JGowans Posted July 1, 2003 Author Share Posted July 1, 2003 JoshK said: Yeah, I think we've all learned our lesson about arguing with MtnGoat before. It's not even worth the effort. He's a confused simpleton. It's truly incredible. Here we all are grappling with some fairly macro level questions and issues. Each of us tries to argue our point on the same plane, and along comes MtnGoat at the 11th hour and proceeds to drag the discourse into the most microscopic analysis possible so that the rest of us are left scratching our heads and wondering why Hitler drinking water is analagous to the U.S. refusing to sign human rights treaties. Truly baffling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Here's a guy who won't answer content, instead switching to name calling, trying to make a case for "childish" conclusions? Now that's a good one. If you can't make any headway against critiques of your points, switch to complaining. What an intelligent position. You guys crack me up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 MtnGoat said: Here's a guy who won't answer content, instead switching to name calling, trying to make a case for "childish" conclusions? Now that's a good one. If you can't make any headway against critiques of your points, switch to complaining. What an intelligent position. You guys crack me up. Rewind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGowans Posted July 1, 2003 Author Share Posted July 1, 2003 MtnGoat said: Here's a guy who won't answer content, instead switching to name calling, trying to make a case for "childish" conclusions? Now that's a good one. If you can't make any headway against critiques of your points, switch to complaining. What an intelligent position. You guys crack me up. Quite honestly MtnGoat, I don't feel qualified to argue with you. I seemed to understand everyone else's points even though I didn't necessarily agree with them. However, you make some bizarre points, and equally bizarre conclusions, and I am flummoxed as to how I should respond because they are complete and utter incomprehensible codswallop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 right goat, we are all morons, we all believe that we are just giving'em freebies I'm not sure what your deal is with adding stuff I didn't say, to make a point for you of some kind, but it doesn't serve your arguments at all doing so. If you want to call yourself a moron, go ahead, but I didn't and didn't make the inference either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 JGowans said: MtnGoat said: Here's a guy who won't answer content, instead switching to name calling, trying to make a case for "childish" conclusions? Now that's a good one. If you can't make any headway against critiques of your points, switch to complaining. What an intelligent position. You guys crack me up. ....utter incomprehensible codswallop. You need to throw in some of those classic "BOLLUCKS" lines too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 JGowans said: codswallop. ???? Is that Russian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGowans Posted July 1, 2003 Author Share Posted July 1, 2003 MtnGoat said: Here's a guy who won't answer content, instead switching to name calling, Incidentally, I've called you names before in other threads. I tried to keep it civil here, and refrained from doing so yet was accused anyway by you. So, I reckon that you're now fair game and I can legitimately call you a ball licker and wish that a plague of locusts would infest your skiddy Y-fronts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 MtnGoat said: Here's a guy who won't answer content, instead switching to name calling, trying to make a case for "childish" conclusions? Now that's a good one. If you can't make any headway against critiques of your points, switch to complaining. What an intelligent position. You guys crack me up. MtnGoat...when one person tells you that you are making no sense and argue ridiculous points maybe you are right, and it is that person that doesn't understand you. However, when EVERY FUCKING PERSON ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD is telling you that, you may want to start looking in the mirror. Your arguements are moronic and your reasoning comes from the mind of somebody who has either taken way too many drugs, been brainwashed, or just wasn't dealt a good set of genes. Do us all a favor and just talk to some of your other personalities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Here we all are grappling with some fairly macro level questions and issues. Each of us tries to argue our point on the same plane, and along comes MtnGoat at the 11th hour and proceeds to drag the discourse into the most microscopic analysis possible so that the rest of us are left scratching our heads and wondering why Hitler drinking water is analagous to the U.S. refusing to sign human rights treaties. If you're concerned about the plane of your argument, perhaps you need to deal with the person who changes the content of the arguments, from content of treaties to look who signed what as a indication of some kind of validity. Interesting how that's OK, but if I address it as the bogus evidence it is, using some colorful examples, it's a big deal. whoa there, cookie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 oh josh, the only people who don't like these points are the ones who are an echo chamber for each other. Is it so surprising they don't like my points? Not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGowans Posted July 1, 2003 Author Share Posted July 1, 2003 MtnGoat said: Here we all are grappling with some fairly macro level questions and issues. Each of us tries to argue our point on the same plane, and along comes MtnGoat at the 11th hour and proceeds to drag the discourse into the most microscopic analysis possible so that the rest of us are left scratching our heads and wondering why Hitler drinking water is analagous to the U.S. refusing to sign human rights treaties. If you're concerned about the plane of your argument, perhaps you need to deal with the person who changes the content of the arguments, from content of treaties to look who signed what as a indication of some kind of validity. Interesting how that's OK, but if I address it as the bogus evidence it is, using some colorful examples, it's a big deal. whoa there, cookie! You do not change the content, merely the tone. Don't take undue credit. While the rest of us can find flaws in the others' arguments, we tend to take it as a whole and deal with it as such. You on the other hand, don't argue the points, but rather the semantics of each and every sentence. That's what I mean about you taking macro-level questions and applying a microscopic perspective. It's complete drivel and not in any way productive to the conversation. It's quite pointless to argue with you because you pick apart single sentences and focus uon the minutia which is neither here nor there. That's all. Cunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 MtnGoat said: Depending on where you are talking about, their lack of amenities probably has more to do with their living in some form of a socialist nation which does not recognize private property, right to self ownership, or any other number of things more than it means they don't have a coat because I went to get a beer. typical jingoism. i talk about our wasting resources while others are starving, and you reply about socialism and private property. it's either your are stuck in some time warp or you don't want to address that our ruling the world for our sole benefit is not making many friends. I'd never say we are the "chosen" people you'd rather act like it? What's "fair" about you spending money to be on the internet when those folks you're so concerned about don't have the basic amenities? If we're using things disproportionately, doesn't that include you, j_b? of course it includes me, this is my world as well. yet it does not mean i have to condone it. anyhow having contradictions does not mean one has to shut up (and no, i don't drive to the corner store for a six pack) Whatever. I know your predilection for judging people by groups, so I understand this. oh you do, huh? Not being a believer in group identity, or assigning guilt by association, I don't have this problem. I don't think people are Nazi's because they drink water and Hitler drank water, I don't think that because some drug dealers use banks that all bank users are drug dealers, and I don't care why Iran or whoever won't sign whatever treaty. Why they will or won't is their concern, not yours and certainly not ours. If you're more interested in counting heads and deciding what is just not by content but by association, that's your problem. of course we are all morons, goat. a handfull of rogue nations and the US are systematically against treaties addressing crimes against humanties, landmines and unexploded ordinance that maim 1000's every year, doing something about climate warming as recommended by the immense majority of scientists, etc .... and it's all a coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 MtnGoat said: If you're concerned about the plane of your argument, perhaps you need to deal with the person who changes the content of the arguments, from content of treaties to look who signed what as a indication of some kind of validity. whoa there, people, you heard here first. according to goat, there is no relationship between governements and the policies they follow. brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 j_b said: MtnGoat said: If you're concerned about the plane of your argument, perhaps you need to deal with the person who changes the content of the arguments, from content of treaties to look who signed what as a indication of some kind of validity. whoa there, people, you heard here first. according to goat, there is no relationship between governements and the policies they follows. brilliant. bwahahaha - I'm laughing because both of you turds think people are actually reading this shit. Get a clue - kill yourselves for the good of many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 "i talk about our wasting resources while others are starving, and you reply about socialism and private property." If you're willing to point out these issue, but unwilling to discuss their possible causes unless you personally agree, that's your loss. If you had the open mind I'm sure you think you have, you'd readily admit that of the poorest nations on earth, *all* of them adhere to socialist tenets. What an unusual concindence, right? Of course this isn't of interest to you, you're concerned about "jingoism" instead of content. "or you don't want to address that our ruling the world for our sole benefit is not making many friends." That's interesting. We're the world leader in foreign and food aid, and yet you're telling me we rule the world for our sole benefit. Doesn't seem to fit. "you'd rather act like it?" How is recognizing each persons rights is acting like "the chosen people"? My trip for a beer does not make somebody in Zimbabwe poor. I'm sorry if this isn't convenient for your argument. Well, not really. "of course it includes me, this is my world as well. yet it does not mean i have to condone it. anyhow having contradictions does not mean one has to shut up" And yet you do condone it, by not acting in concert with your concerns. as usual, I also need to respond to your seeming need to insert unstated extras. I don't expect you to shut up, but I do expect you to admit what you're doing. "a handfull of rogue nations and the US are systematically against treaties addressing crimes against humanties, landmines and unexploded ordinance that maim 1000's every year, doing something about climate warming as recommended by the immense majority of scientists, etc .... and it's all a coincidence." Not at all. Each one of these treaties contains elements or launguage designed to undermine our national sovereignty, or contain other ideological issues not consistent with US policy and law, such as the ICC. As for the "immense" number of scientists claiming to be able to predict processes they can't successfully model for the past, nor account for natural variability, and who think we should all sign something even it's proponents acknowledge will have little to no measurable effect, well, we've been around the block on that one. If the international community expect us to sign onto treaties, they need to realize the US will not A) buy into hysteria (Kyoto), B) undo it's sovereignty by submitting it's citizens to non constitutional trials outside the protections guranteed by the constitution to US citizens(ICC), nor allow itself to be bound by treaties internally framed/containing an unacceptble political viewpoint for the US. Why it's a surprise that the US will not sign so many treaties formulated by latent collectivists using a collectivist morality as a starting point should not be a surprise. The insertion of their morals into the treaties they expect is as much their responsibility as it is ours to reject them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 see nigga, it ain't good for this site, cause none of the members with you nigga. so do what's best, and quit bein a bitch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 "according to goat, there is no relationship between governements and the policies they follow. brilliant." Is it possible for you to post a response without substuting your words and claiming they're mine? Is this standard practice for you, or acceptable in your circles? How bout this: according to me, it's more important to look at content and the reasons for rejection of a treaty than base judgements on such basis as who is on what side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 MtnGoat said: If you're willing [...] ... Why it's a surprise that the US will not sign so many treaties formulated by latent collectivists using a collectivist morality as a starting point should not be a surprise. The insertion of their morals into the treaties they expect is as much their responsibility as it is ours to reject them. back to the same drivel (collectivist, etc ...) wanting to do something about landmines maiming populations for decades after conflicts has nothing to do with 'collectivism', but don't let it bother you. (i know it won't) How bout this: according to me, it's more important to look at content and the reasons for rejection of a treaty than base judgements on such basis as who is on what side. we have 10 dogs that eat meat. let's only consider individual behavior and ignore that they are all carnivores? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 JGowans said: RuMR said:Are you Scottish by birth? If so, why are you here? Yes, I'm Scottish by birth. Got the fucking UK passport to prove I'm a British serf, I mean subject. I came initially cos I'd never been to the U.S. I had a track scholarship. After that, when I graduated, I moved to Sweden and quickly wanted to come back because there's an energy and zeal to succeed here like no other country. However, I've come to realize that that zeal blinds all else. We purportedly live in a free nation that embodies the ideals of freedom and democracy, yet here we are being dictated to by an unelected president fuelled by a media horde that is simply not interested in presenting the news. Now, your simple answer to my criticisms might be, "Fuck off home to wherever you came from." or some such xenophobic reply, but I do love this country, and just wish that there were some things that we could change. It may be that we'll never be able to change, and indeed, the answer may well be to leave, but that's a shame because it's that very attitude that's causing such global alienation. "Fuck you all cos we're the sole hyperpower and can do whatever the fuck we want. If you don't like it, prepare to meet your maker blah blah blah." I think the educated and globally minded folks of this nation deserve much better than that. I haven't had time to read the entire thread.... Are you an American citizen yet? If not, I question the validity of your comments. ...And forgive me if I don't have time to read the book you present. I have this thing called a job which forces me to sift out the obvious garbage when selecting reading material. Tell me Gowans, have you read anything presented by the other side of the political spectrum? Are you really as open minded as you think you are? Just some friendly advice JGowans: "when in rome..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 I would like to be even handed here. Even though I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread, MtnGoat and j b you are both fucking idiots. I hope you spend eternity sitting in vats of human vomit and or shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 (edited) "wanting to do something about landmines maiming populations for decades after conflicts has nothing to do with 'collectivism', but don't let it bother you. (i know it won't)" You're correct. Wanting to do something, has nothing to do with it. However, the devil is in the details, and when people start from a nice idea and then start adding specifics to it, it frequently happens that ideology creeps in. In fact, it always does, or making plans consistent with ones morals wouldn't be possible. Now I can't say for certain that the mine issue has this problem (with respect to collectivist philosophy, that is), but I can tell the ICC does, as does the UN Human rights charter. Are you going to claim an ideological document as intrinsically filled with morality and it's various flavors, as the idea and expression of human rights must be, is not intentionally constructed to reflect an ideology? Why should the US sign treaties containing ideas not consistent with the US foundation of negative rights just because other people want us to? Fairweather, some of these guys have some pretty serious issues with their acceptance of other points of view. It's not like anyone is asking them to take them at face value, merely respond on content, but as you can see that's only possible between the posters who more or less already agree with each other. If someone challenges them, it's hissy fit time. It's kind of ironic, I come here to intentionally see some differing points of view and check out what's going on, while the "open minded" go apeshit if you don't sign on board with the game plan they've laid out. Lots of talk about open minds and smart people, but my oh my question them and the crap starts flying. Edited July 2, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 MtnGoat said: "wanting to do something about landmines maiming populations for decades after conflicts has nothing to do with 'collectivism', but don't let it bother you. (i know it won't)" You're correct. Wanting to do something, has nothing to do with it. However, the devil is in the details, and when people start from a nice idea and then start adding specifics to it, it frequently happens that ideology creeps in. In fact, it always does, or making plans consistent with ones morals wouldn't be possible. Now I can't say for certain that the mine issue has this problem (with respect to collectivist philosophy, that is), but I can tell the ICC does, as does the UN Human rights charter. Are you going to claim an ideological document as intrinsically filled with morality and it's various flavors, as the idea and expression of human rights must be, is not intentionally constructed to reflect an ideology? Why should the US sign treaties containing ideas not consistent with the US foundation of negative rights just because other people want us to? Bla bla bla fucking bla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 above is a prime example of my last paragraph. Classic "open mind". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 MtnGoat said: above is a prime example of my last paragraph. Classic "open mind". Wrong again you moron. I don't agree with, but read, many of Fairweather's posts, however I've long since given up reading any of the crap you write. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.