>> ^Asmo:

"Nothin' twixt me nethers that weren't run on batteries" is still the Grand Master and defending champion imo.


Jayne's reaction is my favorite part!

someone else (probably simon or mal): alright, that's enough of that talk

Jayne: ...I could stand to hear a little more.

edit: the rest of the quote was in the video. fuck me, right?

I just like thinking about things twixt her nethers. Good times.
>> ^Asmo:

"Nothin' twixt me nethers that weren't run on batteries" is still the Grand Master and defending champion imo.

"Nothin' twixt me nethers that weren't run on batteries" is still the Grand Master and defending champion imo.

Bones ain't got nothin' on Jack:
http://videosift.com/video/Chinatown-Shes-my-sister-AND-my-daughter

Dude, I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothin', but I think you got a hot ass!

Orgazmo to the rescue.

*dead

I got nothin

@BoneRemake

not fer nothin'. but i think you'd have to say something funny first. = P

Basically. The term 'Power Elite' wasn't coined fer nothin'.
>> ^undefined:

Apparently the issue with politics is that regular citizens get involved?

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say but nothing comes out but nothin' comes out when they move their lips just a buncha gibberish and muthafuckas act like they forgot about Dre.

>> ^robbersdog49:

>> ^BoneRemake:
Not to bust your balls but its more then likely front wheel drive. What it will do for certain is piss the owner off ! BUT ! these guys are on a schedule, what can ya expect ?!@

BMW don't make a front wheel drive car.
Not bustin' your balls or nothin'.


Thanks, thast actually really good to know. Odd though it seems. WOnder why they chose that route.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Not to bust your balls but its more then likely front wheel drive. What it will do for certain is piss the owner off ! BUT ! these guys are on a schedule, what can ya expect ?!@


BMW don't make a front wheel drive car.

Not bustin' your balls or nothin'.

nothin says family holiday like dancing around the kitchen with a corpse

I got nothin'?

Man, where was this scene in the film? Brilliant.

wow. he went all biblical.

unless there are hard numbers to show a substantial increase in violence against this age group..
this a just another scam to make more arrests and money.

Not called Law Enforcement fer nothin'.

@xxovercastxx

I apologize for my tardiness. I'll try to slice my way through your response while the aftertaste of this thread still lingers. It's rapidly fading from memory.

1. Relating to the proposition that prioritizing issues is invalid

This seems to be an argument that arises logically and naturally. Starting from the top, the quantity of world resources exceeds the requirements of any given problem at any given time. The idea that lesser issues ought to be sidelined until we have resolved the greater ones, amongst which we might consider genocides, global warming, poverty and disease, strikes me as both bizarre and having no logical foundation to stand on.

I share, completely, the concerns and convictions that relate to those greater problems, and they are indeed deserving of all of our collective attention. However, the human species, and its capacity for problem solving, are not analogous to a single-core CPU; we are capable of confronting more than one thing at one time. We need not be exclusivist, dealing with issues in a step-by-step manner until we've worked our way down the chain of strife, and to contend that lesser issues are not even worth our time while greater evils remain is daft and short-sighted.

2. Consent

You mention Yogi's point about the voluntary nature of joining and participating in the Church of Scientology. Many of the techniques that Scientology employs to keep people in the church, to keep them isolated from information and criticism of the church, and to disconnect people from those outside the church are outlined in the very video to which this thread belongs. I do not believe that consent makes legitimate the manipulation of people in the church to stay in the church. I do not believe that consent granted by someone of compromised judgement is legitimate. I don't believe that these premises give me a legitimate moral basis for acting contrary to people's wishes, when their judgement is compromised and consent is ill-given, but I do think it must negate the idea that these people are acting autonomously, sensibly, intelligently and with their best interests in mind.

Basically, I say that their choices are sometimes invalid in cases where their independence has been compromised, but I also say that I have no right to intervene and contradict whatever free will they're exerting. Manipulation, propaganda and indoctrination are they key words, and they're techniques being used to enormous effect in the CoS, as the documentary above illustrates quite well.

3. 9/11 conspiracy comparison / straw-man assessment

"Look I get you want to be up in arms about this, it's something you've put a lot of stock into. It's pretty much like 9/11 conspiracy theories. You can talk and post and tell people they're full of shit when they question why this is such a big deal but you've missed the point. You've been completely neutralized, we don't have to worry about you actually bringing about any sort of change that's meaningful since you're going after this silly Religion."

I still don't think I overplayed it. I understand what you're getting at, but I believe my interpretation is closer to what he meant.

> Look I get you want to be up in arms about this, it's something you've put a lot of stock into. It's pretty much like 9/11 conspiracy theories.

This statement stands by itself. It's not connected to the following except by proximity, which is :

> You can talk and post and tell people they're full of shit when they question why this is such a big deal but you've missed the point.

In the second portion of this, Yogi is referring to the current discussion, and both my and Genji's disagreement with the idea that the CoS is no big deal. Thus the second sentence is self-contained and the 9/11 conspiracy statement is concluded immediately after it's mentioned. Logically, this must mean that a connection, even if vague, is being made between two very different positions : he's saying that our, or mine, or Genji's objectivity is compromised to the extent that we are almost fanatical. That is the comparison being made, and the comparison to which I have been referring.

When I say that Yogi was suggesting our objectivity was compromised, several things give it away. The biggest is "want to be up in arms about this". "Want to" implies a personal investment that we'd not be willing to surrender and that the participation goes beyond a moral assessment, and into the realm of the irrational. "It's something you've put a lot of stock into" suggests, again, a personal investment that mandates never surrendering in argument, and having an irrational attachment to your position. Thirdly, "it's pretty much like 9/11 conspiracy theories". There are several ways you can interpret this, but it suggests to me that he thinks the opposition is fundamentally irrational, disconnected from reality and deeply biased to a particular outcome, irregardless of the actual conditions from which you draw your moral conclusion about the CoS. Thus, he seemed to think that the sentiment was immovable and the argument was only doing the bidding of an invulnerable bias.

I disagree with you. I don't think it was a straw man that I installed, I think it was a valid and accurate interpretation of what he was saying. I will concede, though, that it's easy to misread me as misreading him, based on what mention I made of the 9/11 thing. If that makes sense.

4. Genji suggesting Yogi was an irrational, thick-skulled, sick fuck who might kill kittens

I wasn't shocked. I thought it was in bad taste at the time, and I still do. I'm not used to the dynamics of debates that aren't 1-on-1, and I make no apology for it.

5. The Genji-won't-do-nothin'; the twisting of a statement

> "You've been completely neutralized, we don't have to worry about you actually bringing about any sort of change that's meaningful since you're going after this silly Religion.

You won't help anyone, you won't effect anything, you'll just stamp your feet and get all pissed off over the internet about things that simply aren't important. Now run along and keep doing that, I'm going over here to feed these homeless people some sammiches"

This comment, to me, suggests and suggested that Yogi was implying the following, and forgive my shoddy paraphrasing:

"You are absorbed by a non-issue. You could be investing your time in an actual problem, and perhaps be contributing to a resolution. You will have no effect on anything important, because you are involved in something that is a waste of your time; an irrelevant problem."

"You won't help anyone, you won't effect anything" needs no interpretation or translation of any kind. Surely this statement is unambiguous. Was I really twisting his statement? Perhaps I could've articulated myself better, but was I wrong? I say not, and I think as I did then.

6. My First Hypocrisy : An adventure in target management, Drive-by commenting, etc.

You're right that I should've commented on what GK actually said. It's not hypocrisy, but it was unfair and unbalanced.

I was referring to you with the drive-by assessment comment. I felt as if you had installed yourself into the discussion and had promptly left it, when there seemed to be no need for moderation. I think, in light of the scope of the post I'm responding to, I'd be happy to apologize for that.

I didn't realize you meant GK. Now I do. Woo.

I think that's it. Thanks.