Posted by amymylove on Sep 19, 2011 · Member since Apr 2009 · 5266 posts
This guy is a moron...
Posted by charlie_fo_farley on Sep 21, 2011 · Member since Feb 2011 · 618 posts
It smells like... victory! ^-^
See, I think you nailed it right there. Trying to win and not learn, we merely take the bitterly divided fragments of mankind and shake them up further, right? There have been tons (no I didn't weigh them, it is an expression) of politically charged debates and discussions in these forums. Rarely (ever?) is anyone offered up to be banned*. If you are interested in why many have done so with you, sir, perhaps ask yourself the next time you read/post in these forums, "Do I do this with a certain quality of humility that can learn as well as teach? Or do I do this without care or concern for human dignity at all, merely in fairly common, mediocre, vain, self-centered attempt to WIN?" Perhaps you do have that humility, sir, I will say, however, that it does not come off in your comments.
But really, I probably would have never replied to this thread had you not quoted my top 3 fav movies of all time (not a scientific fact that it is, just my strong opinion that it is), so really think about Col. Kilgore's role in that movie. What were Millus, Coppola, Duvall, and Sheen all trying to convey in that scene with Kilgore character right when he says those lines you quoted? I think it may give some insight as to why a bunch of otherwise peaceably assembled strangers want you out of their group.
*Personally I dont think you or anyone should be banned, but I can certainly understand why others might disagree with me.
Peace.
0 likes
Posted by VeganRun on Sep 21, 2011 · Member since Nov 2009 · 2111 posts
I don't think he should be banned, it's entertaining....
I totally agree! I'd missed this display of tail fanning!
0 likes
Posted by secondbase on Sep 21, 2011 · Member since Dec 2005 · 5540 posts
Y'all got trolled.
0 likes
Posted by Tweety on Sep 23, 2011 · Member since Jan 2003 · 3135 posts
I don't know who is a troll and who isn't. Two wrongs don't make a right and bullying sucks. This thread reminds me of a school yard where one unpopular kid gets picked on by the masses.
Bleh
0 likes
Posted by Alex Libman on Sep 26, 2011 · Member since Feb 2010 · 154 posts
If you read some of the things he posted at first he was talking about dissecting and torturing cats or something... i could care less if people disagree with my views but this guy is just being obnoxious
The related threads include "fines for leaving animals out in the cold", which I thought was horrendous, and my "Anarcho-Capitalist criticism of 'animal rights'". Some people here want to initiate violence against people who manage their animal property in ways that contradicts their emotions. I make the rational argument that you have no Right to initiate this violence, but you do have the Right to ostracize / boycott them and use other means of non-violent persuasion instead.
If you force me to choose between being a vegan for health reasons and holding a rational Rights Theory, then veganism goes out the window!
"For trolls, any response is 'recognition'; they are unable to distinguish between irritation and admiration; their ego grows directly in proportion to the response, regardless of the form or content of that response..."
You probably think Socrates, Giordano Bruno, Thomas Jefferson, Darwin, Frederick Douglass, and Gandhi were all trolls also...
there's probably a limit to the number of overtly hostile/ snarky pro-animal-torture posts that the admins are going to tolerate, on a vegan site...
A lot more people would be vegans if the popular vegan position wasn't also against business (regulations), against science (animal testing), and against rational philosophy ("animal rights"). I am not "pro-animal-torture", I am pro-Human-Rights!
Trying to win and not learn
You've ignored the first part of the post you've selectively quoted.
0 likes
Posted by Tweety on Sep 27, 2011 · Member since Jan 2003 · 3135 posts
A lot more people would be vegans if the popular vegan position wasn't also against business (regulations), against science (animal testing), and against rational philosophy ("animal rights"). I am not "pro-animal-torture
I know what you're saying...a lot more people would eat vegan if being vegan weren't so unattractive with all that other stuff. But that is what a vegan is. That's like saying "a lot more people would be vegan if they could eat meat". You can't change the basic core definition of veganism and call yourself a vegan.
If that means we remain 1% of the total population then so be it.
Personally, I find no difficulty in being a pro-human liberal (but there is my pro-life anti-abortion thing that upsets people) and being pro-animal. They go hand and hand in my lifestyle as a health care professional and compassionate human being.
Also, I think it's spinning to say that someone that is against animal testing is against science. The opposite is true, we are pro-science but just in a compassionate way and that is possible. To say that we want regulations that protect the planet means we are anti-business is another unreasonable spin. I'm all for business and I believe in American-style capitalism, but I certainly don't think we have to destroy our future for business gain and business has proven time after time after time that they will do this for profit if we let them. Ultimately that's pro-business because our grandchildren will have a clean and compassionate planet to live in.
You can't paint all vegans with the same brush and stereotype us.
0 likes
Posted by KikisMama on Sep 27, 2011 · Member since Aug 2010 · 165 posts
Quote:
You probably think Socrates, Giordano Bruno, Thomas Jefferson, Darwin, Frederick Douglass, and Gandhi were all trolls also...
Are you actually comparing yourself to these people??
0 likes
Posted by lubimiller on Sep 27, 2011 · Member since Mar 2008 · 3602 posts
Quote:
You probably think Socrates, Giordano Bruno, Thomas Jefferson, Darwin, Frederick Douglass, and Gandhi were all trolls also...
Are you actually comparing yourself to these people??
I was thinking the same thing!!
0 likes
Posted by humboldt_honey on Sep 27, 2011 · Member since Feb 2007 · 12529 posts
Posted by Alex Libman on Sep 27, 2011 · Member since Feb 2010 · 154 posts
I know what you're saying...a lot more people would eat vegan if being vegan weren't so unattractive with all that other stuff. But that is what a vegan is. That's like saying "a lot more people would be vegan if they could eat meat". You can't change the basic core definition of veganism and call yourself a vegan. If that means we remain 1% of the total population then so be it.
The word "vegan" is currently defined as "a person who does not eat or use animal products". I've been experimenting with a vegan diet for quite some time, and my greatest reason for abandoning it for a while was disgust with all the political insanity that seems to be so closely entangled with vegan culture - thus my outspokenness on this forum.
I don't have any particular problem with non-edible animal products, but they tend to be overpriced luxury items and less economically efficient than products made from plant fibers and/or synthetics. I still have a couple of old leather jackets, but I don't plan on buying any other animal-based products in the future. However, I do understand the importance of animal studies in safety testing and medical research.
Personally, I find no difficulty in being a pro-human liberal (but there is my pro-life anti-abortion thing that upsets people) and being pro-animal. They go hand and hand in my lifestyle as a health care professional and compassionate human being.
Words like "liberal" or "conservative" have no specific meaning anymore. In modern-day USA, the former is most often used as an alternative to the word "socialist", and if you compare the Socialist Party's planks from 100 years ago you'll see that modern-day liberals go a lot farther. Anyone who has spent any time studying economic history should know that there is nothing "liberating" about the violent collectivism they advocate!
Your prohibitionist position on abortion violates the self-ownership Rights of the mother, which trump the baby's negative Right to life up to the point of its physical autonomy (i.e. birth). I do sympathize with your position, and hopefully someday technological advances will make it possible to "evict" a "trespassing" fetus without killing it.
(But that's a conversation for a different thread.)
Also, I think it's spinning to say that someone that is against animal testing is against science. The opposite is true, we are pro-science but just in a compassionate way and that is possible. To say that we want regulations that protect the planet means we are anti-business is another unreasonable spin. I'm all for business and I believe in American-style capitalism, but I certainly don't think we have to destroy our future for business gain and business has proven time after time after time that they will do this for profit if we let them. Ultimately that's pro-business because our grandchildren will have a clean and compassionate planet to live in.
There already is a significant bias against animal testing in the free market - it naturally results in negative employee morale, bad publicity, boycotts, etc. But the fact is that there are myriads of cases where animal testing remains the most effective and efficient solution - if it wasn't then companies and universities won't be doing it! You can't be "pro-" something if you want to restrict it! Government violence (aka "laws") that restrict animal testing raise research costs, delay innovations and break-throughs, and result in lower quality-of-life and lower life expectancy for human beings everywhere!
The government-funded "protect the planet" B.S. is debunked elsewhere (ex). All it does is serve the long-standing communist ambitions of imposing a world government, which, in absence of intergovernemntal competition for frame of reference, would be able to get away with things that 20th century tyrants could only dream of! Real unbiased science is completely against them - all they have is fraction-of-one-degree temperature change allegations from studies with multiple-degree error margins, claims that "everything that can be invented has already been invented", and a lot of government-encouraged media spin! Our (great*X) grandchildren will live in the world of space-based solar energy, space-based manufacturing, asteroid mining, high-tech means of protecting species from extinction, etc, etc, etc - all created by the free market, not because of government intervention but in spite of it! Future generations will look at the economically-destructive civilization-threating "global warming" alarmism of the present day the way we look at Aztec mass human sacrifices of the past!
"American-style capitalism" is not real capitalism, but a mixed economy dominated by an all-powerful government and its cronies. Real capitalism (aka pure free market / "Anarcho-" Capitalism) is an advanced post-democratic state that is next to impossible for a civilization to reach prior to mid-21st century level of technology.
You can't paint all vegans with the same brush and stereotype us.
That is exactly what you did just now by saying that vegans have to support "animal rights"! Do people who don't drive for health and economic reasons (like myself) have to support "car rights", like you have to wash your car every week or go to jail?!
Are you actually comparing yourself to these people??
Yes - at times very favorably, though in substance but not yet in impact. And of course I have the great temporal advantage of succeeding them and learning from their mistakes. A rational philosopher should have no sacred cows! (And I mean that in more ways than one.) But that is irrelevant to my original point - if you had been their contemporaries, before they were validated by history, I think you would treat them exactly the same way as you treat me.
Socrates is a troll.
Thanks for an awesome avatar! I'll definitely use on other forums!
(This forum seems to have a "real faces" avatar policy. I use my real name, but my face is just too handsome to casually show online - lest people be swayed by my charisma before they get a chance to fully appreciate the intellectual depth of my arguments. :P )
0 likes
Posted by Tweety on Sep 27, 2011 · Member since Jan 2003 · 3135 posts
Choosing battles and no further comment, but I did read the thread above. It's one thing to give information, or try to correct myths to someone sincerely wanting information....as this is a vegan site....but it's another to argue with a nonvegan or defend veganism. Not gonna do that.
0 likes
Posted by humboldt_honey on Sep 27, 2011 · Member since Feb 2007 · 12529 posts
If I see the Socrates troll doll on a forum, I'll have a "I was there at the beginning" moment.
0 likes
Posted by amymylove on Sep 27, 2011 · Member since Apr 2009 · 5266 posts
If you read some of the things he posted at first he was talking about dissecting and torturing cats or something... i could care less if people disagree with my views but this guy is just being obnoxious
The related threads include "fines for leaving animals out in the cold", which I thought was horrendous, and my "Anarcho-Capitalist criticism of 'animal rights'". Some people here want to initiate violence against people who manage their animal property in ways that contradicts their emotions. I make the rational argument that you have no Right to initiate this violence, but you do have the Right to ostracize / boycott them and use other means of non-violent persuasion instead.
If you force me to choose between being a vegan for health reasons and holding a rational Rights Theory, then veganism goes out the window!
i'm not sure where you made that torturing cats statement but it wasn't in the links above so why are you referring to them?
0 likes
Posted by Alex Libman on Sep 27, 2011 · Member since Feb 2010 · 154 posts
I was providing a summary of my activity on this forum.
You are using the oldest anti-liberty trick in the book: focusing on the very infrequent extreme examples. There's more to freedom of speech than the idiots of the Westboro Baptist Church. And there's more to the human Right to own non-human animals as property than the extreme example you bring up. People who (in your opinion) misuse their freedom without violating the Rights of others should be dealt with by non-violent means, like through ostracism - not through government force!
It's not simply a matter of "disagreeing with your views", in examples like "fines for leaving animals out in the cold" you are advocating use of violence, and that is something others should take very seriously!
0 likes
Posted by amymylove on Sep 27, 2011 · Member since Apr 2009 · 5266 posts
peace, love, and veganess <3 AL
hey we have the same initials :)
0 likes
Posted by yogaferret on Sep 28, 2011 · Member since Nov 2006 · 460 posts
I am all for this.
Seriously. Just look at what he wrote on my thread about trying to stop the widespread torture and mutilation of animals at one Factory Farm in PA. http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=41472.0
Mostly nonsensical, but I also found it rather dangerous and an embarassment to the site.
I won"t argue with people standing up for him, but anyone that puts ideas like that in the forefront of " stopping the widespread torture and mutilation of animals at one Factory Farm", I really have to wonder. But not long. Sounds more like he is here for rabble-rousing. :P
And although some people may find it amusing now - nothing wrong with that, his comments are just laughable - once he starts being a widespread nuisance, he"ll make the whole forum part of the site look bad. Then people won"t want to join because this site is obviously "issue-ridden", etc....
Something I have seen Happen here before.
Nip it in the bud, I say. People will argue - he can just make another account. Very true, but his style and "thoughts" are outlandish enough to easily identify him again.
Just giving my vote supporting this.
0 likes
Posted by yabbitgirl on Sep 28, 2011 · Member since Apr 2006 · 14266 posts
I think every post on threads like this just feeds the situation. Night, all.
0 likes
Posted by Alex Libman on Sep 28, 2011 · Member since Feb 2010 · 154 posts
Mostly nonsensical
Perhaps you should spend less time arguing for government violence, and more time developing your reading comprehension skills and pursuing a well-rounded education, so what I wrote will no longer seem "nonsensical" to you.
0 likes
Posted by larisuena on Sep 28, 2011 · Member since Jun 2009 · 461 posts
Can I just ask one question? Is it me or does it seem that you write in a condesending tone? Is it meant that way or does it just come across that way? It's nice to have your own opinion but, why would you feel the need to belittle others? If that is what you are doing. And uh sorry but, just because someone knows a lot about different subjects does not make them better than someone else or give them the right to attack there education.
0 likes
Posted by Alex Libman on Sep 29, 2011 · Member since Feb 2010 · 154 posts
I am appropriately condescending and resentful toward irrational people who use government violence to force their emotional biases on others, in the process pushing all of human civilization toward a dark age from it may never recover.
It smells like... victory! ^-^
See, I think you nailed it right there. Trying to win and not learn, we merely take the bitterly divided fragments of mankind and shake them up further, right? There have been tons (no I didn't weigh them, it is an expression) of politically charged debates and discussions in these forums. Rarely (ever?) is anyone offered up to be banned*. If you are interested in why many have done so with you, sir, perhaps ask yourself the next time you read/post in these forums, "Do I do this with a certain quality of humility that can learn as well as teach? Or do I do this without care or concern for human dignity at all, merely in fairly common, mediocre, vain, self-centered attempt to WIN?" Perhaps you do have that humility, sir, I will say, however, that it does not come off in your comments.
But really, I probably would have never replied to this thread had you not quoted my top 3 fav movies of all time (not a scientific fact that it is, just my strong opinion that it is), so really think about Col. Kilgore's role in that movie. What were Millus, Coppola, Duvall, and Sheen all trying to convey in that scene with Kilgore character right when he says those lines you quoted? I think it may give some insight as to why a bunch of otherwise peaceably assembled strangers want you out of their group.
*Personally I dont think you or anyone should be banned, but I can certainly understand why others might disagree with me.
Peace.
I don't think he should be banned, it's entertaining....
I totally agree! I'd missed this display of tail fanning!
Y'all got trolled.
I don't know who is a troll and who isn't. Two wrongs don't make a right and bullying sucks. This thread reminds me of a school yard where one unpopular kid gets picked on by the masses.
Bleh
If you read some of the things he posted at first he was talking about dissecting and torturing cats or something... i could care less if people disagree with my views but this guy is just being obnoxious
The related threads include "fines for leaving animals out in the cold", which I thought was horrendous, and my "Anarcho-Capitalist criticism of 'animal rights'". Some people here want to initiate violence against people who manage their animal property in ways that contradicts their emotions. I make the rational argument that you have no Right to initiate this violence, but you do have the Right to ostracize / boycott them and use other means of non-violent persuasion instead.
If you force me to choose between being a vegan for health reasons and holding a rational Rights Theory, then veganism goes out the window!
"For trolls, any response is 'recognition'; they are unable to distinguish between irritation and admiration; their ego grows directly in proportion to the response, regardless of the form or content of that response..."
You probably think Socrates, Giordano Bruno, Thomas Jefferson, Darwin, Frederick Douglass, and Gandhi were all trolls also...
there's probably a limit to the number of overtly hostile/ snarky pro-animal-torture posts that the admins are going to tolerate, on a vegan site...
A lot more people would be vegans if the popular vegan position wasn't also against business (regulations), against science (animal testing), and against rational philosophy ("animal rights"). I am not "pro-animal-torture", I am pro-Human-Rights!
Trying to win and not learn
You've ignored the first part of the post you've selectively quoted.
A lot more people would be vegans if the popular vegan position wasn't also against business (regulations), against science (animal testing), and against rational philosophy ("animal rights"). I am not "pro-animal-torture
I know what you're saying...a lot more people would eat vegan if being vegan weren't so unattractive with all that other stuff. But that is what a vegan is. That's like saying "a lot more people would be vegan if they could eat meat". You can't change the basic core definition of veganism and call yourself a vegan.
If that means we remain 1% of the total population then so be it.
Personally, I find no difficulty in being a pro-human liberal (but there is my pro-life anti-abortion thing that upsets people) and being pro-animal. They go hand and hand in my lifestyle as a health care professional and compassionate human being.
Also, I think it's spinning to say that someone that is against animal testing is against science. The opposite is true, we are pro-science but just in a compassionate way and that is possible. To say that we want regulations that protect the planet means we are anti-business is another unreasonable spin. I'm all for business and I believe in American-style capitalism, but I certainly don't think we have to destroy our future for business gain and business has proven time after time after time that they will do this for profit if we let them. Ultimately that's pro-business because our grandchildren will have a clean and compassionate planet to live in.
You can't paint all vegans with the same brush and stereotype us.
Are you actually comparing yourself to these people??
Are you actually comparing yourself to these people??
I was thinking the same thing!!
Socrates is a troll.
http://www.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/4a/a/AAAAApoP_w0AAAAAAEqmJA.jpg
I know what you're saying...a lot more people would eat vegan if being vegan weren't so unattractive with all that other stuff. But that is what a vegan is. That's like saying "a lot more people would be vegan if they could eat meat". You can't change the basic core definition of veganism and call yourself a vegan. If that means we remain 1% of the total population then so be it.
The word "vegan" is currently defined as "a person who does not eat or use animal products". I've been experimenting with a vegan diet for quite some time, and my greatest reason for abandoning it for a while was disgust with all the political insanity that seems to be so closely entangled with vegan culture - thus my outspokenness on this forum.
I don't have any particular problem with non-edible animal products, but they tend to be overpriced luxury items and less economically efficient than products made from plant fibers and/or synthetics. I still have a couple of old leather jackets, but I don't plan on buying any other animal-based products in the future. However, I do understand the importance of animal studies in safety testing and medical research.
Personally, I find no difficulty in being a pro-human liberal (but there is my pro-life anti-abortion thing that upsets people) and being pro-animal. They go hand and hand in my lifestyle as a health care professional and compassionate human being.
Words like "liberal" or "conservative" have no specific meaning anymore. In modern-day USA, the former is most often used as an alternative to the word "socialist", and if you compare the Socialist Party's planks from 100 years ago you'll see that modern-day liberals go a lot farther. Anyone who has spent any time studying economic history should know that there is nothing "liberating" about the violent collectivism they advocate!
Your prohibitionist position on abortion violates the self-ownership Rights of the mother, which trump the baby's negative Right to life up to the point of its physical autonomy (i.e. birth). I do sympathize with your position, and hopefully someday technological advances will make it possible to "evict" a "trespassing" fetus without killing it.
(But that's a conversation for a different thread.)
Also, I think it's spinning to say that someone that is against animal testing is against science. The opposite is true, we are pro-science but just in a compassionate way and that is possible. To say that we want regulations that protect the planet means we are anti-business is another unreasonable spin. I'm all for business and I believe in American-style capitalism, but I certainly don't think we have to destroy our future for business gain and business has proven time after time after time that they will do this for profit if we let them. Ultimately that's pro-business because our grandchildren will have a clean and compassionate planet to live in.
There already is a significant bias against animal testing in the free market - it naturally results in negative employee morale, bad publicity, boycotts, etc. But the fact is that there are myriads of cases where animal testing remains the most effective and efficient solution - if it wasn't then companies and universities won't be doing it! You can't be "pro-" something if you want to restrict it! Government violence (aka "laws") that restrict animal testing raise research costs, delay innovations and break-throughs, and result in lower quality-of-life and lower life expectancy for human beings everywhere!
The government-funded "protect the planet" B.S. is debunked elsewhere (ex). All it does is serve the long-standing communist ambitions of imposing a world government, which, in absence of intergovernemntal competition for frame of reference, would be able to get away with things that 20th century tyrants could only dream of! Real unbiased science is completely against them - all they have is fraction-of-one-degree temperature change allegations from studies with multiple-degree error margins, claims that "everything that can be invented has already been invented", and a lot of government-encouraged media spin! Our (great*X) grandchildren will live in the world of space-based solar energy, space-based manufacturing, asteroid mining, high-tech means of protecting species from extinction, etc, etc, etc - all created by the free market, not because of government intervention but in spite of it! Future generations will look at the economically-destructive civilization-threating "global warming" alarmism of the present day the way we look at Aztec mass human sacrifices of the past!
"American-style capitalism" is not real capitalism, but a mixed economy dominated by an all-powerful government and its cronies. Real capitalism (aka pure free market / "Anarcho-" Capitalism) is an advanced post-democratic state that is next to impossible for a civilization to reach prior to mid-21st century level of technology.
You can't paint all vegans with the same brush and stereotype us.
That is exactly what you did just now by saying that vegans have to support "animal rights"! Do people who don't drive for health and economic reasons (like myself) have to support "car rights", like you have to wash your car every week or go to jail?!
Are you actually comparing yourself to these people??
Yes - at times very favorably, though in substance but not yet in impact. And of course I have the great temporal advantage of succeeding them and learning from their mistakes. A rational philosopher should have no sacred cows! (And I mean that in more ways than one.) But that is irrelevant to my original point - if you had been their contemporaries, before they were validated by history, I think you would treat them exactly the same way as you treat me.
Socrates is a troll.
Thanks for an awesome avatar! I'll definitely use on other forums!
(This forum seems to have a "real faces" avatar policy. I use my real name, but my face is just too handsome to casually show online - lest people be swayed by my charisma before they get a chance to fully appreciate the intellectual depth of my arguments. :P )
Choosing battles and no further comment, but I did read the thread above. It's one thing to give information, or try to correct myths to someone sincerely wanting information....as this is a vegan site....but it's another to argue with a nonvegan or defend veganism. Not gonna do that.
If I see the Socrates troll doll on a forum, I'll have a "I was there at the beginning" moment.
If you read some of the things he posted at first he was talking about dissecting and torturing cats or something... i could care less if people disagree with my views but this guy is just being obnoxious
The related threads include "fines for leaving animals out in the cold", which I thought was horrendous, and my "Anarcho-Capitalist criticism of 'animal rights'". Some people here want to initiate violence against people who manage their animal property in ways that contradicts their emotions. I make the rational argument that you have no Right to initiate this violence, but you do have the Right to ostracize / boycott them and use other means of non-violent persuasion instead.
If you force me to choose between being a vegan for health reasons and holding a rational Rights Theory, then veganism goes out the window!
i'm not sure where you made that torturing cats statement but it wasn't in the links above so why are you referring to them?
I was providing a summary of my activity on this forum.
You are using the oldest anti-liberty trick in the book: focusing on the very infrequent extreme examples. There's more to freedom of speech than the idiots of the Westboro Baptist Church. And there's more to the human Right to own non-human animals as property than the extreme example you bring up. People who (in your opinion) misuse their freedom without violating the Rights of others should be dealt with by non-violent means, like through ostracism - not through government force!
It's not simply a matter of "disagreeing with your views", in examples like "fines for leaving animals out in the cold" you are advocating use of violence, and that is something others should take very seriously!
peace, love, and veganess <3 AL
hey we have the same initials :)
I am all for this.
Seriously. Just look at what he wrote on my thread about trying to stop the widespread torture and mutilation of animals at one Factory Farm in PA.
http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=41472.0
Mostly nonsensical, but I also found it rather dangerous and an embarassment to the site.
I won"t argue with people standing up for him, but anyone that puts ideas like that in the forefront of " stopping the widespread torture and mutilation of animals at one Factory Farm", I really have to wonder. But not long. Sounds more like he is here for rabble-rousing. :P
And although some people may find it amusing now - nothing wrong with that, his comments are just laughable - once he starts being a widespread nuisance, he"ll make the whole forum part of the site look bad. Then people won"t want to join because this site is obviously "issue-ridden", etc....
Something I have seen Happen here before.
Nip it in the bud, I say. People will argue - he can just make another account.
Very true, but his style and "thoughts" are outlandish enough to easily identify him again.
Just giving my vote supporting this.
I think every post on threads like this just feeds the situation.
Night, all.
Mostly nonsensical
Perhaps you should spend less time arguing for government violence, and more time developing your reading comprehension skills and pursuing a well-rounded education, so what I wrote will no longer seem "nonsensical" to you.
Can I just ask one question? Is it me or does it seem that you write in a condesending tone? Is it meant that way or does it just come across that way? It's nice to have your own opinion but, why would you feel the need to belittle others? If that is what you are doing. And uh sorry but, just because someone knows a lot about different subjects does not make them better than someone else or give them the right to attack there education.
I am appropriately condescending and resentful toward irrational people who use government violence to force their emotional biases on others, in the process pushing all of human civilization toward a dark age from it may never recover.
Pages