how many free thinkers are here?

Post Reply New Topic

To begin with, f**k is just a word, though perhaps I should be more careful what I say seeing as younger children could come on here and parents could get mad if their children start swearing and see they've been reading my posts.... So for that much I apologize, I do swear alot... But swear words are just words, we're allowed to say other things that mean the exact same thing.
As for personal attacks, people make personal attacks on me all the time because I'm not "liberal" enough, or I'm not "conservative" enough, or I'm "a conspiracy nut" because I've read history books and seen c-span. Rather you agree with what I have to say or not, I atleast have good intentions. But I guess it's better to flame someone with good unbiased intentions than to flame a "normal" dysfunctional (and hince "entertaining") person.

Prove that this is meritorious. Prove that this is the measure of being human. Frankly, I would argue that man cannot be liberated from himself and thus any statement of that nature is nonsense.

We already do the former, and the latter is completely contrary to the interests of most of mankind anyway. Self-serving neanderthals would never do that which is why MAD is considered a deterrent. What would it matter if I am a sociopath? If anything all this shows is that I a freer thinker than you are as I am free of the constriction of normal morality and instead act upon my own values and desires. It must be remembered that some of the most liberating minds were insane.

Let's see, I defend sweatshops as well as a few respectable economists, I defend the legal ability to do that not necessarily the morality of the action as the 2 are different, and the matter of war I believe is simply an iteration of the realist position in international relations that nations act based upon their interests. Really, none of those arguments you put forward is a sign that I deserve flaming, if anything it merely shows that I am a freer thinker as I defy respectability and convention with ease based upon my logic.

I'm not even bringing intentions into this; my point is that you villify yourself by resorting to personal attacks, irrelevant of your position. So, while I might agree with some of the things you say, I'm not going to associate myself with your argument, because of the negative way you present it. Do you see what I mean?

Your gonna grow up to be a lonely old man with no friends, one day you'll need someone's help and people will tell you to f off. When that happens, you'll see how "logical" your attitude has been. The more enemies you make, the more you dig your own grave. It's a process called "action vs. reaction".

Heh, lemme ask you a question AG..... If you were president of the United States, would you seek to overthrow democracy and become a supreme dictator?

Ok, thank goodness I don't have many enemies.

I don't think I would seek such an end, it would be dangerous to try, not only that but I am not sure that it would benefit the long run stability of the United States.

You respond to flames very graciously.

I thank you for your compliment.

What the blue hell? I get flamed all the time for saying things that might be "politically incorrect" but have merit, this guys comes on here and supports sweat shops, war for power, beating his dog for fun, exploiting starving nations for his own benefit, and he gets praised?

Is this your catholic morality gwenyvyn?

You get flamed all of the time for how you express your ideas. Really though, merit is often found in the eye of the beholder. I don't consider myself praised for being a good person, but rather simply in not being as discourteous as you are in this conversation.

How is this a matter of much morality, she didn't say I was moral, she said that she thought I was doing something well. A statement others have been kind enough to give you in this thread as well, notably the admiration in Lindarthebard for your description of society. I think she would oppose my political views, but being wrong in one area doesn't mean that one isn't right in another and I think that a catholic morality would likely appreciate that aspect given that most Christian theology does state that man is fallen and cannot be perfect.

Whoa snake you need to calm down. I thought I was a cynical and arrogant, but you make me look like a monk compared to you. You are always saying that we need to deviate from our selfish human nature because of all the problems it causes in modern society. Look at yourself! How can you expect people to take you seriously when you flame and cuss at people that disagree with you? Your behaviour that you display on these forums is the very essence of human animal behaviour that you 'preach' against.


I have some respect for AG, he made me realize how much of a arrogant hypocrite I am. I was also ignoring some key logic because of my arrogance.
I now consider deviating completely from our nature is impossible, "It is inconceivable how much we are driven by one illogical drive or another, and to claim we can escape them is to ignore how important these things are for us." Our nature is a permanent part of our minds and can't be ignored.

There's probably little I could add to what has already been said. AG is correct in his guesses as to my thoughts. I do not agree with some of his positions, but I like the civil tone he has maintained. For many of us, that sort of charity doesn't come easily, and it is a very useful skill to have.

I was hoping not to make snake feel insulted, but rather to offer some encouragement for the good behavior I did see.

Sometimes when we have a good point to make, but we present it in a confrontational manner, we miss our chance to make a difference. I can understand your anger over some of the issues that are important to you, snake. I think it's important to learn to form, temper, and direct that passion in a way more conducive to productive dialogue. I'm not claiming to have the key--I'm sure I come across as a jerk, too, in many circumstances--but I have been very pleased over the past few years to note that as my tone became less acerbic, people's ears became more open to what I'd been wanting to communicate.

It's not as hard as it sounds, before all this 9/11 crap people actually had a universal common sense morality that understood screwing people over was wrong. Because people weren't so lazy about challenging their impulses, and didn't use human nature as an excuse or a crutch. Did people get out of line sometimes? Yes, but in general people were more able to put their animal in check long enough to make rational decisions and were better able to compromise. Of coarse your not gonna become some perfect superhuman, but hell it's not impossible to ask oneself why they think or feel the way they do about things.
So your an admitted hypocrite, and rather than try to improve you use it as a crutch to lean on in order to keep acting that way. This is why nothing you say will hold any validity debating anymore because you can say "oh so and so shouldn't do this or that" but then you go out an do whatever your accusing whoever of doing.
I am angry to a large degree because I live in a society where 95% of the people are sociopaths and don't even try to improve. It's not beyond our capabilities to challenge some of these things, this liberal/conservative mentality wasn't around before 9/11. Now days America has became a highschool, clique-ish nation where someone identifies with one view from a party, and then blindly follows everything else that party believes without question and gets defensive whenever someone speaks the unbiased truth. Sociopathy isn't normal because 95% of society says it is, this type of mentality is dangerous.

But I'm sure most people find it entertaining, and afterall it's all about being entertained Peoples' livelihood and well being is a game to the ruling elite, right?