Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Educated or Informed?

issnedorf, I’m not sure if your rebuttals to me are intentionally childishly exaggerated & naive as to a decent understanding of the obvious. OR, ya somehow truly do fit the parameters of behavior exhibited by the more hell-bent “conservative” faction whose reactionary stance is to actually believe—as does jhco & his “Obama-wants-to-be-king”—such obtuse “musings”.

Such is why I have grown utterly disgusted at engaging ya in discussion. At this point, I’m going to pull up (out of order) a point in your post that both demonstrates what I’m talking about here…AND, address it.

What is wrong w/ “shunning”?

Nothing. If you want to close yourself off from opposing views, fine. But, when you’re pushing the slogan of wanting to diversify viewpoints while at the same time silencing viewpoints you don’t like, it’s laughably hypocritical.

Good grief.
Do YOU not know that an avoidance of most anything can be a result OF ALREADY HAVING HEARD IT A THOUSAND TIMES and it has CONSTATNLY been the same shit…over&over&over? I certainly have NO INTEREST at all in going to skinhead or Neo-Nazi websites in the hope of finding some new angle of “diversity-of-viewpoints".

There are only so many hours in a day…so many years in ones life. After some point in being exposed to the many, many aspects found in life, I’ve found that one is probably best off & will have a much more enjoyable time if they are able to develop a keen insight about what is worthy of attention & what isn’t. Basically, it is called PRIORITIZING and is usually considered a good thing. Look at it as: picking your battles.

I’m rather positive that YOU pat yourself on the back for already having mastered this capacity. Yet, typical of a child….ya are so willingly to add to your revelation in this accomplishment by believing others lag far behind you in doing likewise. Do ya take EVERY COURSE offered at your school? Are ya going to stay forever at that ivory tower in order to not avoid _diversifying viewpoints offered at it? Are ya going to attend a school known to have a strong liberal leaning and retake ALL of the same courses just so ya can expose yourself to opposing views?

Originally posted by issendorf:
So..
we should luvingly embrace some asshole who—regardless of what he uses to “justify” his hateful bigotry—espouses an ideology that is diametrically opposed to what most sane ppl would agree is just, fair, respectful of ALL ppl’s RIGHTS?

It doesn’t have to be luvingly, but you have to tolerate. I regret to inform you that you don’t have a Constitutional right that protects you from being offended.

First, it would probably help ya make your point were ya to present the point (yours) I was responding to: Diversity is only great as long as you agree politically.

Where have ya been this whole time I’ve been presenting my ideology on this concept of diversity in America….viewing your belly-button from the “inside” of your body? I believe I’ve made it VERY clear that I “preach” tolerance of viewpoints that differ from mine. After all, I grew up believing in the slogan: America, the great melting pot.

To cite example of my opening description of your childish capacity to distort my points, I offer how ya totally ignore this: _an ideology that is diametrically opposed to what MOST sane ppl would agree is just, fair, respectful of ALL ppl’s rights. Had ya asked for further clarification of the parameters involved in my point, I would have offered: hanging niggers merely because they looked at a white woman….draping Mathew Sheppard on a fence in freezing weather in Wyoming merely because he was a fag.

Nah….count ME out on tolerating of such “diverse viewpoints” as these kinds of ppl. And, while it isn’t the same as what many “conservatives” do when they “spittle-shout”: SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION is sez there is a right to xxxxx, YOU just did a similar bit-0-shit by offering the inanity-of-the-absurd by saying: I regret to inform you that you don’t have a Constitutional right that protects you from being offended.

By that logic, I guess I regretted informing YOU (back some time ago when ya asked me to show ya where in the Constitution a particular right was stated) that that Right was addressed in the preamble to it. Interestingly enough, YOU failed to respond.

Are YOU all that bereft in capacity to grasp concepts that extend beyond those which only fit the parameters which YOU desire to operate in so that such limitations are able to best support yer narrow viewpoint? Yeah, as tenco & Omega have pointed out, while obviously “both sides” are guilty of this type of “logic”….it is the more-extreme “conservative side” that does it as if it were their manifesto. For me, I really didn’t know there was such a distinction as “sides”….I’ve always thought the MIDDLE (moderates) contained the preponderance of the population.

.

Do YOU invite to your parties those who strongly disagree w/ YOUR political stance?

Depends on the person, not their political views.

I guess I have to play lawyer and type ALL OF THE VARIOUS forms of parties one might host. Yes, were I to want to hold a gathering that would be of a nature somewhat similar to SD, then I would invite those have “qualities” that we are told to avoid most of the time: best not to discuss POLITICS & religion. For me, a party is something much more light-hearted & for sharing w/ ppl who can bring new insights that are of a “more pleasant” nature because they are of a positive nature. Ya know, I actually enjoy not having to be constantly reminded of the dark side of humanity.

.

Just because a liberal celebrates diversity, it is pure fucking lunacy to hold that he should ALSO ACCEPT that which is blatantly odious to most of society.

So minority views should automatically be squashed and not tolerated in the public square? That’s essentially what you are arguing – that the majority can claim offense and silence the dissenting viewpoint of the minority. Sounds like a great way to chill free speech and the free flow of ideas. What you’re arguing goes entirely against the very fabric of the first amendment – that controversial speech should be protected and encouraged.

Aha, I guess ya think redunancy of a fail position will somehow generate at least a tad of legitimacy….lol

And, NO.
What I am arguing is that the First Amend doesn’t allow “free speech” when said speech is in the form of forced prayer in the school. If YOU weren’t so hell-bent on thinking YOUR ideals are so paramount that most all others should bow down to them, ya would realize that they actually aren’t all that “worthy” to begin with.

Society, via their representation (the govt.) has established many rules (laws) that do limit free speech….which is—as I made abundantly clear—is blatantly odious to most of society.
Yes, the spewing of the skinheads is protected by the First Amend.
Yes, the burning of the Flag in protest is protected.
Yes, the summer of mercy209529.html had its right to protest abortion….to a LIMITATION of the First. That being where the clinic had its right to LEGALLY conduct its business. I live here, I saw all of this happen.

But, NO.
Killing Dr. George Tiller (And now, finally, after all the heavy breathing about heaven and God, evil and innocence, Operation Rescue by all appearances has goaded someone into killing George Tiller.) isn’t protected free speech as adamantly believes Scott Roeder Roeder.

NO, assholes in PETA who throw paint on ppl wearing fur coats isn’t protected free speech.
NO, burning MY personal property Flag isn’t protected free speech.

NO, bullying nerds IN school and sexually harassing women in the workplace isn’t protected speech. These ppl have a Constitutional right to NOT HAVE their rights diminished by some asshole claiming free speech.

So, yeah….particular kinds of and in particular areas, “tolerance” of that kind of “diversity” really isn’t such a good thing….eh?

A little something that goes a long way in explaining MY VIEW on what is//the why of MY TOLERANCE.

And NO, my ensuing a “shunning” of your crap really isn’t closing myself off from opposing views….it is merely that they are of a very, VERY redundantly boring nature—I’ve heard them before and from ppl who were much better at being more inclusive of the panorama of the spectrum on the issue.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Educated or Informed?

Originally posted by issendorf:

What is truly ironic is the left, as you say, touts the embracing diversity slogan, but if you get a person who is against same-sex marriage on religious grounds, those same people embracing diversity want to shun that person to Antarctica. Diversity is only great as long as you agree politically (and the same goes for the other side).

So..
we should luvingly embrace some asshole who—regardless of what he uses to “justify” his hateful bigotry—espouses an ideology that is diametrically opposed to what most sane ppl would agree is just, fair, respectful of ALL ppl’s RIGHTS?

Yeah, I’m really hot for THAT kind of “diversity”. NOT!
I guess I’m just not that good of a “lefty”.
I’ll even exercise MY 1st Amend. right to inform that person exactly what I think of their ideology.

issen, what YOU are talking about here is actually the OP of that tolerate the intolerant thread. Just because a liberal celebrates diversity, it is pure fucking lunacy to hold that he should ALSO ACCEPT that which is blatantly odious to most of society.

What is wrong w/ “shunning”?
Do YOU invite to your parties those who strongly disagree w/ YOUR political stance?

I strongly believe in a person’s right to think & feel as they see fit.
But, rights come w/ responsibilities.
To protect THEIR OWN rights, one must be responsible for seeing that ALL OTHERS right are equally protected.

Where many fail to understand me is that—when thinking evolves into a form of activity that seeks to LIMIT that same right of OTHERS—I BEGIN to find them to be leaving behind the good reasons for me to respect them as a person & their failure to understand the Golden Rule. THAT is the behavior I find detestable….NOT that they opt to think “differently” on issues.

I sure as fuck DO NOT HAVE TO LIKE what other ppl believe for me to STILL RESPECT THEIR RIGHT TO BELIEVE IT. Ppl who aren’t able to grasp THAT concept just aren’t really trying very hard.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Educated or Informed?

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

issne, YOU are leaning well into the pitch on this.
And tacitly inferring that there are only two reasons for Omega’s position.
That he is either an outright liar or he fails to understand a concept THE WAY YOU DO.
Either is little more than the same kind of name-calling that YOU are vilifying.

No it isn’t. I used the term ‘uninformed’ – although I insulted him more directly in other spots – because it’s a better word than ignorant. But ‘ignorant’ is still what it means. Issen didn’t say he was ignorant either, but yes, you can certainly infer from his post that he knows more about the subject than OD. That is not in itself insulting, except to people who pretend to know everything; OD is not one of those people. None of that is in any way comparable to the way liberals treat conservatives in the US. If you weren’t so…uninformed…you’d have realized that you tar their side just as much as they tar yours.

AND, if YOU weren’t such a condesending ASS about most everything to most anyone ya see fit to skewer just for your weird (grudge?) pleasure, that YOU put up on this forum, YOU might realize that all YOU have done here is put your SUBJECTION OPINION up against mine w/ NOTHING to support yours. Cudos for shit nothing. LOL

Oh, and for issen to say OD is either “lying or NEVER pays atttention to” is far from kindly saying he is misinformed. I don’t know how YOU can deduce from my simple assessment of issen’s evaluation of OD that I felt a need to address the issue of who knows more about the subject. My thrust was about the way he presented it and the fact that regardless of how much YOU think issen knows about the issue does not in anyway mean issen’s subjectivity on it yields accuracy.
.

Those liberal pundits are usually using fair & accurate discriptions of the ideology of those ideologies—AND THE PPL who wear them as de jour clothing—they assign such monikers.
They don’t do so as a one-size-fits-all as much as do those “vaunted heros” XxsamuroxX thinks are so wonderous: Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin.

Actually I’ve consistantly seen these liberal pundits of yours adopt a one-size-fits-all attitude towards US conservatives in general.

Constantly eh? Are YOU going for jhco’s Hyperbole Crown? LOL
Name some of them for us. I did for the “other side”. AND, I can come up w/ a lot more.

As for OD’s presentation: there is huge difference between omitting and ignoring….at least for me. But then, I’m not hell-bent on looking for dust mites to use as white-steed chargers to attack someone. LOL
.

For people who put free-thinking and tolerance on a pedestal, they are often neither.

This is missing the point I think Issen is making, though…you are trying to argue that it’s ok to vilify and name-call so long as the people you’re doing it to are really really crazy. That would be called ‘descending to their level’. Either way, however, you can’t ignore it, which is what OD was doing.

Again, thanks for YOUR subjective input.
Because, in MY eyes…that isn’t at all what I was going for.
Esp. that part about really really crazy. Good grief, Jan…get a handle on this obsession YOU have to vehemently demean most everyone who comes acorss YOUR path.
It will make ya old before your time. LOL
.

And, of course there is always going to be a few liberal “extremists” willing to go toe-2-toe w/ these idiots trolls. After all, trolls luv a good “dance” w/ each other. But, it really isn’t all that hard to see that one side of trolls heavily outnumbers the other. That is if one actually does _pay attention to American politicos & pundits ON BOTH SIDES.

Do you count yourself among the ranks of the few liberal extremists?

NO…I don’t.
And, YOU are just being your usual asshole self to ask.
.

>You’re misusing the word ‘troll’. Trolls bait, that is what the word means, they deliberately try to antagonize for the sake of antagonizing.

NOPE, I’m not misuing the word.
This is what that ilk of cheerleaders are.
And…that is exactly what those particular kind of “conservative” trolls do almost exculsively
Only, it is their base that they are trying to antagonize & rable-rouse rather than those on the other side.
.

Apart from the WBC, no US conservative pundit I can think of fits that label. This is either another case of using a word solely to vilify, ie. ‘neanderthals’, or worse, you seriously don’t believe the other side believes as passionately in their case as you believe in yours. If you were a Christian, you might use the adage that they are merely ‘snares put up by the devil’, but it means the same thing.

Pot-kettle-black.
YOU are looking for things in my opinions that don’t exist.
YOU are putting words in my mouth.
I went NOWHERE any of that shit ya just spewed.
Of course, this is all contingent on the “you” that YOU are using.
LOL
.

Yeah, that fucking asshole, John Locke
His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.

I’m not really sure what your point is here. Is it that you don’t think someone who could’ve inspired the US constitution could be mixed up with bible-thumpers? I think I’d agree with Issen…you need to actually read Locke before you can use him as an ideological pawn. Try ‘Letter concerning Toleration’. You’ll find it’s a rather different conception of tolerance from the milk and cookies version of tolerance used by liberals today.

Hmmmmm….<cough>SUBJECTIVITY ALERT<cough>.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Educated or Informed?

Originally posted by issendorf:

all of that is basically the exact opposite of reality.

Liberals don’t brand conservatives homophobic, neanderthals, racists, bigots, and bible thumping religious fanatics? Either you just want to lie or you never pay attention to liberal American politicos and pundits.

issne, YOU are leaning well into the pitch on this.
And tacitly inferring that there are only two reasons for Omega’s position.
That he is either an outright liar or he fails to understand a concept THE WAY YOU DO.
Either is little more than the same kind of name-calling that YOU are vilifying.

I get it that YOU are “conservative”.
However, do YOU hate niggers?
Do YOU hate Gays?
Do YOU use the Bible to defend such BIGOTED views?

Those liberal pundits are usually using fair & accurate discriptions of the ideology of those ideologies—AND THE PPL who wear them as de jour clothing—they assign such monikers.
They don’t do so as a one-size-fits-all as much as do those “vaunted heros” XxsamuroxX thinks are so wonderous: Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin.

Tell me issen, does the shoe fit?
Do YOU align yourself w/ the thinking of those pundits-of-foul-profundity?
NO…of course not EVERY word out of their mouth is of obvious bigoted nature.
But, their assessment of most anything & anyone they disagree w/ is delievered in the most, high-pitched haranging narative posible & not be sued for lible & slander.

And, of course there is always going to be a few liberal “extremists” willing to go toe-2-toe w/ these idiots trolls. After all, trolls luv a good “dance” w/ each other. But, it really isn’t all that hard to see that one side of trolls heavily outnumbers the other. That is if one actually does _pay attention to American politicos & pundits ON BOTH SIDES.
.

how is that a good thing?
and, seriously? that doesn’t even make any sense! why on earth are people insistently trying to redefine our rights, and have completely different rights in different places in the world if they “came from God”? it’s…a completely meaningless sentence.

1) Someone needs to read some John Locke – he’ll let you know why it’s a good thing. And if you have read John Locke, then you should reread his stuff.

Yeah, that fucking asshole, John Locke
His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.
.

2) Came from God probably isn’t the best way to say it since it invokes a religious aspect that is wholly irrelevant. Natural rights would be a better way to describe them.

Sure, I obviously agree whole-heartedly w/ this.
AND, it is that kind of “probably isn’t the best way to say it” which is what merits the name-calling popularly known as “Bible Thumping”.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why fixing a mistake mid sentence is bad, and makes you a slower typer.

I think typing-class tests are looking for CORRECT wpm,,,
and therefore “mistakes” DO COUNT towards the results.

In fact, there should be some form of scale that would prevent one from misspelling a long word—in a very abbreviated manner—in favor to laying down a lot of short ones in order to inflate their skill level measurement.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Out of curiosity, if you do decide the government has become a tyranny, and you have to use your guns to sort things out, um, where exactly are you planning to start your campaign of justice? What unfortunate government department is going to first get your wrath?

The only certain thing is the ones you’re targetting first haven’t ah, actually done anything against you.

Wow-0-wow, vika….damn good question.

We keep hearing from him about all of this shit…
esp. the “shit-hitting-the-fan” of some vague “revolution”.

But, YEAH….this Inquiring mind would really luv to know just how all of this will “go down”.
The start.
The means/methods/etc.
Shit….I haven’t gotten MY memo about the planning stages,,,
and I sure as shit haven’t gotten my officer’s (Colonel or higher…thank you) commission.
Plus, beware….I’m gonna design MY OWN uniform.
AND, I’m gonna use a Gay guy to help do it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by Draconavin:

Right. But if we are the government—democracy—then why do we keep fighting ourselves. Makes no sense.

Distraction…diversion….the rich don’t want the masses to have an opportunity to notice the huge social//economic disparity between the two enitities.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Some good points on how prices can be influenced by more than the simplistic concept of “supply & demand”.

Which jhco is dead-set on blaming Obama-nation’s quest to take away all guns in America as the reason for all of this mass hysteria purchasing of guns & ammo by his phantom army of gun owners that is the only thing preventing total tyranical take over of our democratic ways.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The high divorce rate

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

If a man is any kind of (macho)-man at all, he will have the balls to tell “his woman” right up front about his “need” for some “extra”. Then, if he is any kind of a human who has any respect for another human who has entrusted their heart to them, he will make EVERY EFFORT possible to “work things out” so as little “damage” as possible is done to the relationship in finding a doable solution.

….fair enough, I guess. I won’t pretend I understand the drive or “insight” that makes someone become a swinger, because I don’t think I could ever do it. But I did get into a major flame war with a guy who was a liberal swinger on a website some years back, and I regret judging him. He turned out to be a nice guy, and swore it worked for him, although I got the impression he was somewhat disturbed by watching his girl do all these other guys. It wasn’t my place to troll him, though, since he probably had enough on his plate. My life’s not perfect either.

Maybe if I did a “translation” or expanded on my post (or both), a better perspective of its meaning might evolve.

While, because the current topic regarding the reasons for divorce is infidelity, I couched my point around sexual desires//needs…this doesn’t mean it is limited to that. The concept of honest about ones general needs to their partner is probably the one greatest thing that is responsible for enhancing a relationship to the highest degree possible for maximum funtionality.

We aren’t mind readers. We can’t deal w/ relationship issues if we don’t know they exist. When an issue arises in one of the persons & is avoided because of the anticipatied//expected negativity likely involved, then this point of unresolvement just hangs there like a fart in an elevator. And, so very often, there is a weird “displacement-of-blame” transfered to the one spouse because somehow magically “they should have known”. I’m talking about resentment here. And, often times it can spill over into other areas & grow//fester completely aslo unadressed.

A previous poster hit the nail squarely on the head and drove it deep w/ the single blow of: Couple need to learn//know how to “fight & do so fairly”. I’m highly suspect of a couple who says they “never fight”. To me, this means they completely ignore problems which arise from “conflic-of-interests” &/or avoid them like they were the plague.

And, this is likely the best course for THEM.
They perhaps learned early on that they just didn’t have the skill set to be able to work on these kind of issues to arrive at (as I said above): work things out so as little damage as possible is done to the relationship in finding a doable solution.

Now, for me to address how this applies to the (more likelihood scenario of the male) interest in “outside sexual adventure”. I’m gonna say that from my experience of talking to & casual observation (men’s mags, internet porn, etc.) that this exists and is quite widespread. But, I’m also gonna say that this “interest” is usually not shared w/ his spouse. In fact, she may not even know it exists in her man. So, rather than be involved in some manner to some degree…the wife is oblivious to this “part” of her man’s psyche. Therefore, the relationship is not “as close” as they could be were there to be honesty in this area and the conflicts involved could be worked on in order to arrive at an “honorable” (honor, love, & “obey”—obey the vows) compromise. THAT is “working” on a relationship.

Some women strongly feel that he is “cheating” on her just by viewing porn…they feel he is having a real affair by merely indulging in some “randy behavior” w/ a female via an “online romance” (usually limited to pure fantasy), or even the “G-rated” Hooters resaurant chain…which is nothing more than a “tittie-bar Lite” for those men who wouldn’t be any too ashamed to have their car spotted in the parking lot (which some men will take the trouble to park in a less conspicuous area).

The man YOU mentioned really is only finding gratification by (probably?) USING his mate in order to have access to the other man’s mate. This is the reason I find the term “swinging” to be odeous,,,,w/ the ultimate term being: wife-swapping. I could find somewhat acceptable: mate-swapping. I’m much more “comfortable” w/ the term OPEN MARRIAGE. As the link shows: “Open marriage typically refers to a marriage in which the partners agree that each may engage in extramarital sexual relationships, without this being regarded as infidelity. There are many different styles of open marriage (such as swinging and polyamory), each with the partners having varying levels of input on their spouse’s activities.”

This shows that there is AND SHOULD BE all manner of application of efforts to address the “non-traditional” concept of relationalship monogomy. I might should mention the sexual surrogate

A few cultures//nations have a much more “relaxed” attitude about the part of their lives regarding sexuality. A prime example is shown in this link regarding sex-ed in schools.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by jhco50:

I don’t think so thijser. All of the ammo companies are working at full production, but they know it will subside eventually and they don’t want a lot of new equipment sitting idle when it is all over. I have noticed some new companies sprouting up but the are small and limited in production. Whether or not these small upstarts stay after the run on ammunition is yet to be seen. I think a couple will and the rest go under. It really can’t be determined at this point. I do know a lot of the gun manufacturers have quit taking orders and are backlogged. I have also heard from a good source that prices on the military (black rifles as we call them) looking rifles are starting to come down which means the run may be subsiding.

And YOU know//believe all of this….HOW?
Can ya give ANY sort of reliable reference that shows this vaunted A L L of the companies are on a 3 shift, 24/7 working schedule.

Or, is this merely more of jhco’s usual “manufactured” I’m-gonna-believe-this-is-true-because-I-want-it-to-be?

Topic: Serious Discussion / The high divorce rate

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

However, I would like to interject—that if the site’s actual thrust is as it is being presented here: “cheating” on ones spouse—then this thought might be apropos: I’m highly doubting that the spouse being cheated ON is very like-minded.

Word. There’s a ton of spouses that just want a stable relationship and instead find a bunch of shit dumped in their lap; they weren’t looking for the drama or bullshit when they got married, and they don’t deserve it.

Absolutely.
What does it say about a person who makes a very, VERY important solem VOW,,,
and then blithely breaks it,,,
and does so w/out even the courtesy of trying to “renegotiate” the vow w/ their spouse?

Ppl change as they grow older.
Their perspective on that vow changes,,,
in some areas….a lot,,,
in other areas….damn precious little.
I tend to think sexual fidelity is one of the latter.

Yet, while women DO cheat on their husbands, the huge amount of cheating is by us males.
Damn us for having only enough blood to operate one head at a time.

A good, solid marriage is one where, as it grows & perspectives change, there is strong communication between the spouses so that these changes can be “managed” in order that there be good “channeled” harmony in the variations of changes that WILL HAPPEN between two adults.

I feel that—as part of the vow & as part of what a good friendship is all about—two ppl must “work at” their relationship by being open & honest w/ each other about just who the hell they are//have become as time passes.

While women DO cheat on their husbands,,,
the huge majority of cheating is done by us males.
Damn the fact that the Good Lord gave us only enough blood to supply only one “head” at a time.

Dishonesty w/in the marriage is a poison that can kill it or do irreparable damage & hugely diminish its effectiveness.
While being honest about certain aspects of one of them might not be taken all that well,,,
going behind their back and “cheating” is far, FAAAARRRRR worse. One spouse is totally unable to do anything about a problem they know NOTHING about? COMMUNICATION is paramount to a good relationship.

If a man is any kind of (macho)-man at all, he will have the balls to tell “his woman” right up front about his “need” for some “extra”. Then, if he is any kind of a human who has any respect for another human who has entrusted their heart to them, he will make EVERY EFFORT possible to “work things out” so as little “damage” as possible is done to the relationship in finding a doable solution.

My experience about men’s “need” for “strange” is this: a woman who has her head outta her ass & has taken off the rose-tinted glasses of overly-optimistic youth and come to grips about what we men are like…..AND, the fact that her man is probably one of them—this woman probably can AND WILL be a lot more likely to work w/ her man (in a myriad of ways) to see that his “need” is fulfilled as is humanly possible within her capabilities. This can include—like the movie of the same name—a “hall pass”.

I personally know of a number of (esp. older) women that will nudge their spouse when a woman to the man’s liking is walking by. This is because she knows EXACTLY what he is thinking….BECAUSE they have talked about it and are managing the TRUTH of it all.

Maybe what I am talking about here is maturity.
A kind of maturity that is the product of accepting reality,,,
esp. when it isn’t the one we had hoped for.
ESPECIALLY the area of sexual fidelity when it comes to the “desire area”.
The id knows what it wants.
The super ego best be aware and make strong effort to control it.
A little help from a friend can be of great benefit to that friendship.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why fixing a mistake mid sentence is bad, and makes you a slower typer.

XxsamuroxX, while I can appreciate (I guess MY style of writing speaks loudly on this) your point. But, there are at least two reasons I think ya’ve failed to win support by the others on this.

One: A key point ya make right in the beginning wasn’t clear enough…at least to me. This might be supported by the fact that ya also found it “necessary” to repeat it: “but this paragraph was directed to the sites on the internet that are practices to help you become a better typer.” BTW…there is a mistake in THAT sentence. Your “this” has no antecedent. I know ya meant the first long paragraph in your OP.

Please bear w/ me here on this….after all, this is what YOUR thread is about. What could have preceded that paragraph in your OP that might have helped your presentation of it might have been: _"This (strike the word “this”) the below paragraph was written about a typing test website. If you read between the liens it can be applied to a lot of things. Plus, it might be of interest to some here were ya to tell us if it was written by YOU.

Two: YOU are comparing a fruit salad (apples, oranges, & more) of different “concepts-of-correction”. But, basically…on the one hand, you are making a case for a lesser “need” to be of high grammatical correctness (which I obviously follow here). But, I need to know if ya’re meaning JUST this site….or sites in general.

On the other hand, the many examples ya’re using have the obvious distinction of being (all depending upon the circumstances) of somewhat difficult or even negating their intended effort altogether. An example of this is your (foot?) race. To go back to the point of starting just because ya had a “bad” one so totally means that this form of “correction” is counterproductive….probably to the point of absurdity. Starting your race over actually ensures that ya’ll lose it.

Another example (this one being mine…esp addressing the area of: depending upon the circumstances) would be the correcting of a mistake in dialogue in the presentation of a play. Obviously, in the much less important process of rehearsing…when a mistake (be it in script or emotive nuance) is made, the director calls CUT. He wants to make correction//change at the point he sees necessary for it to be made.

In the important area of “opening night” of the play, even sans the director yelling out CUT, for an actor to make MINOR adjustments in his presentation for a minor faux pas would be silly. Most audiences who attend plays are sophisticated enough to notice the mistake. But, this level of sophistication of those attendees also should mean that they well understand: To err is to be human.

Of course, a director of a movie is the same as that of a play….he wants as good a “product” (production) as he can achieve. When millions of dollars are being sunk into the project, he probably better. LOL

So very important to this process is the area of “continuity”. There is an employee whose sole job is to ensure that the progression of a scene, after a cut has been called, has all things the same as before the cut was made.

For me, it is fun to “catch” some of this kind of mistakes. I guess many others find some merit to this form of “bloopers” by showing the many “outtakes” (mistakes) at the end of the movie while the credits are rolling (who reads the credits anyway…LOL). In fact, such is the interest in bloopers, there was a 30-minute TV show that showed this genre.

NOW, to show some degree of support for YOUR basic premise. While I obviously & intentionally mangle syntax…I also do it because—even though this forum is called Serious Discussion—I see the emphasis being on “discussion” with the “serious” part of it being on the subject matter (the message) rather than the messenger (the grammatical form it is presented). I try to marginalize my “impact-of-opinion” by making effort to keep them light…as in conversation form among a casual group of ppl.

This doesn’t mean that I’m oblivious to the fact that if one wants their presentation to be taken seriously….they will find greater support were they to write in a style worthy of an essay or thesis for college. But, as YOU have pointed out….does a forum like this really merit such anal attention to grammar? Are the posters here (ones that obviously, for the most part, are of above average intellect…largely due to the very nature of it) not able to glean the intended meaning of a not-so-grammatical-perfect post?

The following shouldn’t be considered anymore of a “condemnation” of those who have a penchant for close-to-perfection-as-possible of text…as a couple of them who seem to be making points that could be viewed as a condemnation of my writing. I don’t have a problem w/ such exuberance for pursuit strong correction in their writing. I hope they likewise don’t carry THEIR interest to the point of great expectation upon my shoulders.

After all, isn’t this concept at the heart of a lot of what is discussed here? At least for me, I have the attitude of: I will support (almost to my death) an other’s right to think//believe as they will. But, I will be just as tenacious about keeping them from forcing said thinking upon me.

Irregardless (< intentional), mild priggishness & anality really isn’t offensive to me. In fact, I greatly appreciate it in some areas of my life. I like for my doctors to “lean into” this realm. I’ve had some very negative experiences from those who didn’t. I’ve had some “unfortunate” results (great frustration?) when—as Beauval puts it about writing,,ppl are being “bone idleness”—in their (mostly) verbal communication w/ me. Maybe I should “take the hint” and see that I just don’t merit any more than that. LOL

In closing this wall-of-text, while it addresses only spelling mistakes… I hope it lends support for YOUR (and my) basic point.

BTW, I actually put in some real effort to edit this post.
LOL

Topic: Serious Discussion / The high divorce rate

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Still, he made the website—how would he feel if he experienced the fruits of this particular labor/taste of his own medicine?

As he has been asked time and time again, his response remains that he would be devastated.

Nonetheless, a forum for cheating does not not force anyone out of happy relationships. It’s a service for providing like minded people in a similar situation. Seems fair enough

As usual, Ung…well stated.
Much shorter than my similar position.
LOL

However, I would like to interject—that is if the site’s actual thrust is as it is being presented here: “cheating” on ones spouse—this thought: I’m highly doubting that the spouse being cheated ON is like-minded.
LOL

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why fixing a mistake mid sentence is bad, and makes you a slower typer.

Originally posted by Pulsaris:

Because some things are reversible and others are not.

OR….
maybe SOME things merit being “fixed” or reversed,,,
and others don’t.
And, the ones that are & those that aren’t are for each of us to decide….
as much as we are allowed…
even to the point of allowing OURSELVES to do so.
That’s called life.
Learning to “pick our battles”,,,
our strategies.

But, for heaven’s sake….don’t make the mistake of thinking all things are battles or that not fighting one means that ya “lost” it.

Some “mistakes” JUST HAVE TO be amended,,,
or emended,,,
whatever the domain.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The high divorce rate

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Karma—the big problem I have with Ashley Madison is that it uses cheating on established relationships as a platform for hooking up, not just straight hooking up with fair game (as is the case with match.com and a lot of other websites). I would think if someone is looking for a lay, as the case may be, there are a lot of choices better than other people’s property with smaller potential for harm and fewer emotional entanglements.

I read an interview with the CEO/founder of Ashley Madison and it seemed kind of apologist for him, for lack of a better term. It almost tried to portray him a nice family guy who was reluctant to support his own website. Still, he made the website—how would he feel if he experienced the fruits of this particular labor/taste of his own medicine?

It almost makes me wish his wife would cheat on him. With his brother. And film it.

LOL….I share your wish.
I hadn’t even heard of this website.
While I feel that most things that promote “harm” to someone are indeed very sleazy,,,
and THAT is the kindest I’ll be in describing my bile towards them…..there will always be some form of “temptation” or another. Someone will always fill the void when it comes to filling the base needs of humans.

But, such is the very base for the discernment of good from bad.
Without some really bad areas of darkness,,,
the wondrousness of good light wouldn’t be as nearly as bright.

The problem is to decide w/ side of the road ya want to walk at any given moment….
perhaps w/ the thought held firmly in the mind that when one paces along, either side, they begin to “wear a rut” into that path. One which can become difficult to leave in order to have a “walk on the wild side” every now & again. Just be sure ya know the way back. LOL

Temptations of all nature abound all about us.
Modern media has exponentially enhanced them.
We are hugely drunk on materialism & hedonism.
I’m surprised we manage to hold onto reality at times.
BUT…this is where the “conservative” comes in handy…
they shout out from the dark rut so we can find our way “home” to our little rut of sanity.
LOL

Something to ponder in considering this good & bad thing: When does the mountain change into being the valley? When does good become bad….for each of us….for us collectively as a society?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why fixing a mistake mid sentence is bad, and makes you a slower typer.

Don’t “enable” me,,,,,babe.
I’m completely bad to da bone & I know it.
Ya’re a preachin’ to da chior here.
LOL

Topic: Serious Discussion / The high divorce rate

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by Draconavin:

Marriage is not sacred :)

Uh, some people don’t treat it as such (if you equate sacred = monogamy, anyhow), but they argue it helps them. I don’t know, I’ve never tried it.

And therein lies the rub.
I’m going to (hope?) say that most couples enter their marriages w/ FULL intentions of living up to ALL OF their vows….including & ESPECIALLY monogamy.

Where the problem enters is that—even though they have come from a family—they know not what being the spouse//adult involves,,,at least on the levels that matter more//most as far as serious effects on the relationship are concerned. They just haven’t yet experienced this….of course, there are those who fail marriage-after-marriage; even to the same person.

Now, as far as monogamy goes….
let’s be realistic…“cheating” is huge.
I’m not gonna go get some links touting the “numbers” on all sorts of variables about it.
Let’s do an “ax” here and say that infidelity likely is one of the biggest (finances is really big), if not biggest, causes of serious damage to marriages.

So, obviously there is a “cause”….eh?
I’d like to think we can agree that it usually lies w/ the male,,,
regardless of how one might look at the (yes…realistic) causes on the females side (frigidity…lack of interest…lack of whatever).

This casual issue centers around the human male’s huge difficulty in being able to “FOCUS” his sexual interest//desire toward ONE woman & do it for a looooooooooong period of time.
Failure for society to adequately grasp this concept over the “happily-ever after” crap is the ticking time-bomb. A man is gonna do what a man does. It is how nature designed us.

We males produce our half of the sum in the millions….per day and can sow those (viable) oats almost daily. Women produce their half ONCE A MONTH & it is usually only one & it isn’t even always that viable. AND, if there is a connection…..that part of the team is sidelined for at least 9 months.

So, the male has to be hitting anything & everything that moves….
or at least moves slow enough for him to catch it w/ his pants down around his ankles.
Call it the “super-grenade-effect”: throw enough seed around as large an area as possible,,,
something is bound “to catch”.

Were this not the case, we probably wouldn’t have survived as a species.
But, that was at the “beginning” (then)….
this is NOW.
Of course our “superior” (over animal instinctual urges) brains enable us to control much of our id.: “According to Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of personality, the id is the personality component made up of unconscious psychic energy that works to satisfy basic urges, needs, and desires. The id operates based on the pleasure principle, which demands immediate gratification of needs.”

“The id is the only part of personality that is present at birth. Freud also suggested that this primitive component of personality existed completely within the unconscious. The id acts as the driving force behind personality. It not only strives to fulfill our most basic urges, many of which are tied directly to survival, it also provides all of the energy necessary to drive personality.”

But, w/ such a DRIVING FORCE…
aren’t we naively expecting the males to “control the uncontrollable”?
Okay….that’s a weeebit extreme.
Mostly because many men DO manage to do so.
But, as has been pointed out….even though Herculean, this effort alone isn’t enough to “guarantee” marital success. And just maybe, it is with this in mind that a man who has a “twinge” is able to rationalize that “cheating”—not being the ONLY marriage killer—really isn’t all that “bad”….what she doesn’t know won’t hurt her…it will make me happy & therefore be good for the marriage.

I think I pointed out earlier that it is only recently that women have had equal status in marriage. In prior “times”, the subordinate position they held precluded them from even giving a thought to the fact that their man was “gonna be a man”. One that was faithful was a treasure. One that wasn’t was at least admired for being “discrete”. Those that openly “reveled” garnered mixed honors. This is the case even today.

So…swingers.
So what?
Just like Gays being married,,,
how does married couples extending their sexual “boundaries” harm the “sanctity-of-marriage”?
If you support prostitution, do ya seriously think it will be ONLY single guys supporting the profession? Do ya really think that ALL women whose husbands make use of such a “service” will really care all that much? For many (older?) women…sex has become a chore; esp. if the husband has “excessive needs” (supply & demand situation here—w/ no particular value-norm established).

Swinging is merely a part of how a couple can deal w/ the sexual natures of their individual personalities.
The important thing—and the thing that strongly enriches the marriage—is that it is something actually done AS A COUPLE….ya know, ppl being together doing something of COMMON interest…..something like, say: square-dancing. lol

Although, in terms of marriage and its breakdown, there are numerous ways to go astray, including Craigslist and Ashley Madison (which in my opinion is just an asshole website in its mission).

Hmmmm….on the other hand—if one takes the “cheating” element out of it—it becomes something more along the lines of “non-prostitute” hook-ups that use the modern technology. Frankly, I’m really unable to believe that there are that many women wanting to hookup….at least FOR FREE. lol

Seriously, much like “massage parlors” or “escort services”….
a rose by any other name is…..

But, as odious as such a service might be….
if you support legalization of most recreational drugs…
the measure of the level of respect the “pusher” merits will probably be something that can be similarly applied to the “pusher” of pussy.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should the Law have some control over what is done to one's own body?

So, tell me….how has a thread topic about Should the Law have some control over what is done to one’s own body? segued into an abortion thread?

Ooooops…stooopid me.
When a woman aborts, for whatever reason; she actually IS exercising CONTROL over her OWN body. So, NO…the law should be extremely LIMITED in the issue of abortion. As it now stands, things are fairly reasonable.
.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
If ya’re gonna use reductio ad absurdum to try to win, good luck w/ that.

Originally posted by SupernautUK:And if you want to criticise an argument because of the way it is made, rather than the issues that it addresses, I forsee you have a great future in contemporary politics.

So…did not YOU just do the same thing….eh?
Pot-kettle-black….worthless.
LOL

I made my point,,,
and that was all the addressed post merited.
THAT is the whole point behind fallacious arguments….worthless.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should the Law have some control over what is done to one's own body?

Originally posted by SupernautUK:

Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

I wonder how abortion hurts anyone, seeing as before the third month there is no possibility of suffering or awareness. Nobody but the parents is emotionally attached to the fetus, and they are the one that need the abortion to happen.

So if I was to find, say, a person who had no family and friends and injected them with a deadly but painless poison while they slept – you would have no moral problem with that?

If ya’re gonna use reductio ad absurdum to try to win, good luck w/ that.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Educated or Informed?

XxsamuroxX, I'm not quite sure why ya have used MY thread to go waaaaay off-topic and give a "sermon" extolling the virtues of the somewhat-more-far-right conservatism. I see precious little that directly addresses the OP. .

Originally posted by XxsamuroxX:

Ignorance is bliss should not be applied to the world.

If YOU quoted Draconavin's WHOLE post just so ya could say THAT....shame on YOU. The greater shame results from how ya didn't even explain your opinion. That is unless your evaluation of "celeberties":http://www.thefreedictionary.com/celebrity (see just below) somehow was intended to do it. .

All those celebrities are bad for one thing…they get want they want.

What is it w/ you & jhco and your penchants for hyperbole? And, besides a very ignorant belief that they ALL get what they want...can ya show some substantial evidence that even "a lot" of them do so? Yes, I'm sure the money that so often comes w/ fame does afford them access to many material things.

But, there are many, MANY ppl who have money that aren't celebrities at all. BTW, as far as Hollywood goes....there are some VERY conservative ppl there. Just a quick reminder here, not all celebrities are of a "Hollywood" genre. Nor are they necessarily of the media crowd...which, by the way, INCLUDES those extremely conservative talk-radio & Fox News personalities ya mention below.

And, ppl of celebrity ( a form of "power") has always attracted ppl who find (often odd) "interest" in them...for a large number of reasons. I'm detecting a strong bias against "Hollywood celebrities" from ya. I also believe this is born of & fed by limiting your EDUCATION (remember, THAT is what my thread here is about?) to the likes of YOUR "celebrities" and your "home enviroment".

The balance of my post will limit my use of the term "celebrity" to those "liberal Hollywood perverts" that I believe YOU are intending to single out.

.

They don’t work for anything!

Just more hyperbole here. Even the Hollywood crowd most often does quite difficult work. Open YOUR eyes & mind--a proclivity where "conservatives" are much more adept than "liberals"--and ya just might be able to grasp this truth.

.

They are of no importance to society.

Merely YOUR opinion. And, an extreeeeeeemly subjective one at that. I beg to differ and could give opinion why it does were I to have an interest in wasting time. .

They just keep all the money they can get, and the world would be fine without them.

NOW we're begining to pull back enough curtains to be able to develop a view of the more extreme nature of a highly expemlary "conservative". Why on earth do ya have a problem w/ "celebrities"--as do most ppl--wanting to take home a paycheck? As for "keeping the money"....BULLSHIT. They spend it...which puts it into circulation that ultimately ends up in YOUR hands. This "world-be-a-better-place..." shit of yours merely shows the dept of HATRED that can result from drinking heartedly from the "conservative koolaid fountain". .

Having a fantasy blinds you from the truth and everything and anything you can help to stop it the problems.

OH,,fucking bullshit. What a very obtuse opinion of something that is very psychologically healthy. I find that MY "fanticies actually HELP me find solutions to all manner of "problems". I might offer that YOU indulge in a form of "fantacy" which is demonstrated by your "talks w/ God" (discussed below). .

You don’t suffer from the truth…you suffer if the truth hasn’t been dealt with for a long time because you weren’t paying attention to it.

While this is quite good thinking,,,, ya do understand that "conservatives" aren't immune to it....right? .

Your view of liberalism is horrible.

So is YOURS of it. So is your view of "conservatism" Opinion vis a vis opinion....great, lol. .

First of all, liberalism isn’t a way to make a positive future that doesn’t overrule a rational reality. Aside your points of why you are a liberal, one thing for sure that the truth is liberalism will ultimately fail.

Oh fuck, stop it w/ the diet of koolaid. I could spend hours giving examples of how it is "liberalism" that propels a society forward and how "conservatism"--by its very nature to "conserve" which holds it back. If liberalism fails....so does a society. That is if one sees progress as important. .

No, it doesn’t. Liberalism’s continued success depends on many factors, but two in particular. First, it must paint the political alternative, conservatism, as the faction of social injustice, as anti-immigrant, anti-entitlement, anti-regulation and so on.

Whoaaaa there, Bucky. All of those "traits" are--to various degrees--the very planks in the GOP's (i.e. "conservatives) platform. "Liberals" don't have to do any "painting" at all....they need merely only shine a light on the already existing canvas. .

The Obama campaign did that effectively in this election without an equally effective conservative response. One presumes that conservatives will be ready in 2016.

OR, mabye the inclusion of the neo-extreme-conservatism has the GOP so fucked up that it can't really get its shit together enough to find a decent candidate to rally behind. Take for example Sarah Palin. That idiot did much more harm to the GOP than all "liberaldom" could if its sole goal was to do so. .

Second, and more important, effective state intervention of the sort liberals propose depends almost entirely on a state that is strong economically and socially.

I can't argue that. But, what I can present is that--by & large--it is the "conservatives" that are fucking it up. .

It is here that liberalism falls short in the long term. The various liberal constituencies are in fact atomized groups of individuals who are relying on government, rather than creating the economic growth...

Hoooboy...let's here it for "trickle-down-economics" or "supply-econ"...which has been proven time-&-again to be utterly weak forms. .

... or fostering the social and civic health necessary to sustain the ideal liberal state.

Read: Draw a line through the middle of society (about at the 47% point) and deem those "below" it to be of little value. In fact, call them leeches. .

The future of the GOP Jindal to GOP: Stop being the dumb party Frum: Mandate is opinion, power is fact Minority turnout a curveball for GOP.

If ya clean up that mess....I might be able to respond. .

Whereas liberals see entitlements as the immediate response to economic injustice, many fail to realize that they alone cannot rebuild a middle class.

First: I think YOUR opinion about "IMMEDIATE" is a lot biased. Second: Ya fail to understand that the extremely large number of poor can't BUY the products the middle class manufacture if they don't have money to do so. Ergo, middle class doesn't get paid for manufacting (loss of jobs...plus loss caused by outsourcing to other countries) and suffers. .

In fact, they can have the opposite effect in the long term and insulate their recipients from upward mobility.

Yes, a well-intentioned program w/ poor oversight & slashed funding can be the shits. I wonder what it is w/ SOME (well, MANY) "conservatives" that so luv to jam their heads up their asses and ONLY SEE the negative aspects of govt. assitance to those who have great needs? .

With $16 trillion in national debt, an aging population and an already-overburdened entitlement system, the ideal liberal social welfare state can only sustain itself for so long before it collapses under its own weight.

All of that is argumentative. And, it really isn't all as dark as "conservatives" want to paint is due to the fact that our economic recovery is progressing very well. .

It is a lifeline attached to a slowly sinking ship. Whereas liberals celebrate subsidized birth control and the unmooring of what they see as narrow-minded religious moral standards, they fail to realize the alternative that is right in front of them: out-of-wedlock birth rates that are at all-time highs and a destructive breakdown in the family unit.

Hooooboy....THAT viewpoint is sooooo "canned-conservatism" that I don't care to sully my fingers addressing it. STOP DRINKING THE KOOLAID. .

Absent strong, active, character-forming institutions, like families, schools, and churches, single mothers and low-income households in many cases have no where else to turn but to the government. The problem is that liberals often confuse such allegiance with successful governing.

Hmmmm....shall I just ignore this "konservative-koolaid-induced-hangover" crap? Of course I will. It demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of the complexities of our society in favor of a FANTASY (see far above in this post) world. .

The liberal coalition of the future looks more like Greece, an advanced secular, social welfare state, than the idealized liberal glory days of FDR.

Yeah, lets have another round of koolaid. Let's find something similar enough to our situation to hop on a koolaid-greased slippery slope and have a fun ride appealing to "scary-emotions". And, maybe a part of the reason those "glory days" haven't succeded so well is because of "conservative" obstrutionism that won't give them a chance....at all? .

Because America is more liberal than conservative, liberals generally brand those who are conservative with many kinds of hateful names and insults such as homophobic, neanderthals, racists, bigots, and bible thumping religious fanatics.

Oh, what fucking bullshit. NO. Many moderates call particular viewpoints held by the more extreme factions (as in: NOT ALL conservatives) of conservative thinking exactly what they are. .

Because of the rise of talk radio and the rise of liberalism in our government, schools, and the media, many nationally known conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin are being constantly attacked by those who are liberal.

Bucky, YOU certainly have several things confused here. But, this is one of the ways we know someone is drinking the koolaid. YOUR list of conservative "celebrities" are the ones who spew the hatred....usually via near-outright LIES. But, most definitely appeals to emotions & offers of free koolaid. .

Why do liberals attack conservatives so much?

See above. Why do conservatives attack liberal EVEN MORE SO? .

Speaking as a conservative, let me tell you why.

Sure. Go ahead. I collect rent from those who use my thread as a soap box for ranting out "conservative talking points". LOL .

It is because conservatives stand up for what we believe in and we do it with passion and honor. We tend to stand up for what we believe is right and on the principles that has made America great such as love of God, love of family, the work ethic, patriotism, and individual freedom. We as conservatives strongly believe that these things are in jeopardy as long as liberals are in control.

Oh shit. This one is strong-with-the-force of being adicted to the koolaid. But, it was kinda "refreshing" to see, once again, all of that bullshit summed up so patheticly. Why do YOU "think" such virtues don't apply to "liberals"? What the fuck is up w/ THAT? .

Liberals hate conservatives because we will not change what believe in our hearts to be right.Oh fuck. Someone is confusing "saddened" w/ hate. They don't understand that it is when the things in "conservative's" hearts WANT TO DENY others to cherish what is in theirs....THAT is what saddens "liberals". .

We believe that liberalism and that the policies and procedures of the liberals who are currently in office are wrong for America.

No shit, Sherlock. It's good to know that dissention, a very natural thing in life--particularly in a society as diversely complex as that of America--is alive & well. Imagine THAT. . Oh shit, we've now abandoned the soapbox for the pulpit.

So, to the liberals out there, let me explain why being conservative is a good thing. First, being conservative means that you believe that our rights come from God and not the government. Second, being conservative means that you believe that the definition of marriage is one man loving one woman. Third, being conservative means you believe that abortion is wrong and that life in the womb of the mother is sacred. Fourth, being conservative means that you believe in a lesser government and that America is the greatest nation on Earth and that there is a real war on terror. Being conservative is great because I believe in these things. I am proud to be called a conservative because I want to see America be the nation that God has destined it to be.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaa....let's all stand and give it up for the "conservative manifesto". Tell me, diddgya just cut&paste that from some transcript of one of your "celebrities" above? On behalf of we who tend to be "liberal", let me respond with: I greatly support YOUR RIGHT to believe in these things. Wouldn't it be peachy-nice if YOU "CONSERVATIVES" would return the favor and stop trying to cram YOUR ideology down our throats & up our asses? NOW, rather than use my thread for YOUR political//social agenda...(don't respond to MY reply here) please limit your response to some form of being ON TOPIC.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by thijser:

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by thijser:

You can also include something in the software. But until we reach that point why not make it difficult.

Because it defeats the object of having these printers in the first place. You’re limiting the possibilities for what people can produce ‘just in case one of these parts might possibly be for a weapon’. It makes no sense.

You need certain fairly specific parts we are not just talking about cylinders but cylinders with an internal screw so you shot will go straight and a reinforced end as well as some holes for the rest of the mechanism.

thijser, while ya’re dead right about how the “internal screw” (rifling) of the bore of the barrel of the gun greatly imporve the trajectory of the bullet….rifling wasn’t iniitially a part of early guns. While not all that accurate, they still were….shall we say: EFFECTIVE?

YOU will notice that a snubnose revolver has such a very short barrel that obviously there will also be just as little rifling.

These guns, preferred as a personal carry gun because of no bulky long barrel—easily concealed, are very popular & accurate enough for the EXPECTED use of them: close quarters.

I don’t think ya meant cylinder because these ARE quite complex to manufacture (and work well at all). Initially, most 3-D repo guns would likely be single shot.
And, while a single shot isn’t MY preference (I have several of them), it IS STILL a shot that can kill ya. THAT I show propper respect for….whether the gun be IN my hand or AIMED AT me.

I’m not at all up to date on 3-D printers,,,
such is just not “my thing”.

BUT, long ago (when I was young) I used a 3-D milling machine. I would load a blank (a chunk of aluminum either in block or rough cast form) onto the machining table and then use a stylus to trace over the model I was to mill. Now, computers run the milling machine and are much, MUCH more accurate & versitile in what they will do.

Making a handgun really isn’t all that hard if ya have the knowlege and the machinery….esp. the machinery (with the program…..which ain’t all that hard to make).
A lego machine can do a fairly good job of showing how easy this is.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The high divorce rate

Originally posted by PurpleCavalier:

Maybe it is tied to the fact that people are always wanting something new or better. The fact that you can pretty much walk away hands clean makes it to easy, so there is no reason to stay with it.

Most definitely tied to it, Purple.

We have become a very “throw-away” society in many aspects.
Of course, this really isn’t all that new….ppl change//evolve…they get old & die, replaced by the “new”//different attitudes of the “young”.

Women’s clothing fashion is a good example of a loooong standing “just-got-to-have-the-lastest-design”.

What is different is how quickly things change.
Look at how fast electronic tech is now exponentially changing.
I still have (but don’t need….lol) my beeper
Ever heard of: Planned obsolesence
And, for many products….it is much cheaper to just go out & buy a mew one rather than pay $60-$80 labor costs to repair it.

It might be the same for a wife….
LOL

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

tenco, you well addressed his post.
I doubt I could do better.
But, I would make effort to embellish.
.

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by jhco50:

Karma, you see strong, deep merit only in the parts that suit you.

Much unlike you, obviously.

Yes, this is one of his greatest failings…self-reflection.
It’s more childish counterpart is: I know you are…but what am I?
.

Originally posted by jhco50:
I see the merit in the entire document. It is the basis for our entire form of government.

And as seen in the American Revolution, sometimes the government needs an update.

And, as seen in the number of Amendments made to the document AND the fact it establishes the provisions to do so, hugely supports your point, tenco. And, it is this very obvious point that jhco FAILS to understand in his “defense” of the 2nd Amend…..that EVEN IT can be amended. He does—even though he waivers to & fro—demonstrate that he (somewhat?) understands that all subsequent laws (including those concerning guns) made must (when contested to the SCOUS) stand the test of Constitutionality
.

Originally posted by jhco50:
The Bill of Rights are what give you the freedom to sound like a dufus.

And the freedom for you to sound like a prick for saying that.

Careful there, tenco….he will relegate ya to sitting in the corner w/ me.
LOL
AND, will someone explain to “college boy” there what verb/subject agreement is.
It’s The Bill of Rights IS….
It is considered to be a unit; therefore being SINGULAR as an object in a sentence.

I know it is a fact that I write like shit…at least where I use punctuation.
But, my writing style is known as stream-of-concioussness

I don’t do all of this (aren’t we ALL glad?…LOL. But, I do do this part: _"Forget grammar. You don’t need to capitalize, punctuate, or even spell correctly. If necessary, make up a word to suit your needs.
An example shown in Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway:
“She remembered once throwing a shilling into the Serpentine. But every one remembered; what she loved was this, here, now, in front of her; the fat lady in the cab. Did it matter then, she asked herself, walking towards Bond Street, did it matter that she must inevitably cease completely; all this must go on without her; did she resent it; or did it not become consoling to believe that death ended absolutely? but that somehow in the streets of London, on the ebb and flow of things, here, there, she survived, Peter survived, lived in each other, she being part, she was positive, of the trees at home; of the house there, ugly, rambling all to bits and pieces as it was; part of people she had never met; being laid out like a mist between the people she knew best, who lifted her on their branches as she had seen the trees lift the mist, but it spread ever so far, her life, herself.”

I merely “bastardize” the runon form by showing the usual pauses in normal conversations w/ extended punctuations. I think those single punctuations can be easily missed. I hope this clears up—for once and all—my intentions via my writing style. But, the other areas of syntax (verb/subject agreement, etc.) usually//hopefully are “correct”. LOL
.

Originally posted by jhco50:
They didn’t just decide it was a right.

They kinda did. To them, they had ideas about what is a right, and they were inspired by other governmental ideas of inalienable rights, but they were the ones to decide which rights were included and which weren’t.

Absolutely.
While those concepts they included in the Constitution were pretty much long established ones,,,
it certainly was they that decided if a concept of governing a ppl was “right” enough to be applied to their wishes for their break from one that was quite oppressive.
.

Originally posted by jhco50:
It was/is established that all human beings have certain inalienable rights.

Unless you’re black or a woman.

Yes.
Which is kinda the basis for arguements “against” the 2nd’s Rights….
that being: things were different THEN.
As things change…so does the need to update laws to correspond to the spirit of the Const.
.

Originally posted by jhco50:
What would be included in the Constitution was discussed thoroughly.

And therefore never needs to be discussed thoroughly ever again, as the “discussion quota” has already been met.

Good point, tenco…
which is backed up by the very fact that much of that discussion wasn’t merely a concensus that worked to make sure all the "T"s were crossed and the "I"s dotted.

In fact, a lot of those discussions were as heated as the 4 long summer months wearing powdered wigs it took to hammer out the final draft. From this link
“In February 1787, Congress decided that a convention should be convened to revise the Articles of Confederation, the nation’s first constitution. In May, 55 delegates came to Philadelphia, and the Constitutional Convention began. Debates erupted over representation in Congress, over slavery, and over the new executive branch. The debates continued through four hot and muggy months. But eventually the delegates reached compromises, and on September 17, they produced the U.S. Constitution, replacing the Articles with the governing document that has functioned effectively for more than 200 years.”

Discention of those discussions was shown by the number of delegates to the Const. Convention that left in protest (or other non-specified reasons) and 3 that remained who REFUSED to sign it. See for the list.

A point obviously lost on jhco is that the ORIGINAL form of govt. of the new United States wasn’t even “changed”….
it was totally dropped.
How is THAT for setting precedence for a realization that things can AND SHOULD be stable but subject to NECESSARY change?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by thijser:

Originally posted by jhco50:

Thiser, do you really think killing babies would be considered a basic right? These are rights considered to belong to all human beings. It doesn’t matter how old the Constitution is. the way it was written allowed it to continue as is for all time. Read it sometime and you will see what I am talking about.

However just because the founding fathers decided it is a right makes it a right which is protected by the ideas by the founding fathers that these rights should be protected. It all seems kinda circular don’t you think? What if one of them was crazy and put something like killing babies in there? Shouldn’t we be able to chance
CHANGE

it if the majority felt like it?

thijser, our Constitution did establish a process by which it could be Amended (changed).
That is the beauty of it…..along w/ the checks-&-balances.
The change isn’t easy…..but, that is as it should be.
It is what makes us a republic rather than a democracy.

But, YOU are absolutely right.
Some men writing a “document” DOES NOT MAKE IT any more “holy” than a bunch of men writing things that are put together (& then some taken out) in a book called a Bible. Neither of them establish PROOF that they came “from God”. It is merely taken on faith to be so.

Does this mean that I don’t agree with or hold in high regard any or all of those men’s opinions?
Absolutely NOT.
I see strong, deep merit in most of our Const. (and SOME of the Bible).
Many other forms of govt. are highly reflective of ideology in our Const.
I just think some ppl have a much greater evaluation of THEIR understanding of it than is realistic.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by thijser:

Anyway jhco I believe you haven’t yet explained the fundamental difference what makes driving a car a privilege and owning a gun a right (of course only a right you have if you can pay it).

OH NOOOooooooo…..you didn’t?
LOL
Ya know he doesn’t “get” sarcasm.
NOW he will hop up on his Red, White, & Blue soap box and lecture us on American history.

AND, he will—ONCE AGAIN—get it wrong….
AND, he will—ONCE AGAIN—fail to see that he is.

Link “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

Most (if not all) of those enumerated “rights” are most definitely “subject” to some from of govt. “control”. If for no other reason than two ppl having the “same” rights but having widely differing viewpoints is going to necessitate some from of “limitations” on who is “more right”.

And, tenco….anytime ya wanna swap “nicknames”,,, I’m game.
Little fella for old man?
LOL

Originally posted by thijser:

But why do you think these rights should be basic aside from the fact that it says so on an old document? Would you also protect to murder babies if it said it was a right in the bill of rights?

The neo-Xtreme “conservative” so luvs to puke out: Show me where in the Constitution it sez ______—when someone points out how a law is Constitutional or right is granted//proteced by it.

BUT, when it better serves THEIR agendas….they get all mystic, burn incense, speak in tongues, and say: it’s in there.

Ironic…eh?
.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Karma, do you actually comprehend what is being said before you go into you diatribes? Read them as a whole and answer them within the context they were made. They were not made with any aggression, yet you seem to be ignoring that fact. Does losing the battle over gun control bother you that much? And stop with the F*bomb, it makes you sound like you have no vocabulary at your disposal.

Grrrrrr…I must have poked the FUCKING bear.
BTW…I have a fine vocabulary,,,
and it is ENRICHED w/ some very saucy words.
Thank you.