Goggle Translate
-
@boomzilla said:
Sometimes I read books that don't even have pictures on the cover.
It's a well known fact that all libertarians/conservatives/republicans only read books bound in human flesh (probably of a minority's flesh in the mind of a democrat).
Of course, democrats like Pelosi and Reid don't even read the bills they're passing (they say they will after, but I doubt they do....)
-
@DrakeSmith said:
@boomzilla said:
Sometimes I read books that don't even have pictures on the cover.
It's a well known fact that all libertarians/conservatives/republicans only read books bound in human flesh (probably of a minority's flesh in the mind of a democrat).That's just not true. Many of them come from clubbed baby seals and oil soaked sea birds.
-
@boomzilla said:
@DrakeSmith said:
@boomzilla said:
Sometimes I read books that don't even have pictures on the cover.
It's a well known fact that all libertarians/conservatives/republicans only read books bound in human flesh (probably of a minority's flesh in the mind of a democrat).That's just not true. Many of them come from clubbed baby seals and oil soaked sea birds.
Maybe the Republicans. The libertarians are more likely to use imitation baby seal skin.
-
@Snooder said:
@boomzilla said:
@DrakeSmith said:
@boomzilla said:
Sometimes I read books that don't even have pictures on the cover.
It's a well known fact that all libertarians/conservatives/republicans only read books bound in human flesh (probably of a minority's flesh in the mind of a democrat).That's just not true. Many of them come from clubbed baby seals and oil soaked sea birds.
Maybe the Republicans. The libertarians are more likely to use imitation baby seal skin.You have nothing to fear from a libertarian society, except maybe a contact buzz.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
You have nothing to fear from a libertarian society, except maybe a contact buzz.
I'm pretty sure "libertarian society" is an oxymoron.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@morbiuswilters said:
You have nothing to fear from a libertarian society, except maybe a contact buzz.
I'm pretty sure "libertarian society" is an oxymoron.
Because you're clueless?
-
@boomzilla said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@morbiuswilters said:
You have nothing to fear from a libertarian society, except maybe a contact buzz.
I'm pretty sure "libertarian society" is an oxymoron.
Because you're clueless?
Libertarianism is based mostly around the concept of voluntary association - existance first as an individual, then choosing whether or not to interact with another, right? That seems to go against what most people consider a "society", where people would have often-defined, generally codependent roles.
Or are you just going to pretend that libertarianism means no Evil Government stopping you from having your rapes and murders?
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
Libertarianism is based mostly around the concept of voluntary association - existance first as an individual, then choosing whether or not to interact with another, right? That seems to go against what most people consider a "society", where people would have often-defined, generally codependent roles.
I don't see how any of that goes against a society. Asking google to define it, I get, "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." I'm saying that the spontaneous order of voluntary associations makes a society at least as much as some forced order. I don't see why any of that can't be codependent. Unless you're saying that these roles could only be defined by a government ordering people around? I can't imagine anyone not from some place like North Korea would actually believe that.
@Buttembly Coder said:
Or are you just going to pretend that libertarianism means no Evil Government stopping you from having your rapes and murders?
I've never pretended that. Are you? That sounds more like anarchy to me.
Your tag was good, though. Because it's impossible to create a society (by any definition you like) that isn't 100% morons.
-
@boomzilla said:
I don't see how any of that goes against a society. Asking google to define it, I get, "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community."
Now ask google what "community" means if you want, it's not going to help. The point is that "society" assumes an aggregate, and libertarianism assumes individuals.
@boomzilla said:I'm saying that the spontaneous order of voluntary associations makes a society at least as much as some forced order. I don't see why any of that can't be codependent.
If you're going by that, then would two people in this hypothetical society, who never interact, but live next to each, constitute a society? The fact that's even a question should help you see the point; they're different ways of defining things.
@boomzilla said:Unless you're saying that these roles could only be defined by a government ordering people around?
I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion, unless you're assuming a stance by tone, which is triumphantly dumb.
@boomzilla said:I can't imagine anyone not from some place like North Korea would actually believe that.
Really? You can't? That would be depressingly sad if it wasn't so hilarious that your imagination was broken. Maybe your inability to see through other viewpoints is why yours are so stridently wrong.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
...snip...
I JUST figured out your username. I'm facepalming myself. For some reason all this time I thought it was some strange misspelling of "Butterfly".
-
@mott555 said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
...snip...
I JUST figured out your username. I'm facepalming myself. For some reason all this time I thought it was some strange misspelling of "Butterfly".
Clbuttic!
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
@mott555 said:
You mean it's not a misspelling of "Butt ugly?"@Buttembly Coder said:
...snip...
I JUST figured out your username. I'm facepalming myself. For some reason all this time I thought it was some strange misspelling of "Butterfly".
Clbuttic!
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@mikeTheLiar said:
@mott555 said:
You mean it's not a misspelling of "Butt ugly?"@Buttembly Coder said:
...snip...
I JUST figured out your username. I'm facepalming myself. For some reason all this time I thought it was some strange misspelling of "Butterfly".
Clbuttic!Hey! I know how to spell my own dating site profile, thank you very much.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
You mean it's not a misspelling of "Butt ugly?"
Stop doing character buttbuttination!
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
Libertarianism is based mostly around the concept of voluntary association - existance first as an individual, then choosing whether or not to interact with another, right? That seems to go against what most people consider a "society", where people would have often-defined, generally codependent roles.
So in your mind societies are only formed and maintained through the application of violence? Wow..
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
Now ask google what "community" means if you want, it's not going to help. The point is that "society" assumes an aggregate, and libertarianism assumes individuals.
No, "libertarianism" means people voluntarily associating with one another, not being forced to at gun-point, you fucking piece of shit. The fact that you can't tell the difference shows what a broken, soulless little monster you are.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
Libertarianism is based mostly around the concept of voluntary association - existance first as an individual, then choosing whether or not to interact with another, right? That seems to go against what most people consider a "society", where people would have often-defined, generally codependent roles.
So in your mind societies are only formed and maintained through the application of violence? Wow..
The fact that your brain drew that conclusion from reading that series of letters implies that you either can't read, or that you're imagining it to be in some language other than english. Have fun with that.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
Now ask google what "community" means if you want, it's not going to help. The point is that "society" assumes an aggregate, and libertarianism assumes individuals.
No, "libertarianism" means people voluntarily associating with one another, not being forced to at gun-point, you fucking piece of shit. The fact that you can't tell the difference shows what a broken, soulless little monster you are.
No that's some well-reasoned, high-level discourse! You must have been on the debate team!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
No, "libertarianism" means people voluntarily associating with one another, not being forced to at gun-point
I have no idea where where you found "gun-point" in my posts. Because it wasn't there. So please, go ahead and keep flailing.
I also love that you said "No," and then repeated something I've already stated.
I'll be ignoring any further posts from you, so enjoy yourself.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
Libertarianism is based mostly around the concept of voluntary association - existance first as an individual, then choosing whether or not to interact with another, right? That seems to go against what most people consider a "society", where people would have often-defined, generally codependent roles.
So in your mind societies are only formed and maintained through the application of violence? Wow..
The fact that your brain drew that conclusion from reading that series of letters implies that you either can't read, or that you're imagining it to be in some language other than english. Have fun with that.
You said libertarianism isn't "society" because it's voluntary. Ergo, real "societies" only exist through non-voluntary action. How fucking hard is that for you to follow, dumbass?
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
Now ask google what "community" means if you want, it's not going to help. The point is that "society" assumes an aggregate, and libertarianism assumes individuals.
No, "libertarianism" means people voluntarily associating with one another, not being forced to at gun-point, you fucking piece of shit. The fact that you can't tell the difference shows what a broken, soulless little monster you are.
No that's some well-reasoned, high-level discourse! You must have been on the debate team!Really? What did I say that was incorrect or that you can make a case against? Sure, I insulted him, but he said something idiotic and wrong. Am I supposed to patronize him and act like he didn't just shit his pants in front of everyone?
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
I have no idea where where you found "gun-point" in my posts.
You said libertarianism was "society" because it was voluntary. The obvious fucking implication is that societies are only non-voluntary. What do you think "non-voluntary" means?
@Buttembly Coder said:
I'll be ignoring any further posts from you, so enjoy yourself.
"Wahh, you made me look like a dipshit! I'm going to ignore you now to save my sad, pathetic little ego!"
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
you're imagining it to be in some language other than english
Objectivist English?
-
@dkf said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
you're imagining it to be in some language other than english
Objectivist English?I think he's just mad because he's a really sloppy reasoner. It's nothing personal, I don't really hold grudges (I mean, seriously, who has the energy to hold a grudge on a fucking website?), but for someone to callously dismiss a legitimate point and then to completely ignore they are making the implication that violence against innocent people is the answer, well, that's shitty.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@mikeTheLiar said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
Now ask google what "community" means if you want, it's not going to help. The point is that "society" assumes an aggregate, and libertarianism assumes individuals.
No, "libertarianism" means people voluntarily associating with one another, not being forced to at gun-point, you fucking piece of shit. The fact that you can't tell the difference shows what a broken, soulless little monster you are.
No that's some well-reasoned, high-level discourse! You must have been on the debate team!Really? What did I say that was incorrect or that you can make a case against? Sure, I insulted him, but he said something idiotic and wrong. Am I supposed to patronize him and act like he didn't just shit his pants in front of everyone?
I will not engage you when you get like this. You're acting like a 12 year old who just learned how to swear. Given the level of intelligence (and dare I saw, masterful use of the English language) that you've displayed in the past, I am forced to assume that you're trolling, albeit at a fairly sophisticated level. At any rate, I will resume lurking.
But seriously, you look like tool when you start going off like this. Not to jump on your nuts, but you are clearly an intelligent person, and (not that you care one iota what I think of you) when you do shit like this it just means that I can't take anything you say seriously. Go get laid or shoot some guns or something - whatever helps you calm down. Although maybe trolling TDWTF forums is what helps you calm down, so in that case continue, I guess?
One last footnote: I'm not basing the above on any views that you may hold and weather or not I agree with them, but rather the spitting-spraying, mouth-frothing, forehead-throbbing rage that you approach anyone who seems to disagree with you. In that fashion, I can't respect you any more than Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow (both people I despise in equal measure).
-
@dkf said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
you're imagining it to be in some language other than english
Objectivist English?Also known as Liberian English, I suppose?
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@boomzilla said:
I don't see how any of that goes against a society. Asking google to define it, I get, "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community."
Now ask google what "community" means if you want, it's not going to help. The point is that "society" assumes an aggregate, and libertarianism assumes individuals.
Eh...I guess I should congratulate you on trolling me this far. OTOH, if you really think this, there's no point talking to you. I'm more likely to get reasonable responses from flabdablet.
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
I will not engage you when you get like this. You're acting like a 12 year old who just learned how to swear. Given the level of intelligence (and dare I saw, masterful use of the English language) that you've displayed in the past, I am forced to assume that you're trolling, albeit at a fairly sophisticated level. At any rate, I will resume lurking.
But seriously, you look like tool when you start going off like this. Not to jump on your nuts, but you are clearly an intelligent person, and (not that you care one iota what I think of you) when you do shit like this it just means that I can't take anything you say seriously. Go get laid or shoot some guns or something - whatever helps you calm down. Although maybe trolling TDWTF forums is what helps you calm down, so in that case continue, I guess?
One last footnote: I'm not basing the above on any views that you may hold and weather or not I agree with them, but rather the spitting-spraying, mouth-frothing, forehead-throbbing rage that you approach anyone who seems to disagree with you. In that fashion, I can't respect you any more than Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow (both people I despise in equal measure).
In my experience, people don't learn from reasoned debate. They just resort to silly insults, so I'm doing the same. The thing is, I do engage people in reasonable discussion all the time here, but they have to act respectably. When people are demeaning towards a particular viewpoint, should my response be to continue trying to reason with them, or just to nuclear on their ass?
I'm not saying being a dick helps, either, but at least it's amusing and cathartic to me (and sometimes to other people.)
Look, I'd prefer if we actually avoided political flamewars. I'm completely okay with everyone agreeing to disagree. But there's this awful little idea online that if someone posts something you disagree with, the best way to deal with it is with a drive-by bit of condescending "snark" (oh how I loathe that word.) Or maybe you imply they're just a terrible person, or that they are without morals.
If you re-read the threads where these flamewars occur, it's often someone else who starts lobbing the bombs from the sidelines. I often don't respond, but sometimes people are asking for it.
Anyway, I apologize if it offended you, since you are someone I do respect.
-
@boomzilla said:
…there's no point talking to you…
What point did you think there was before this? I doubt you were honestly expecting to accomplish something through an internet argument.
As far as when I am and am not trolling, I generally try to tag the troll posts appropriately, but sometimes that takes the fun out of it, and sometimes I'm using tags for something else.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
In my experience, people don't learn from reasoned debate.
Then I think you need more experience. I think boomzilla is human. I think you're a monkey. :|
@morbiuswilters said:
When people are demeaning towards a particular viewpoint, should my response be to continue trying to reason with them, or just to nuclear on their ass?
Well, neither.
@morbiuswilters said:
it's amusing and cathartic to me
It feeds back on itself and causes that which you hope to quench with a nuke.
So even if it's amusing, be careful what you sow.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
I doubt you were honestly expecting to accomplish something through an internet argument.
Looking down upon internet arguments causes them to be inferior so you look down upon them, so... etc.
-
@dhromed said:
Then I think you need more experience. I think boomzilla is human. I think you're a monkey. :|
I have never seen anyone change their minds based on an Internet debate.
@dhromed said:
It feeds back on itself and causes that which you hope to quench with a nuke.
So even if it's amusing, be careful what you sow.
That's a good point, but I'm not sure it's accurate. You're stating the seen, but what's the unseen? Would me being less strident result in fewer people being jerks, or more?
As a point, I have posted lots of well-reasoned stuff that you have only responded to with name-calling. And it's not like this is a recent thing, this is how you've responded for years; with snide one-liners and put-downs. So how should I respond to that?
Should I turn the other cheek? I'm not a Christian, even if I do admire so aspects of the religion.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Would me being less strident result in fewer people being jerks, or more?
Less people being jerks around you, I wager. And that's what matters most, I think.
@morbiuswilters said:
And it's not like this is a recent thing, this is how you've responded for years; with snide one-liners and put-downs.
Sorry, I try not to, especially recently. I try to be short, because flinging essays often muddies things up rather than clarifying over time. Exceptions exist, obviously.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dhromed said:
I have changed my mind based on Internet debates (here, even); but usually I was just spectating during those because I wasn't firm enough in my original position to jump onto the battlefield with it.Then I think you need more experience. I think boomzilla is human. I think you're a monkey. :|
I have never seen anyone change their minds based on an Internet debate.
-
Actually I find it pretty amusing when you guys blow up over here. In my mind I've already mentally filed away the majority of TDWTF's members as trolls so I kind of view it as people attempting to troll each other, though many times there is a well-reasoned argument hidden behind layers of trolling and witty name-calling.
On the other hand, it's also somewhat refreshing to see a forum where such topics are apparently allowed and don't result in constant moderation and carpet-bombing runs with the banhammer. I don't participate much because I'm not a very good debater nor am I a particularly good troller.
-
@mott555 said:
In my mind I've already mentally filed away the majority of TDWTF's members as trolls
I'm pretty sure you could s/major/entire/gi on that.
@mott555 said:On the other hand, it's also somewhat refreshing to see a forum where such topics are apparently allowed and don't result in constant moderation and carpet-bombing runs with the banhammer.
There are relatively few active users here compared to other forums I frequent. Just enough to start glorious flame wars, but just few enough that it tends to end with kissing and making up rather than mass bans.
@mott555 said:I don't participate much because I'm not a very good debater nor am I a particularly good troller.
Trolling is easy; you just point out that women are better C programmers than men.
-
Wimmin Coders (Was Re: Goggle Translate)
@Buttembly Coder said:
Trolling is easy; you just point out that women are better C programmers than men.
That'll be because they can use C Strings more easily than men [probably NSFW for quite a few of you.]
-
@dhromed said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Would me being less strident result in fewer people being jerks, or more?
Less people being jerks around you, I wager. And that's what matters most, I think.
@morbiuswilters said:
And it's not like this is a recent thing, this is how you've responded for years; with snide one-liners and put-downs.
Sorry, I try not to, especially recently. I try to be short, because flinging essays often muddies things up rather than clarifying over time. Exceptions exist, obviously.
Fair enough, I will limit my flaming in the interests of scientific experimentation. (Wait, did someone just change their mind because of an Internet argument??)
-
@joe.edwards said:
I have changed my mind based on Internet debates (here, even); but usually I was just spectating during those because I wasn't firm enough in my original position to jump onto the battlefield with it.
Yeah, I guess I meant more things you already have a firm position on. I have my mind changed all the time on things I don't really care about.
@joe.edwards said:
Filed under: Recent example: dhromed got me thinking maybe I've been too dismissive of trans people.
Oy, don't get me started on that.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
Trolling is easy; you just point out that women are better C programmers than men.
Well sure, they have access to their C 24 hours a day!
-
@PJH said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
Huh. So that's a thing now?Trolling is easy; you just point out that women are better C programmers than men.
That'll be because they can use C Strings more easily than men [probably NSFW for quite a few of you.]
-
@Snooder said:
@PJH said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
Huh. So that's a thing now?Trolling is easy; you just point out that women are better C programmers than men.
That'll be because they can use C Strings more easily than men [probably NSFW for quite a few of you.]Yeah, I don't really like it. It looks like medical equipment. And I like the strings that go around the side, gives you something to rip open.. :(
-
@PJH said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
Tell me about it. I'm always overflowing their buffers.Trolling is easy; you just point out that women are better C programmers than men.
That'll be because they can use C Strings more easily than men [probably NSFW for quite a few of you.]
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Fair enough, I will limit my flaming in the interests of scientific experimentation.
Man, this would have been so good if you hadn't felt the need to wrap it in such a thick, thick veil of sarcasm, passive-aggressive friend.
-
@dhromed said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Fair enough, I will limit my flaming in the interests of scientific experimentation.
Man, this would have been so good if you hadn't felt the need to wrap it in such a thick, thick veil of sarcasm, passive-aggressive friend.
What makes you think I am being sarcastic?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
What makes you think I am being sarcastic?
Your very being is like an avatar of sarcasm made flesh.
-
@dhromed said:
@morbiuswilters said:
What makes you think I am being sarcastic?
Your very being is like an avatar of sarcasm made flesh.
Would I sound differently if I was sincere?
