Peeing standing up is way better than sitting down to do it. For some reason, the german culture is really keen on making men sit down to pee, but I'm standing my ground!

>> ^kymbos:

Why would you ring the head of another state to offer them a biscuit?


I don't know. 'cos their Sarah Palins neighbours?

OTOH maybe if international diplomacy always started with the generous offer of biscuitude the world wouldn't be so fucked up. Maybe that's the solution to the middle east?

Hey jews, we don't like you!
Yeah well, we're not too keen on you arab guys either!
That said, I do like biscuits.
Really? Me too! Also I don't like pork.
Wow, us too! Let's put this whole thing behind us, come round and we'll have pork free biscuits!

and thus was the world saved thanks to me.

You're welcome.

Ignoring the video - which is typical bilge - I'll move on to actual substance. Here is the crux of the current panic that is gripping the Warmies... Their empire is crumbling and they know it. Hence, they are lashing out in panic and anger. This is typical of most socialist scams when they go belly-up, as is further evidenced by the riots in Europe and elsewhere.

The Warmies have always had a particularly ugly sow’s ear they were desperately trying to turn into a silk purse. Their primary concern has never been the cliimate. Their sole objectives have always been entirely oriented around the creation of expensive programs which force human beings to accept decreased standards of living, reduced freedoms, higher taxes, less food, costly commodities, limited transportation, and onerous regulations. In exchange for all these burdens, humanity was to be provided a very nebulous ‘benefit’ (0.001% lower C02) which was by no means even guaranteed by the implementation of their draconian measures. That’s a tough bottle of snake oil to sell, even IF you have ironclad proof of your argument. And of course when it came right down do it the problem with the Warmies' argument was that they NEVER had proof of any kind beyond fabrications, exaggerations, and fevered imagination.

One of the main problems with all you Warmies is that you can't put forward a position. You talk about 'scientific proof' of 'climate change'. Pht. You don't need the rigor of scientific method to tell anyone that the climage changes. Dur dur dur. Everyone accepts the premise that Earth's climate is not static. Wow - what a keen observation.

Where the Warmies have lost the argument is thier plaintive, inaccurate, unproven position that HUMAN C02 emmissions are (A) what changes the climate and (B) the climate can be changed by reducing human C02. There was never any evidence of that position. But Warmies love to muddle terminology and pretend that just because 'scientists' agree that climate is changing (again - not much of an accomplishment) that also all those scientists agree that human activity is responsible for it (which they most decidedly do NOT).

Add on top of that the fundamental reality that many of the cornerstones of the APG Warmie movement have been proven to be complete bunk. Just this week the Polar Bear guy was proven by a federal probe to be completely full of crap. He had no data that bears were dying because of human activity as he claiimed. The hockey stick chart - falsified. East Anglia university data - the numbers are cooked. The IPCC panels - all thier data is bad and the majority of thier claims have all been debunked and failed. Time and time again when you put the Warmies under the microscope of REAL SCIENCE, the argument completely falls apart.

The video has it completely backwards. It is not FOX & conservatives who are faking thier way. The entire climate change movement and all its acolytes are the ones who are lying to accomplish a biased, incorrect, inaccurate, anti-science objective entirely for political purposes.

Hmmmmm.....so liberalism in America has spawned Teabaggers and right wing republicans? 'Cause those lines would describe their profile and behavior very well.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I think the DailyMail put their arrow in the gold on this. These aren't race riots. This is merely the end result of socialism as a matter of public policy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html
The money quote...
"So there we have it: a large, amoral, brutalised sub-culture of young British people who lack education because they have no will to learn, and skills which might make them employable. ... They have no code of values to dissuade them from behaving anti-socially or, indeed, criminally, and small chance of being punished if they do so. They have no sense of responsibility for themselves, far less towards others, and look to no future beyond the next meal, sexual encounter or TV football game.
They are an absolute deadweight upon society, because they contribute little and yet cost the taxpayer billions. Liberal opinion holds they are victims, because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential. Most of us would say this is nonsense. Rather, they are victims of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live."
Thus, the fruits of liberal left-wing ideology on society. This is socialism's end-product.: fractuous, wasted societies that drift from illusion to nothing with only fits of rage to break the monotony. HG Wells said it well in "The Time Machine". 'We are kept keen on the grindstone of pain and necessity...' Socialism's constant condemnation of the grindstones of discipline, consequence, thrift, respect, and earnestness produce nothing but cretins such as these rioting yobs. With no whetting to smooth men into tools, they remain primitive stones suitable for little but fruitlessly hurling themselves at the windows of the industrious.

I think the DailyMail put their arrow in the gold on this. These aren't race riots. This is merely the end result of socialism as a matter of public policy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html

The money quote...

"So there we have it: a large, amoral, brutalised sub-culture of young British people who lack education because they have no will to learn, and skills which might make them employable. ... They have no code of values to dissuade them from behaving anti-socially or, indeed, criminally, and small chance of being punished if they do so. They have no sense of responsibility for themselves, far less towards others, and look to no future beyond the next meal, sexual encounter or TV football game.

They are an absolute deadweight upon society, because they contribute little and yet cost the taxpayer billions. Liberal opinion holds they are victims, because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential. Most of us would say this is nonsense. Rather, they are victims of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live."

Thus, the fruits of liberal left-wing ideology on society. This is socialism's end-product.: fractuous, wasted societies that drift from illusion to nothing with only fits of rage to break the monotony. HG Wells said it well in "The Time Machine". 'We are kept keen on the grindstone of pain and necessity...' Socialism's constant condemnation of the grindstones of discipline, consequence, thrift, respect, and earnestness produce nothing but cretins such as these rioting yobs. With no whetting to smooth men into tools, they remain primitive stones suitable for little but fruitlessly hurling themselves at the windows of the industrious.

>> ^dgandhi:
When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you. Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority. And instead of addressing the concept directly, you hide behind vapid arrogance and resort to personal attacks. Bravo!
>> ^dgandhi:
Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit. I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.
>> ^dgandhi:
Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.
I never said it was an object. Actually, I've previously said objects are only representations of property.

production
–noun
1.the act of producing; creation; manufacture.
2.something that is produced; a product.
3.Economics . the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.

So where does production come from again?
>> ^dgandhi:
Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact? I did just clearly demonstrate it. Care to prove it false?
>> ^dgandhi:
So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that. And I’m the one that’s six? One argument you ignore the literal meaning, the next you cling to it. Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?
>> ^dgandhi:

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case. I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract? I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.
>> ^dgandhi:
Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true. And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

>> ^marbles:
Then you wouldn’t need to quote other ideologies to make that point.

When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you.

>> ^marbles:

Don’t feign ignorance. Marxism is based on the collective's right to the individual.


Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit.

>> ^dgandhi:
Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from.

>> ^marbles:

Production comes from nowhere. Thanks for clearing that up.


Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.

>> ^marbles:

There’s no test needed, it’s inherent to human life. If I build a net, then I rightfully own it. If I catch fish with my net, then I rightfully own the fish.

Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact?

>> ^marbles:

Liberty is self-ownership. If you believe someone else can own you (e.g. selling yourself), then you don’t believe in liberty. Nice try though.

So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that.

>> ^marbles:

No, I said you were wrong regardless of whether or not you accepted my property claims. And your current social contract is meaningless if you decide to violate my liberty.

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case.

Of course I know that your case, clearly stated, falls in on itself, I'm beginning to think that you know it too.

>> ^marbles:

Production doesn’t come from anywhere, remember? How about you prove this is true: If I steal something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.


Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true.

I agree...I will have to visit chat more if everyone gets that keen pimpy robe.
I'll bring the Courvoisier.
>> ^gwiz665:

These are great. Love em. Sexy robe on that lounge lizard.

If nothing else, he certainly is keen to let everyone know the truth, including the truth about everything criminal he and his coworkers have ever done.

Luckily, I was born with the keen intellectual ability to not believe something just because I've heard it more than once.

Yeah, I have to say, I'm not too keen on the guy getting out of the car and not listening...

This still remains the best way to attract the most non-GED people into one area. Sorry, I'm feeling a bit terse today.


/Remember: Your leaders learned and know less than you, NOW (a lot are like this, obviously some do have a lot of education AS AN EXAMPLE Barack Obama--i.e. don't link him with these people). Their knowledge at the time was less and many get degrees from bible colleges just to add the ridiculous pre-rendered difference to those with a Dr.,PhD, etc... Our kids have more knowledge as well. They learn things in junior high that would have been reserved for college a few generations earlier. This shows the HUGE gap in understanding that can be at play here. Also, perhaps why secularism is winning with modern youth.

Slightly off-topic, but it relates to charlatanism...

No, the Paul's are not charlatans. But, their "doctor" difference that is awarded makes many people that aren't keen enough to see through the masquerade to realize they use it as a pulpit and a stick to beat in their opinions with... artificial "weight". Such as their views on evolution; I'm as qualified to talk about it as they are.

The Paul's are a great example of this. Dentistry with creationism. They should know though right, THEY'RE DOCTORS! They can easily refute something they in actuality have no knowledge of. This is the same here. You have slightly smarter cunning people with basic knowledge of medical and psychological manipulation and they use it to their own ends. The people there have no chance against this as they are blissfully ignorant or just uneducated. Very sad aspect of American life , if not the worst, if you ask me.

//A bit off-topic.

The nervous system (brain, spinal cord, nerves) is an organ system just like your digestive system ( liver, intestines, salivary glands, etc.). People injure and mess up parts of their nervous system all the time, through accidents and what-not. While liver damage can lead to things like renal failure, injuries to the brain can lead to changes in memory access and retention, cognition,... interesting things that make up 'personality'.

I think consciousness is biological, and human consciousness is as biological as the consciousness of other animals. I think we are extraordinary at communication, and that's the major thing making us special in the animal kingdom... we love sounds and music and seeing friends and talking and learning about people and things. We are hyper vigilant with respect to personalities, and the fine details make everyone's unique in our eyes. So when a friend dies this personality that we knew so well now only exists as a detailed set of memories in our brain. And because this isn't terribly comforting, and because we're so keen on other people, we like to think that such an amazing thing as a personality continues on somehow after death.

my two cents!

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.


>> ^KnivesOut:
You clearly don't understand what the word "subjective" means.
Let me ask you this: Why are you (and WLC for that matter) so keen on "proving" the existence of god? Isn't that a sin? The entire point of faith is to believe without proof.
Maybe you're trying to prove it to yourself, as much as to the rest of us.>> ^shinyblurry:
It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.
>> ^KnivesOut:
No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.





Actually, no you're not commanded by God. Quite the opposite in fact.

And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matt 6:5-6

You're a law onto yourself, huh.. So, how do you tell right from wrong? If everyone is their own law, then isn't a murderer jusified in his murdering if he thinks he is right? If not, why not?

>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not forced to do anything. There is no mention of outside influence in the definition of subjectivity. Did you read it?
I don't even know why I bother engaging you.>> ^shinyblurry:
You're not getting off that easily. I know very well what it means so lets refresh your memory.
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
IE, human opinion. So therefore, if everyone thought the holocaust was right, it would be. Unless it is objectively wrong, if everyone agreed about it the holocaust would be subjectively right. Which means you are forced to admit the holocaust could be right under your system of morality.
I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.
>> ^KnivesOut:
You clearly don't understand what the word "subjective" means.
Let me ask you this: Why are you (and WLC for that matter) so keen on "proving" the existence of god? Isn't that a sin? The entire point of faith is to believe without proof.
Maybe you're trying to prove it to yourself, as much as to the rest of us.>> ^shinyblurry:
It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.
>> ^KnivesOut:
No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.