Cutting in Icicle Creek Canyon

[fleblebleb]

There was a 10 line post by MtnGoat somewhere in there, I actually managed to read it (!) and then I realized that the very next post was another humdinger, ugh. Deadguy was more interesting than this.

 

Go climb something. No more posting from you until you post a summit photo of yourself, or a TR, or something like that.

[Winter]

Goat -

 

"Where exactly do these rights come from?"

 

Innately yours by right of birth. A secular but religious viewpoint.

 

I asked you these questions, because my point is that your policies and politics derive from a specific philosophical viewpoint. I continually read the liberal-bashing posts on this board that accuse the liberals of trying to impose their philosophies upon the rest of society. But, its all a matter of perspective. If I, as a liberal, want the government to protect my forest, than you, as a libertarian, are simply imposing your philosophies upon me in limiting the government's roll in society. If I have a different philosophical viewpoint on social interaction and common governance, whose to say that your philosophy should rule the day ... isn't that dogmatic? I suppose that is why we live in a "democracy" (as dysfunctional as it may be).

 

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones my friend ... it ain't just the liberals that have cornered the imperfect market on dogmatism. Your positions flow from your philosophies, and my positions flow from my philosophies. To dogmaitcally assert that your philosophies are somehow "right" is far more dogmatic than any liberal policy on environmental protection or social welfare. To each his own.

 

- Chris

 

PS I'd rather be climbing.

 

[AlpineK]

Mtn Goatfuck,

 

What Fleb said. If you don't climb then post something about hiking, or else just go away.

 

Like I said earlier Rat is the only person on this board who is directly involved with the topic of cutting trees in the Icicle. Read his posts and STFU.

[feralp]

AK I resemble that comment about Rat being the only one allowed to comment on cutting in the Icicle. There are others who drink, climb, ski and occasionally work in the Icicle Beershed.

[sexual_chocolate]

If you, alpinek, are so negatively moved by mtgoat's posts, then skip 'em, dicksuck. Plenty of other reading material here, my even-keeled friend.

 

As to your buddy being the only one entitled to an opinion on Leavenworth, well, saugst mein schlonge.

[sexual_chocolate]

Poster: Fairweather

Subject: Re: Cutting in Icicle Creek Canyon

 

Sc,

 

You mean Hugo Chavez, the trojan horse communist leader who shoots peaceful union protesters dead in the streets? That Hugo Chavez?

Are you a member of a (now armed) Bolivarian Circle?

 

Is he another one of your "revolutionary" heros?

 

.....oh yeah; and I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that the US government intentionally killed native americans with smallpox..... your silence is killin' me!

 

Oh fairweather fairweather, I suppose you toe the US government line on this one; an illegal coup is only illegal if it doesn't serve our business interests! Can you believe the nerve of top government officials, saying shortly after the coup, before it died, that Hugo had it coming? Hypocritical freaks!

 

Hugo was democratically elected, by a majority (poor folk. Enough of them in Venezuela, I'd say)), and, here's a good one, has a MANDATE to serve out his term, complete with implementing policies which he said he would during his election campaign! How do you like them apples, Mr. Fairweather? Too democratic for a fascist such as yourself? It's funny to me how he has the suppport of the OAS (much closer to the situation than you are), but in all your self-righteousness, you condemn the man. Well get ready my friend, because I personally think the Latin world has had enough of neoliberal capitalist policy, and soon will be joining his ranks! Hey, Brazil already fell in line. You think Argentina might be next?

 

Bwahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!

[Fairweather]

So you don't mind that your revolutionary hero kills unarmed protesters? Is that OK because he is a communist like you? You seem to fancy yourself some sort of neo-socialist-intellectual, but I believe perhaps you are just a misguided ex-student who has probably been reading a bit too much Chompsky, and perhaps has just a little too much time on his hands. Go back to your collective, SC. The hive needs you.

 

...Still waiting for you to back up your smallpox statements with facts...

Edited January 6, 2003 by Fairweather

[allison]

I have to agree that others absolutely have the right to post about cutting in the Icicle besides Rat. K, I don't want to get into a battle with you, but I have to respectfully disagree with your contention. It is elitist and off the mark.

 

Sure Rat lives in the Icicle, but heck, the land belongs to all of us. We are all entitled to our opinions on this matter.

 

I do not want to go to war about rights to comment, excessive dogmatism, personal attacks, whose cred is the biggest, or who has the biggest, well, truck.

 

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest, as this thread sounds just like the overinflated dudes I just spent the last fifteen hours at work with. A little thoughtful discourse, good, this thread, a bunch of bs!

[sexual_chocolate]

I think "facts" might be a little hard to come by, 200 years after the fact. I gave you some links to chew on; if you didn't investigate, it ain't my fault. You're on your own on this one, kid.

 

I ain't making Hugo into a saint, but I'll for damn sure say that the view we get about the situation through our main-stream media is a bit skewed, to say the least. Agreed?

I also think that if it was a right-wing government and it was leftists protesting, you'd be singing a different tune if someone was murdered "by the government". I ain't defending the killings, but I'm saying there's alot more going on down there than your rightist twist will let you see, which means: who started the violence, were they really unarmed, what was the history of these protests, etc. etc. etc.. How can you be so damned sure it was all Chavez's fault?

[AlpineK]

If you, alpinek, are so negatively moved by mtgoat's posts, then skip 'em, dicksuck. Plenty of other reading material here, my even-keeled friend.

 

I do skip them, but I am forced to scroll by them in order to read stuff that might be interesting.

 

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand the concept of the beershed you don't deserve to post.

[j_b]

So you, J_B, naturally lay claim to 100% of these "disenfranchised" citizens?

 

I am not laying claim to anyone. Note, that since nobody can claim ~65% of potential voters, noone has a mandate to dictate policy unilaterally. Is there anything else that is unclear about this?

 

 

as far as your weak attempts at portraying anyone as an enemy of democracy if they don't agree that Chavez should go, it's disgraceful. What do you think would have happened to the oil workers in the good ol' USA?

[sexual_chocolate]

Poster: j_b

Subject: Re: Cutting in Icicle Creek Canyon

What do you think would have happened to the oil workers in the good ol' USA?

 

Hmmm.... Attempts at negotiation first, Taft/Hartley next, and then....?

[MtnGoat]

"I continually read the liberal-bashing posts on this board that accuse the liberals of trying to impose their philosophies upon the rest of society."

 

Accusation it may be, but it's also *true*. I cannot say everyone isn't trying to do this, it's the nature of the beast. But what can be said is that A) the philosophies themselves are very different and B) different philosophies lead to different outcomes.

 

All that's left for each of us is to make our case.

 

"I have a different philosophical viewpoint on social interaction and common governance, whose to say that your philosophy should rule the day ... isn't that dogmatic?"

 

Of course it is. Are you claiming yours isn't? I think *everyone's* viewpoint is dogmatic, and devil is making the case for any particular one.

 

The difference between our viewpoints IMO, is that when I intend to "impose" freedom on people, they are still able to carry out their own feelings and dogmas for *themselves*, and other willing participants.

 

When you do so, you limit all other people not only by prohibition against violence and fraud, which we both agree on I think, but then just keep on going, deciding who shall hire in ways you find acceptable, who shall educate in ways you find acceptable, who shall sell to willing consumers products you find acceptable, and on and on. And yet you are not the one hiring, or the one being hired. You are not the one selling a house or the one buying it. If you are, you have a right to set your own terms in any of these cases. If you are not, it's none of your buisness, it's *theirs*. The continual liberal insistence that you have more of a moral right to determine what goes on between other free individuals, than the people involved for their reasons, not yours, is the problem here.

 

Whereas my "imposition" limits only violence and other narrowly defined violations of personal rights, you intend to reshape *all* of society to meet your *specific* end goals, regardless of who disagrees.

 

The bottom line IMO, is my "dogma" is more inclusive of varying viewpoints and goals than yours, unless these goals can only be met using force. Under my dogma, you are entirely free to view society any way you choose and take personal action with *your* life to live as you think life should be lived, with only one exception... the prohibition of forcing others to live for your numerous goals. Under your system, this cannot be permitted because you cannot have what you seek *unless* you compel others in many, many ways to get where you want to go.

 

My "dogma" is served as long as people are not defrauded or violently harmed. That's about it. Yours is not served without the servitude to a huge number of moral ends, each of which denies a persons right to make their own choices and live their irretrievable lifespans in the service of their morals, not yours.

 

"it ain't just the liberals that have cornered the imperfect market on dogmatism."

 

There may be others here who claim only liberals have dogma, I do not think I am one of those.

 

"To dogmaitcally assert that your philosophies are somehow "right" is far more dogmatic than any liberal policy on environmental protection or social welfare. "

 

I dogmatically assert that my philosophies preserve their right to their bodies, minds, and labor more than yours, not that I am right on an absolute scale. My philosophy is served when people serve themselves without violence or fraud, yours isn't served until they serve your specific ends by using threats until they do so.

 

You certainly have a right to imagine a society you'd like to see, I very much disagree you have a right to detail so very much of other people's lives in order to make them serve it.

 

 

[Cpt.Caveman]

I cut farts in Icicle Canyon.

[allthumbs]

I smelled those f'ers all the way to Seattle.

[Greg_W]

Don't need a permit for that.

[iain]

could start a fire.

[MtnGoat]

"Well get ready my friend, because I personally think the Latin world has had enough of neoliberal capitalist policy, and soon will be joining his ranks!"

 

Runaway inflation, collapsing currencies, epic instability, and the shooting oneself in the foot attempts at collectivist economies? Probably so.

[Greg_W]

Only if he's lighting them. Caveman is responsible enough to only try and light his farts over an existing firepit.

[allthumbs]

did you guys see the jackass video where the dude in a jockstrap ate 14 laxatives and went running down a busy street shitting himself?

 

f'in' hilarious - reminded me of DFA and Sexual Chlamydia

[iain]

just watch out for sparks 'n stuff with all that polyester stuff. other than that, let em rip rocket man.

[iain]

Jackass is a superb docudrama. I heartily endorse it.

[allthumbs]

yep, my two young kids dug it

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Trask, this proves incontrovertably that you are indeed the straight-shooting hetero you've always insisted that you are. After all, what other sort of person would relish the sight of a man in a jock strap enduring self-inflicted incontinence in a public place?

[sexual_chocolate]

Runaway inflation, collapsing currencies, epic instability, and the shooting oneself in the foot attempts at collectivist economies? Probably so.

 

For what ever reason (!), capitalism just isn't such a great word in many parts of the world.

 

Might they be seeing the light?!?!?

 

What many fail to understand about capital management and subsequent harvest is that without limiting the amount of the medium of exchange, capitalism fails. This limitation will always lead to the inequities we see globally. Capitalism will never lead to equitable cohabitation; why are so many so brainwashed? It's funny how people were trumpeting the fall of communism, exclaiming victory for capitalism. Hah!

Short-sighted fools!