h a l f b a k e r yThink of it as a spell checker that insults you, as well.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Commercial:
(Disturbed looking citizen driving to work listening to
radio) "Thought crime at all-time high, Good Citizenship
Training camps filling up." (switches dial) "Love and
Happiness
party executes another 50,000 negative attitude non-
compliants." (turns radio off, looks angry.)
(siren
and flashing lights from black patrol car behind
startle driver who pulls over as black clad officer walks
up to window holding what appears to be a ticket
clipboard)
"Hello citizen, looks like you've had a little too much to
think." (opens up the ticket box and pulls out a Big
Brother's Mind-Numbing Tea Biscuit and hands it to the
driver. As the driver eats it, the voice over
announcement accompanies the graphic.)
"In today's troubling and challenging world, we're all
trying our best to follow the dictates of our glorious Love
And Happiness party leaders, but loss of non-compliant
loved ones and stresses about personal thought
compliance can cause unwanted stress. But now there's
Big Brother's Mind-Numbing Tea Biscuits. 11 essential
mind controlling sedatives mixed into this tasty treat
calm the troubled mind and the envious spirit. Plus,
break it open and receive a positive message from your
loving leaders to help you get through these stressful
times. "COMPLY", "SUBMIT", "QUESTIONING YOUR LEADERS
IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH". Graphic shows arrows going to
the brain indicating chemicals going from the stomach to
the head, crossing out bad thoughts, like "I miss my
parents", "I miss my home that was taken away due to
my laughing at a joke that was deemed counter to the
good of the people" etc."
(shot shows the thought cop nodding and walking away
while the driver eats the tasty treat. Voice over says
"Time to unwind with Big Brother's Mind-Numbing Tea
Biscuits. You'll love them! Or else!" (Final shot is a
closeup of the now happy driver smiling and continuing
on their way, but the camera pulls away and we see that
the driver is just sitting in the car still at the side of the
road un- aware that they're not moving.)
We Happy Few
https://www.wehappyfewgame.com/
[Voice, Dec 06 2020]
cannabis cookies do the same thing
https://helloganja....p-cookies-for-sale/
[xandram, Dec 07 2020]
Lift Restrictions on Unprocessed Materials
Lift Restrictions o...processed Materials
Decriminalisation - a possible mid-way point. [zen_tom, Dec 07 2020]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Marvelous. Does the box have a picture of Big Biden, sorry, Brother on it ? |
|
| |
Hmm, you're asking a lot of questions citizen, can I have
your social ranking number? LOL, just kidding we already
have it. |
|
| |
I mean, I, doctorremulac3 already have it and he has not
been taken away for education for posting parodies
disrespectful of our glorious leadership class. I am that
3rd doctor guy who's a remulac or whatever and I DON'T
have your social ranking number in our database... my
database... there is no database. I'm not your local
thought crimes detection unit because those don't exist. |
|
| |
Ah, another one who asks "too many questions" and is clearly eager to spend some time in a "re-education" camp. |
|
| |
// What doesn't exist? // |
|
| |
Everything except you. Do we have to teach you Phenomenology again ? |
|
| |
// What doesn't exist? // |
|
| |
(speaking into hidden mic) "Central control, we have another
one for the de-education
camps." |
|
| |
I remember seeing a cream ceramic phenomenological head in an antiques shop. It had black lines and writing on it but I don't remember what they said. |
|
| |
Since cannabis has become legal in many of our
states, mine being one of them, There are plenty
of mind numbing cookies and biscuits and candies
available. See link |
|
| |
// I don't remember what they said.// |
|
| |
They said "I am the only real object; everything else is an illusion", or in your case, the product of a deranged imagination* |
|
| |
Or maybe you just think you remember that ? Can you trust your memories ? |
|
| |
Do you remember the spider that lived in a bush outside your window? |
|
| |
Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about your mother ... |
|
| |
*Quite possibly belonging to [Ian Tindale] |
|
| |
Speaking of the drug thing, I've always supported
de-criminalization, but this new wave of
legalization smacks of support for a drugged
population and more tax dollars to the leadership
class. |
|
| |
I'd support it more if it was written like this: |
|
| |
"To stop the horror of millions of people being
locked up for drug use, I, presidentremulac3
declare that all drugs are now legal. However,
there are two important additions to my decree: |
|
| |
1- Civil penalties still apply. If your drug hurts
somebody, you can, and will be sued into oblivion. |
|
| |
2- Legalization does not mean endorsement. On
the contrary, ALL taxes from the sale of legal
drugs will go to programs to get people off this
horrible crap. The remulac3 government will NOT
profit off
the misery of others." |
|
| |
Then I'd be sure not to celebrate by taking a drive
in a top down limo in Dallas. |
|
| |
//If your drug hurts somebody, you can, and will be sued into oblivion// |
|
| |
Hello? Is that the white house? Is that President Remulac3's private secretary? Can I speak to the president please? Who is it, you say? I'm calling on behalf of the tobacco and alcohol industries. Thank you... Hello Mr President, now about clause 1 of your latest decree.. yes thank you, I'm glad you understand without me having to spell it out. How soon can you issue your retraction? Half an hour, you say? I suppose we can wait that long. Thank you and have a nice day. And don't forget, you really must check with us first before you do anything rash in the future. |
|
| |
// before you do anything rash // |
|
| |
That's a nasty rash you've got there [poc], have you been taking any medication ? You can sue, you know ... |
|
| |
Corr, scary imaginary world [drremulac] on the
surface, it's like ours, only with a load of made
up stuff about thought-crime and compliance fed to
you directly by the right-wing media. Somewhat
ironically, to control you - and well done, you're
lapping it up! Congratulations citizen, keep up the
good work. Next time around, if we can recruit a
few more of you, we might not have to invent
stories about fraudulent elections to keep our grip
on power, but in the meantime, keep drinking the
coolaid and imagining our (waggles fingers) ~spooky~world~!! Thanks citizen. |
|
| |
For your scheduled forty minute hate please refer to the campaign rally diary for tickets
and
merchandise. Remember your mantras.
Lock her up! Stop the steal! Build that wall! and everyone's
favorite; Four more years! |
|
| |
On decriminalisation, I still think there's legs in the idea of allowing raw materials, but
licensing processing and the processed end-product. Few drugs are dangerously potent in
their raw form, and if you allowed them to pass borders, you'd quickly remove a lot of the
danger-money and artificial price hikes that are at the root of much of the criminality
behind the drug market. If nobody is making millions, few will be bothered to setup abusive
slave labour working conditions, in just the same way that you don't hear about criminal
wheat farmers, or rival avocado-smuggling gang punishment beatings. |
|
| |
Hi alcohol and tobacco industry, I've scheduled a
meeting for us at the Whitehouse at 12:00 noon
next Monday. I've invited members from the
American Bar Association too. We're going to all sit
down and discuss problems your products have
caused and my proposed solution. |
|
| |
I'll be passing the "Responsible Executives Reward
Act" which allows executives who reduce the use
of their products to receive tax benefits that will
make you wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. |
|
| |
Here's how it works. Bob you're the CEO of RJ
Reynolds and you make a couple of million a year.
If you reduce the sales of your products somehow,
and I'll leave how to do that that up to you, your
tax bill will be reduced by twice the amount you've
decreased the use of your product. So if you
reduce the use of your product by 50%, your tax
bill will go to zero. Now I know what you're
thinking you slimy devil, the people will just get it
elsewhere. Then you don't get the tax break. Sorry
pal, you want the money, you solve the problem. |
|
| |
Now if this puts you at odds with your
shareholders, I don't care, I'm presidentremulac3,
remember my campaign slogan "I don't give a
shit.". |
|
| |
I'll expect your plans to be on my desk for review
at 8:00 Monday and see you for lunch at 12:00.
We're having keto friendly barbecue. |
|
| |
Zen tom, so does the zen refer to you being well
balanced and happy or something, because you're
very hateful, nasty and ugly. Your solutions to
everything are simple "Hate the group I've been
told to hate, put somebody into that group
whether they
belong in it or not because, as a sheep, I do what
I'm told." |
|
| |
Wolves don't give a shit what the sheep think. |
|
| |
It doesn't mean much at all really, just seemed
like
a good idea 16 or more years ago and kind of stuck. |
|
| |
//because you're very hateful, nasty and ugly//
Not sure what you mean about that, aren't we just
making up stuff and having fun? Sorry you didn't
like
my little made-up fantasy. I tried to make mine in
line with the themes you'd already set up. Sorry it
provoked such a sharp reaction. Maybe chill out, or
dare I say it, try being a bit more "zen". Whatever
that means. |
|
| |
Discussion of individual issues, not simple minded
mono-tribalism. It's a good thing. |
|
| |
And mono-tribalism, (a word I just made up) is the
practice of thinking your tribe is perfect all the time
and other tribes are wrong all the time. |
|
| |
I don't belong to a tribe. Tribes are slow and dumb. |
|
| |
Cool, me neither you over sensitive shit-bag! (psst,
that was a joke) |
|
| |
//Cool, me neither you over sensitive shit-bag! (psst,
that was a joke)
— zen_tom, Dec 07 2020// |
|
| |
Here's my problem with mindless, brain dead tribalist slug-farts like you. A
discussion gets interesting then you over
sensitive shit-bags parade into the room waving some dumb-shit tribal flag like
anybody gives a fuck. Yea, right wing media is bad,
what the fuck does that have to do with anything
being discussed here? |
|
| |
That's more like it. Jokes are there to be laughed at, not thought-policed, which I thought
was your point. Now please feel free to carry on with a renewed sense of calm and inner well
being. |
|
| |
OK, so with that out of the way, and having mutually agreed to ignore the overtly tribal
spin, what's the //discussion of individual issues// supposed to be going on here? A drugged
biscuit? Like the idea of a soma holiday or a valium assisted afternoon? Both these things
are fairly well known, pre-existing ideas - the first from science fiction, and the second an
actual thing albeit a stereotype, just without the carbohydrate content. |
|
| |
Then bone it without the virtue signaling foaming
at the mouth moron bullshit. |
|
| |
Maybe you're actually a smart guy Zen, does this injected
commentary on right wing this or Fox news that
achieve anything except for grinding the discussion
of complicated topics to a halt? |
|
| |
If you are smart, say the smart stuff you're capable
of. This discussion just got really interesting
talking about how you mitigate damages caused by
dangerous products while retaining a free market
that takes into consideration that people are going
to use these products anyway no matter what the
law says as witnessed by decades of failed
prohibition. |
|
| |
You solve THAT problem, I will be very impressed
and will say "This Zen Tom guy solved a vexing
problem brilliantly." I'm a man of my word, I will. I
don't care if you called me a... whatever it was, I
forgot it already. You come up with something
brilliant, you're getting the kudos you deserve,
understanding that kudos from me and 5 cents will
get you a cup of coffee if you have a time
machine. |
|
| |
I don't have the solution, that's why I throw ideas
out there to be destroyed if necessary. Maybe one
will survive, who knows? |
|
| |
THAT is much more interesting than talking about
Fox news and WAAAAAY more interesting than us
calling each other names like a couple of idiots. |
|
| |
No it's not ... don't stop now, it's getting fun. We're hoping for the face-slapping followed by a choice of swords or pistols, or at the very least fisticuffs, spilled drinks, smashed glass and broken furniture. |
|
| |
Look, I see a bunch of tribal ideas about compliance and political correctness, parroting the usual
right-wing tropes, hyping up something that
isn't close to objective reality, and responded with my natural reaction, a lampoon of the same set of
ideas from my non-tribal objective
standpoint - if I took some fantastic leeway, it seemed appropriate given you'd set the fictional
boundaries right at the start (your idea is
written in the form of a kind of narrative, so in my eyes, that is kind of permission for others to do
likewise) Those ideas interest me - how
this narrative of political correctness seems to have taken root without any actual substantive reason.
It fascinates me to be honest. |
|
| |
But you're not interested in that line of discussion - so you'd rather shut it down. Fair enough, it's
your idea - and for you, those thoughts
are off limits. End of discussion, I understand. |
|
| |
On the legalisation thing, where is that in the idea? It kind of came up in the comments. And yes, that
is an interesting idea. After having had
my fun, you'll notice I did (I hope) contribute to the interesting part of the discussion (I even added
a link) nobody seems to have picked up on that
since you
threw your toys out of the pram. If that line of discussion is ok, then here I am, please feel free to
comment. |
|
| |
//at the very least fisticuffs, spilled drinks, smashed glass and broken furniture.//
[8th] don't encourage him, what the good doctor needs is a cup of tea and a jolly good lie down. |
|
| |
//But you're not interested in that line of
discussion - so you'd rather shut it down.// |
|
| |
Oh Hell no I won't. I get into the ring, I'll leave
when
they carry one of us out. |
|
| |
So am I correct in seeing that you've suggested sort
of a "soft prohibition" via taxation on the raw
materials that
supply the drug trade to change or control the
supply lines? |
|
| |
I have to run now but I'll be back to rumble
throughout the day. (or learn something from a
different perspective) This is getting interesting
now. |
|
| |
Yes, in a fair amount of detail. |
|
| |
The tl;dr version is based on the observation: |
|
| |
"Even in the prohibition days, we didn't impose controls on grains, sugar, hops or fruit - just the derivatives
of these when processed into alcohol." |
|
| |
And there's an argument that if you applied the same standard to illegal drugs, tobacco and other commodities,
you'd do a great deal of good (using the power of economics) with a relatively simple and logical legal
principle. |
|
| |
It wasn't that well received at the time I wrote it, but it seemed pertinent to the part of the conversation
you
just said you were interested in, before derailing it with your sensitivities. The crux is to legalise all the
natural precursors to any manufactured
drug, pulling the mat out from beneath any criminal enterprise that needs the fuel of illicit money to sustain
itself. In addition, it (at least in
my eyes) benefits from not suffering from the weird idea of anything that grows in nature being illicit. Like
how can a plant, minding its own
business growing in a field, be illegal? Doesn't sit well with me, that idea. |
|
| |
//before derailing it with your sensitivities.// |
|
| |
You're getting repetitive with your insults and
therefore boring so I didn't bother reading the rest of
the post. |
|
| |
Oh, you should, he said a lot of really nasty things about you, and your family and stuff. You're not going to let him get away with that, are you ? Go on, give him a poke. Hit him. Want some more whisky ? Go on, you can take him down easy ... |
|
| |
And I'm not interested in your tetchiness but have it
your way, it's your idea. I'll gently bow out here. |
|
| |
No, wait, don't, didn't you hear [doc] ? He said "You smell bad and your Mother dresses you funny". |
|
| |
And he's "having tremendous difficulty with his lifestyle", too. |
|
| |
//Like how can a plant, minding its own business growing in a field, be illegal?// |
|
| |
How do they get the illegal into the plant? Was that, like, a Monsanto thing? What if the PCR test for the genes for illegal are run with too man replications, leading to misleading reports of an epidemic of illegal? If some pollen from the illegal plant blows into a neighbour's field, will he be harassed for unwittingly planting the resultant seed? |
|
| |
Or is there some kind of directed energy device that irradiates the illegal, thus transforming the plants at a distance? Is that what the HARP antennas are really for? Do stoners need to wear a tinfoil hat so that the illegal can't get in and harsh their buzz?</sarcasm> |
|
| |
There's no such thing as "illegal". It's just a stupid lie in the same vein as the divine right of kings, or the need to worship the Pharaoh to make the Nile flood. Get over it, and start living your own lives already. |
|
| |
According to a question asked in all seriousness of the much-missed and highly authoritative MaxwellBuchanan, it would be extremely easy to insert the genes for THC into any number of commonplace plants, and indeed weeds - potatoes and nettles were prime candidates. |
|
| |
In fact, there's no way of knowing that this hasn't already been done. The challenge would be getting the varietal to breed true, generation after generation. |
|
| |
And I'm making the serious point that it doesn't matter what labels you use to disguise the nature of your death cult, the results are never fun. |
|
| |
Church -> Unholy -> Inquisition |
|
| |
Government -> Illegal -> Police |
|
| |
People are in deep denial about the plain, in-your-face reality of men and women in near-black (formerly blue) gang colours, going around with devices to inflict torture and death on people who do nothing more than disobey the arbitrary whims of a would-be ruling class. |
|
| |
Sadly, I wanted to ask MaxwellBuchanan a question like this: As strange and unlikely-sounding as these things called "DNA", "plasmids", "genes", etc. sound, I'm sure that you could convince anyone with intelligence, patience, and an open mind that they are Real Things. You could start by spointing to the round jelly slabs with the fuzzy blobs, and the square jelly slabs with the fuzzy blue rectangles. In other words, there is objective, real-world evidence, beyond someone's say-so. |
|
| |
Now, can you show me any objective facts that demonstrate the existence of "government", "illegal", "president", etc., beyond mere costumes, words, and rituals? |
|
| |
Films such as The Matrix and They Live are good allegories of the fantasy world that members of the religion called statism inhabit; but the best allegory I can think of for people saying such absurd things as [such-and-such] "is" (or worse, "should be") "legal" or "illegal" is The Human Centipede (warning - you will not be able to un-watch The Human Centipede). |
|
| |
For anyone playing along at home, if you think I'm the one who's being absurd, that's fine; but try writing down what the word "illegal" is pointing at in the real world. |
|
| |
A forensic team finish their tea break, pull on their white
suits
and amble over to the site of the brief flame war. |
|
| |
"Let's see, we've got 'THEY are controlling your thoughts',
we've
got 'moral equivalence of Left and Right - are they or aren't
they?', and we've got some drugs. |
|
| |
You want some carefully balanced historical context? OK,
order
the pizzas, this could take a while." |
|
| |
First, thought-control. Every time I smile and say good
morning,
I am trying to control someone's thoughts, in the direction
of
making them (a) happier and (b) better disposed towards
me. In
this sense, there is nothing wrong with thought-control. |
|
| |
So, when is thought-control bad? Probably when it denies
agency to the person whose thoughts are being controlled.
Specifically, bad thought-control is characterised by one or
more
of three things, namely coercion, covertness and
completeness.
When I say good morning, my control is not coercive,
because
the person greeted has the option of telling me to fuck off.
My
control is not covert, because everyone, including the
addressee, can see what I'm doing. My control is not
complete,
because it is limited to a very small part of the person's
mental
state. |
|
| |
To what extent, then, is bad thought-control a real thing,
and to
what extent can blame for it be apportioned to Left or
Right? |
|
| |
{The team is now adjourning for another tea break.} |
|
| |
Regarding the first question, that fascinating living fossil
Noam Chomsky directs us to
consider one Edward Bernays as the pioneer of the field.
Regarding the second question,
Bernays was a man of the Left - specifically, the Freudian
Left (as opposed to the Marxian
Left - the co-opetition between these two Lefts is a whole
other story). |
|
| |
Chomsky believes, with horror, that Bernays was telling the
truth when he claimed to be
able to manufacture consent by a rigorous process of
engineering, which would meet the
second criterion of "bad thought-control" which I listed
above (namely, covertness), though
not the other two. Chomsky believes that, although the
concept was invented by a man of
the Left, it has since been adopted by the Right with
devastating effect, and many people
on the Left seem to agree with Chomsky in this opinion,
and
have done for some time (see, for
example, Huxley's "Brave New World Revisited" of 1958). |
|
| |
Fortunately, contra Chomsky, Bernays was full of shit, (and
Huxley, by 1958, was in his
dotage). |
|
| |
As quoted in Wikipedia, Bernays wrote this: |
|
| |
"But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given [the common
man] a rubber stamp, a rubber
stamp inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with
published scientific data, with the
trivialities of tabloids and the profundities of history, but quite
innocent of original thought.
Each man's rubber stamp is the twin of millions of others, so
that
when these millions are
exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints." |
|
| |
And what's wrong with that? Well, compare it with the most
recent
moral panic about thought-
control, namely, the one surrounding targeted messaging in
social
media in 2016. That panic
arose from the practice of algorithmically stalking
individuals around the Internet. If Bernays had been right about
each man's "rubber stamp"
being "the twin of millions of others", than that stalking, and that
precise targeting, would have been a complete
waste of time. |
|
| |
So, the moral panic about thought-control in, say, 1958, and the
very similar new one, dating
from 2016, can't both be right, and I suggest they're probably
both
wrong. |
|
| |
But that's only addressed one kind of bad thought-control,
namely, the covert kind. There's also ... |
|
| |
Never mind, this thread has gone off in a different direction now. |
|
| |
//Now, can you show me any objective facts
that demonstrate the existence of "government",
"illegal", "president", etc., beyond mere costumes,
words, and rituals?// |
|
| |
Like I've always said, it's about the hats. Hats that
denote self appointed leadership have been around
since the first caveman balanced a wolf skull on
top of his head and said that made him the village
leader. Much later we had crowns, but skulls were
probably the first invention used to rule over
people. |
|
| |
That's it. That's where leadership and power over
other people comes from. It's been fine tuned over
the centuries but it's all about the hats. |
|
| |
That and being able to kill people who question
the divinity of your wolf skull hat, crown etc. |
|
| |
//it's about the hats// I agree. Go to a meeting of senior world religious figures and take your "I-Spy book of ceremonial hats" with you and you will score the most points ever. |
|
| |
Exactly. The pope’s massive towering hat wasn’t
designed to keep the rain off his head. |
|
| |
Dear Forensic department, there's a big difference between "mind control" which sounds a bit far fetched, and "narrative management" which I think is fairly
uncontroversial in terms of being objectively real. |
|
| |
Telling stories, and framing narratives isn't new - but in the past, it's normally been possible except in the most extreme examples to mitigate by exposure to a
wide distribution of ideas out in public life. |
|
| |
Today however, technology makes it more possible to construct walled theaters where certain narratives thrive, and others are rejected. I don't think it's
controversial to point that out when we see it happening. |
|
| |
For example, take the "mindcrime" narrative spelled out in the idea above - the idea that "non-compliant loved ones" can be picked up and executed due to
"negative attidude"s - which as [8th] notices in his first annotation mirrors that right-wing US politics narrative that Democrats operate in some kind of
"thought police" mode. That's not a narrative I have been directly exposed to (not living in the US or consuming US right-wing media) and so it comes across as
being both parochial in terms of the context, but is also clearly the product of similar tropes generated, I assume, by the people who want to replace actual,
rational debate, with what you see demonstrated here, high-level emotional dissonance. Meanwhile, having seen clips of Trump rallies full of people drinking in
this world-view with gusto and literally chanting 3-syllable slogans, reminds me a great deal of the 4-minute hate of Orwell's 1984. It seems ironic that many of
these people believe that they are freedom-loving, independently minded people, largely because it seems that's precisely what they've been told. They are the
wolves, and "the left"* are the sheep, apparently. |
|
| |
This emotional narrative that "the left" (or anyone not in agreement) are shutting down debate through thought policing is poisonously ironic, because the net
effect is to shut down debate. |
|
| |
It may not have been deliberately lab-grown or engineered for that purpose, but that is the effect. No mind-control necessary, just a set of shared beliefs. What
is happening in the US right now in terms of all this post-election nonsense is a direct consequence. Though mind control does become a theme in 1984, I don't
think it's directly raised here. All that has to happen is for people to believe the narrative that "thought police" are real and that this somehow mirrors
today's lived experience, that you can be locked up just for being politically incorrect - not only is it demonstrably false, but it serves to actively destroy
intelligent discourse - as demonstrated here. |
|
| |
The "moral panic" of 2016 isn't or wasn't about mind control, it remains a sensible reaction to clear attempts to reframe reality by people with an inordinate
amount of media reach. You don't get quite the same problem across the globe because media is more balanced (or perhaps just differently skewed) in other parts
of the world. The problem we have, that we've never really faced before without total state control over the media is "alternative facts" and how with
technology, these can remain unchallenged - enabling entirely false world views to build and exert a very real and potent effect on our lives - both to the
people who believe in them, but increasingly, thanks to an increasingly hacked democracy, for the people who don't. Check out the levels of emotion demonstrated
here when a long-held narrative is challenged. Not good for rational discourse of ideas. |
|
| |
* I do sometimes wish I was on "the left", but they too have their own tribal ideas that I'm not a party to - I don't think they're as well developed though. All
I'm interested in is objectivity and a return to a bit of old fashioned competence and plain speaking. Until many of these false narratives are watered down or
gently challenged though, I fear that's going to take a long time. In the meantime, ironically, the thought police will continue to challenge me whenever I point
this out, as it's a point of view that to some, it seems, is totally unacceptable and punishable with anger, insult and ungentlemanly behaviour. |
|
| |
Or maybe [drremulac] was just having a bad day - I hope today's a better one. |
|
| |
Irrespective, this false trope (among others) needs challenging since it enables demonstrably bad things to happen. Bad things that affect all of us and our
ability to live happy, free and purposeful lives. |
|
| |
[spidermother] I don't think you're being absurd, but legal or illegal, people get sent to prison - doesn't it make sense to try and align law with some kind of
self-consistent rationality? I agree, the law is an invention, but shouldn't that be an even stronger argument for it being built on some foundation of common
principles? It ought to be something we use to make the world a better place - and I know it often isn't. But isn't that something we should all be trying to
sort out? It seems to be being rational would be a reasonable starting place. |
|
| |
Couldn't stay awake through the rambling,
nonsensical screed above, but I've just enjoyed a
handful of Big Brother's Mind Numbing Tea Biscuits
and realized that massively huge increasingly
powerful governments like they have in China, and
self appointed permanently entrenched ruling
classes really ARE a great thing and I need to stop
questioning them. If they didn't have the people's
best interest at heart, why would they strive for
un-challenged dominion over them? |
|
| |
I want to be a good citizen who does what he's
told, doesn't question authority and knows his
place. |
|
| |
Good boy, now please feel free to continue your
intellectually stimulating and fully government-
sanctioned discussion about hats. |
|
| |
If you ever do want to engage on a meaningful level,
I'm always ready to have a polite and civil
discussion. Have a great day. |
|
| |
Did you notice how the idea said nothing about
your specific precious ruling class, yet you read
into it that I was zeroing in on your chosen
unquestionable beloved leaders and felt the need
to defend them? |
|
| |
It's like if I started talking about finding who stole
the mind control cookies from the cookie jar
and somebody starts rambling on about how he
was never near the cookie jar, and if he was, it
was because he was looking for a fork, and if it
wasn't because he was looking for a fork, it was
because he was putting a fork back. |
|
| |
Me thinks thou protesteth too much eh? |
|
| |
Zen, if you're going to start a debate,
and you DID start this debate, don't get all butt-
hurt if somebody fights back and makes you look like the idiot you are. |
|
| |
//If you ever do want to engage on a meaningful level// |
|
| |
I'll talk to somebody who's not a brainwashed idiot. |
|
| |
Ho-HO_ho Santa said. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a
goodnight. |
|
| |
Yes, I'm ready to tuck this one in. |
|
| |
To be honest, I'm a bit confused by your reaction DR, I've
been nothing but civil, and I think, expressed my views
with a degree of sincerity and candour. If you read into
that a degree of butt hurt, I'm sorry, but try and look past
that if you can, it seems to be something in your
imagination, and your imagination alone. Try rereading
what we've both said, and ask yourself who it is who's
being the most emotional out of the two of us. I'm not
trying to wind you up - but it's genuinely confusing to get
this reaction in response to what I honestly believe is me
being sensible, rational and level-headed. Anyone else,
please fill me in, am I missing anything here? |
|
| |
[edit] OK, if you delete your posts, they do kind of make mine read somewhat
out of context. Still genuinely confused, but have it your way Doc. |
|
| |
Dude, let it go. I'm not even reading these now. |
|
| |
If you don't like talking to somebody why would you
talk to them? Let's all center our chi, eat some
dolphin safe tuna and get on with our lives. |
|
| |