I am unless someone proves me wrong by defining a form of progressivism that's both self-consistent and empirically true.
Yep, there's your problem. You consider your philosophy to be definitely right, and contend from the beginning that others are proffering philosophies that are objectively wrong in some way, and thus taking it upon yourself to attack them and defend your own. So you're already sticking things into an offense-defense frame from the beginning, then.
> any man enjoyed the liberty to make himself an aristocrat if he cultivated his mind, put on fancy clothes, and lived by old-fashioned values of Christendom.
uh...sorry to burst your bubble, but aristocrats were not made by people's choice of clothing, education level, or espoused moral values; they were made by families who got rich and then successfully stayed rich through several generations.
> I will let you know that the Moon People have been very supportive of my 2012 Senate bid, thank you very much.
Can I endorse you too?
> I like the insinuation that I'm a bad person for talking about myself in a thread created, before I ever registered, for discussing my ban.
For what it's worth, I do not endorse that opinion, and I never have.
Also, talking smack about people behind their backs is what #yackfest does. Here, we do it in front of them.
> [BonSequitur] What, the 'black best friend' thing? Really, now? You got banned for making a homophobic remark.
> [Rottweiler] "Fear of sameness" or "fear of humans"?
> [BonSequitur] You must realize making fun of the word, 'homophobia,' isn't helping your case any.
BonSequitur, while not presenting the whole picture, does have a valid point. You know what the term "homophobia" means; mocking it (such as you have) does not engender rational agreement or emotional sympathy.
> Your problem is basically that you have a very big ego, not anything specific you say.
Yeah, pretty much.
Of course, many straight people make themselves sterile. That some people prefer homosexuality to childless heterosexuality is no big deal in the grand scheme of things, until they use it for subversive purposes like changing the definition of marriage or changing school curricula.
Ignoring, for a moment, your dismissal of gay sex as mere "acts of lust," would you care to explain why? Or is this one of those "just because" things?
Humans aren't exactly an endangered species, you know. It's really not necessary (and in some cases, probably not advisable) for every fertile member of the species to breed.
Indeed. Which is why I tend to be suspicious of anything too self-referential. It generally does end up coming down to "just because."
rules" is a very poor solution since it can easily lead to "bitching
disproportionately about someone I don't like to get them banned will
work as long as it's a somewhat popular opinion."
And this is exactly what bothers this one, and been bothering ever since Chagen's banning. Hmm, what this one finds even more weird is that some bas happened after people in question actually shown some improvement when it comes to behaviour that gets to the other people's nerves.
Because we have nothing better to do than insult tropers behind their backs.
Oh no, this one insults people in front (she is not socially adjusted enough to avoid doing that) or not at all=)
Anyway, since condescension was brought up: this one can agree with it somewhat, but let's face it - there are lots of posters who share this attitude, yet people swoon over some of them. If there is a rule against being openly condescending, then it should apply to all - or not at all.
I 'unno, it just gave me the image of a dystopia in which not being a
"good example" gets you publicly humilliated or destroyed. And since I
gotta reach to come up with these reasons, I went with that.
Ahh, I see. It can indeed cause such associations, which this one has not noticed before
Now we are off to have the
Jail Bait WaitBan Wait Wait for the next person.No one has explained what good it tends toward. With intercourse, we can see that the telos of eros is babies. Indeed, the science of biology even defines an organism's success by how many grandchildren it has.
Homosexual activism completely ignores the question of what this behavior tends toward (telos) in favor of insisting that it's equal to heterosexual behavior. Well no, they're demonstrably different.
Humans aren't
exactly an endangered species, you know. It's really not necessary
(and in some cases, probably not advisable) for every fertile member of
the species to breed.
Did I say every fertile human needs to breed? Of course, if most did abstain from breeding because childrearing is inconvenient, there would be a Tragedy of the Commons as everyone demanded their old age pension while number of workers plummeted. What I'm saying is that the telos of eros is the good of reproduction.
Homosexual behavior doesn't have that end. So these two things are different, not equal.
I totally didn't mean any of the shit talking I was doing towards you, I just wanted to be cool. How are things going?
I totally didn't mean any of the shit talking I was doing towards you, I just wanted to be cool.
You mean "popular"? :-p
I'm not doing well. I've been in pain with fluctuating levels of internal burning where the upper right spine touches the shoulder, associated with headache and cold limbs.
Do you know what's causing it?
@Warizi: No. I was in urgent care Saturday evening, and I wasn't having a stroke, heart rate problem, constriction of neck blood vessels, thyroid problem, or anemia. I have a regular medical appointment at 2:00 today, which might determine what I DO have.
(And feel together as a result, if you wish, I guess.)
Huh, I think you just broke my bee brain.