Happy Beltane!
Pages
| Author | Topic: Happy Beltane! |
|---|---|
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, May 3 2004 10:39
Profile
FBM: "AM: Okay, you have a biased viewpoint." No kidding - it's my impression, which is why I stated as much. It isn't necessarily better or worse than anyone else's (though I'm inclined to believe it's better, seeing as it's mine, and I'm me). You are free to try to convince me otherwise. "You also have a sentence structuring which... needs help, let alone the grammar. 'stand on its own legs absent the mainstream religions', 'foster social mores.'. Hmm..." Sure, I could've put a comma between "legs" and "absent," but I'm pretty sure it's grammatically correct. As for the word you might not know: mores - \Mo"res\ (m[=o]"r[=e]z), n. pl.; sing. Mos (m[=o]s). [L.] Customs; habits; esp., customs conformity to which is more or less obligatory; customary law. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. Even if my grammar were bad, that's a pretty nit-picky point to make on an on-line forum. I hope you feel bigger for it. "'A part of the role of religion in society is to create standards of community and order' really? And I thought all this time it was eating waffles! But does it really do that? Nooooo." Yes it does. If you go to a Christian church, you'll recognize that the *congregation* fosters a community, as well as expectations that its members will *follow* Christ. And what about American society? A lot of it is based on ancient Greek and Roman tradition, true, but religion makes a *large* impact on the national mentality. Why do you think abortion is such a hot political issue? Gay marriage/unions? Cloning and stem cell research? Conflict in/with the Middle East? Why is "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on our currency? Religion. Also, I do agree with the role the government plays in my life and I gladly pay taxes, even though I don't necessarily agree with every bill that's passed or a particular administration. The government is necessary, and is what enables you and I to enjoy the privileges we have, free from fears much of the rest of the world faces. Read Hobbes' "Leviathan" to find out why you need government. [ Monday, May 03, 2004 10:42: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, May 3 2004 10:51
Profile
Homepage
I'm not sure that unity is good no matter what Truth it espouses. Lynch mobs are also a form of unity, but I'd rather have a loose association of people with no common cause. Some degree of cohesion is necessary, or we go back to that lovely state of nature and short, violent, brutish lives, but religion usually provides order with excess ideological baggage. Government comes closer, although setting up a good government is an extremely tricky task. I'll go with government because it's better than the alternatives. Religion doesn't cut it, and a mix of the two is theocracy, which combines the worst parts of its components. ?Alorael, who was under the impression that "Under God" was inserted to stick it to those godless Soviet commies. If you don't believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, you obviously have to die for your sins! Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Monday, May 3 2004 10:56
Profile
Homepage
Ah, so many targets, so little time... If you insist, I'll try to convince you, but there really wouldn't be much fun in that. Try not to start me (or anyone else, Alec especially) on conformity. That is an arguement you would lose. And other than the written ground rules, there is one unspoken rule here - good English skills. It's not that people will automatically nit-pick (which was quite amusing in this case), it's just usage of bad grammar will generally get you ignored. Again, Christianity is not, shall we say, a subject you wish to raise with me. As for the American "government" (which is a joke in itself), what you seem to forget is that the majority of the high-ups in the Republican party are, in fact, Jewish. Donald Rumsfeld for one. That, not anything else, is the main reason for the lax policy on Israel's land grab. In their case, religion fosters hatred and violence than anything else. As for your government is required arguement... hehehe! Read some of the other topics bringing it up. The results are... interesting. -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, May 3 2004 11:02
Profile
TNLIV: "Some degree of cohesion is necessary, or we go back to that lovely state of nature and short, violent, brutish lives, but religion usually provides order with excess ideological baggage. Government comes closer, although setting up a good government is an extremely tricky task." I agree 100%. But I reckon religion at least was a part of the means used to generate the U.S. "social contract," which is reasonably decent. Believe me, I do have my own bones to pick with particular beliefs stemming from fundamentalist communities - go separation of church and state! OT: I will be interested to see what the Supreme Court decides on the pledge case. [ Monday, May 03, 2004 11:25: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, May 3 2004 11:16
Profile
FBM: Where is my grammar incorrect? Can you fix it? And what bold threats! Why don't you take some time to learn about the government instead of reacting to the media and blaming problems on Jewish people (who's biased here?), and then come back to talk? The rationale behind US foreign policy is *far* more complicated than your "it's the Jews, stupid!" argument. Bear in mind also that your very ability not to conform is a direct product of the privilege greater Western society creates and Western government protects *for you*. If you were anywhere else, then you'd likely either be put down by your government for seditious activities or would make a great suicide bomber candidate. [ Monday, May 03, 2004 11:28: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 3 2004 11:17
Profile
Homepage
quote:Only if you define "losing" as walking away from an idiot. quote:Yes, and "let alone the grammar" is atrocious grammar. You speak in an incredibly colloquial British manner, and "'capital-T Truth' let me guess, you also believe that the government always make the right decisions? Seriousness?" is damn near impossible to read. "Foster social mores," on the other hand, is a completely idiomatic and correct English phrase. quote:Funny. I thought our policy there was a result of our long-standing alliance with Israel. Have Jews been running the American government for decades, then? -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, May 3 2004 17:58
Profile
Homepage
I have only one complaint with Andrew Miller's style, and that's the double post. It's polite to use edit to add more information to a post instead of creating two back to back. "Let alone" is acceptable everyday English, but I think FBM needs to get off his high horse and fix his own posts before complaining about others' perfectly acceptable use of language. The U.S. government has its flaws, most egregiously the lack of direct representation, but it's not an unworkable system. The problem is that far too many Americans lap up Bush's propaganda. Voting only works when the population is able to think and has access to accurate information. We seem to willfully avoid both. And I'd like to see an argument that favors anarchy, because I haven't come across any good ones on Spiderweb in a very long time. Anarchy does not work on a large scale, period. I firmly believe this and will continue to do so until I see a coherent, persuading argument to change my stance. ?Alorael, who would like to clarify that he is TNLIV above. At last, people are giving him strange abbreviated names! He has dreamed of this day! Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 07:45
Profile
Homepage
I think I've found my first candidate for the Slap 'Em Round The Face and Call 'Em Jim campaign. It's pretty self-explanitory. AM, I never said your grammar was as incorrect as that, I merely pointed something out. No, my viewpoint isn't biased, but to actually use MY viewpoint would be impractical. I mainly play to the tides. I know about govenment. I, most likely, know a bit more than yourself. Oh well. My non-conformity is whatever you wish to call it. I don't have too many opinions about it. I only got labelled that because I don't agree with a heck of a lot of government and social norms. I could probably get arrested for sedition anyway. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Kel: ah! You're not a big fan I'd wager. I use whichever written dialect, that takes me while writing. And since you put it like that, yes, yes they have  . Also while I'm bothering, Israel has only been a country post-WWII. Yet they talk as if they're the oldest nation on Earth. Also (because you're REALLY special) Catholicism, under most nations' laws is illegal. The communion is a form of cannibalism and if not advocates it. And since Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and everyone else was a descendent of them, that's incest.Put that in yer pipe an' smoke it. -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 08:21
Profile
FBM, you were wrong about the grammatical point. AM seems to be proving himself to be eloquent and well educated. You're a snotty 14 year old with a serious case of arrogant stupidity. There are a few Jews in the Bush administration. That doesn't mean anything. There were more than a few Jews in the Soviet governments of the 1920s, and millions of Jews still died then. The actual rationale is much more connected with a. the fundamentalist Christian lobby who believe a lot of very weird things, one of the main bits of which is that eventually Russia will declare war on Israel as part of the countdown to armageddon and all the Jews there will convert to Christianity, therefore allowing Jesus to tick another box off on his clipboard on the way to his return and b. The long-standing alliance with Israel due to Cold War geo-politics. One can also argue for various cultural motives. Either way, religion has an impact and does bring unity amongst one grouping or another. In conclusion, you should learn to spot your own ignorance and not coincidentally, should never be allowed to reproduce. I would make the case for anarchy but I tend to believe that the current social structure makes it impossible to create unless civilisation collapses, the impact of which would be more devastating than I think I'd be able to justify. Maybe in 50 years time an attempt could be made. Even if I did believe it was possible, I don't want to make the case only to have it shot down by the infallible argument from the obvious sources (you ought to know who you are and if you don't, that's why I hate you) that "Anarchy doesn't work. Everybody knows that. I rub myself over my monitor screen liberally." -------------------- "I particularly like the part where he claims not to know what self-aggrandisement means, then demands more wing-wongs up his virgin ass" Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 12:36
Profile
Homepage
Yes dear, but I can count. I'm 15. Anarchy can work. Just no-one wants to make it work. I never said the poor boy could not spell. You are right, you are wrong. But you have your belief so that's all that matters. Everything else is details. And to repeat myself once again: "I am insane; too poor to be eccentric, too stupid to make something out of life. Too much of a thinker to live, too smart to die. I am me. Me is I. And I can be." -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 12:41
Profile
Anarchy does not work. From Hobbes' "Leviathan" (a state of war being the equivalent of anarchy): "Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." - Passage from CHAPTER XIII OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html) You can have anarchy - I don't want it, and I'm willing to bet that most everyone else with a brain in their head wouldn't either. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 13:03
Profile
Homepage
So you're basing your arguement on a biased piece of literature. Now I am not even sure whether that is supposed to be fiction or non-ficton, christ! I've never even heard of the author. However, anarchy can work. In permanence. It would require work, that's all. Practical anarchy is not how you think. Bejeysus! Why the FF do I always end up having to play the anarchic side when I'm not one?! :confused: . Whatever. However, it would be a good idea to do two things, firstly, you should take into account that everyone else in the world DOESN'T think just like you. Secondly, grow some opinions of your own dammit. Or at the very least get some better take-offs. -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 13:18
Profile
You may encounter Thomas Hobbes if you go to college. A part of forming one's own opinions involves listening to others - it's called becoming educated and informed. Otherwise you'll just busy yourself reinventing the proverbial wheel, while others fly by in proverbial jet aircraft. Don't get me wrong - it's always good to question. But I'm a bit more willing to heed the advice of an author who's work has lasted for a few hundred years than yours. Did you even read the quote? While not everyone will agree with Thomas Hobbes (especially those who like Rousseau or are inclined to believe in a higher power that judges everyone, or karma), I tend to believe he's correct. In the absence of any authority (i.e., anarchy) there is no guaranteed protection. Thus, any sort of effort one makes to improve one's life could be taken away in an instant by someone stronger/smarter/whatever, significantly reducing the victim's incentive to pursue those things (why put in the effort if someone will just take it away?), therefore reducing one's standard of living, not to mention one's chance of living, period. "Yeah, but people could band together!" Then you wouldn't have an anarchy anymore, would you? You'd have a small community - a social contract - with others, complete with its own "understanding," i.e. laws. [ Tuesday, May 04, 2004 13:23: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 13:26
Profile
Homepage
Anarchy is merely a lack of government. You over-complicate it, and thereby lose the point. Strangely enough, I've never been to uni. Even if I do, I am unlikely to come across that in anything I might take. I listened to others, they mostly bored me. I came up with the me that I know and love. There's no "guaranteed protection" anyway. People who have worked hard at things all their lives CAN still have it taken away in seconds. None of what you say sounds different from what we have at the moment. Offer a real downside and sure. But until then... quack  .-------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 13:49
Profile
Homepage
Anarchy is not a lack of government. It is the systematic elimination of all unneccessary hierarchies of power. It is a process, eventually leading to a world where none calls another master. -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 14:09
Profile
Homepage
Does FBM remind anyone of the worst parts of UA collected, amplified, and then turned [EDIT: even more] British somehow? quote:Possibly because you are 15. quote:Intro-level political science or history classes often include Hobbes. They like to toss in Locke and a few others, too. I don't know about British universities, but American ones like to include them because our Constitution was heavily influenced by their philosophy. The political arguments I've made on this board in various topics tend to be influenced by these theories, too. quote:This sounds similar to certain forms of democracy. I suppose their methods are completely different, though. [ Tuesday, May 04, 2004 14:47: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 14:28
Profile
Homepage
Kel, UA is British. And anarchy is the logical goal of democracy. -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 14:35
Profile
Homepage
Yes Kel, in this week it is. Next week it will probably have blown over and I'll have calmed down. It could be called perennial madness, but quarterly would be more true. I have my silly week. This is another, it is angry week. But you'll still never get me to admit I was wrong. -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 455
|
written Tuesday, May 4 2004 20:30
Profile
quote:Rumsfeld isn't Jewish. But thanks for playing Find the Jewish Conspiracy! Better luck next week. [ Tuesday, May 04, 2004 20:44: Message edited by: Boots ] -------------------- Winter comes: game over -- he's in the driveway removing snow with a flame-thrower. Posts: 265 | Registered: Saturday, December 29 2001 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, May 5 2004 08:40
Profile
Anarchy is not the logical goal of democracy. And the U.S. is also not a democracy - it's a republic, which is designed to balance elements of monarchy (via the president), aristocracy (via the Congress), and democracy (via popular elections on a national and local level), all with the goal of preventing the system from succumbing to corruption, which will eventually lead to a period of anarchy before another form of order asserts itself. The American system is quite clever in this regard, and seems to be holding up rather well, I think, despite the best efforts of the current administration to eliminate checks and balances and considering that one party controls two of the three branches. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Wednesday, May 5 2004 12:39
Profile
Democracy in that sense is therefore limited by and large to that practiced in classical Athens or more recently in the Soviets immediately after the February Revolution. In these cases, one might argue that anarchy would be the logical goal. -------------------- "I particularly like the part where he claims not to know what self-aggrandisement means, then demands more wing-wongs up his virgin ass" Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 1817
|
written Wednesday, May 5 2004 12:53
Profile
quote:I beleive this is what engineers call a self-defeating criterion. If nobody wants it to work, then it will not work. Or did I miss something? -------------------- Quote of the Day "You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, The Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war." Posts: 560 | Registered: Saturday, August 31 2002 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, May 5 2004 12:55
Profile
Homepage
The U.S. is a representative democracy. It could also be called a democratic republic. The difference between that and a normal republic is relatively minor in appearance, but it is significant. It was designed as a republic, originally -- well, a union of states that were each republics -- but it has ceased to be that way. It's probably best described as a representative democracy, now. We do have initiative and referendum laws that give some aspects of a direct democracy, too, but they are scattered at best. The U.S. Constitution is the longest-running written constitution in the world right now, if I'm not mistaken. (Anyone know anything to the contrary?) That is, indeed, pretty darn successful [ Wednesday, May 05, 2004 12:56: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1993
|
written Wednesday, May 5 2004 17:07
Profile
Jeez, Dareva, ef, did you see what came of our nice, witching merry-go-round? *extinguishes the fire, picks up the brooms and leaves the gentlemen with their politics. Woa, Alorael, every day? What a boundless fantasy! -------------------- ^ö^ Vegetarians are sexy. Solar power is the wave of the future. Posts: 1420 | Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, May 5 2004 17:49
Profile
Homepage
Anarchy is a state of existance in which government is unnecessary. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Now go back in time 500 years and try to see if anyone believes living without any conception of a deity is even possible. Argue long and hard with everyone -- even people their time would consider radicals! -- that the concept of 'atheism' isn't a pipe dream, even on the personal level. Then come back and call anarchy impossible, crazy, misguided, whatever. Okay, okay, you'll say, but that's just for ONE person. There's no such thing as an atheist SOCIETY. Go back the same amount of time and ask around about slavery. See how many people favor it. See how many are opposed to it, but consider it a necessary evil. Pretty vanishingly few. See how many people think it'll ever become outmoded or eliminated. You'd probably have to find one person in every two hundred thousand. Now go back two hundred fifty years and ask about direct universal suffrage. Will it ever happen? Should it ever happen? No, and no, respectively. Now go back two hundred years and ask about women in elected government. A hundred fifty years, interracial marriage. A hundred years, ask around about direct colonialism. See how many people think it'll survive well past the 21st century. Ask around about progroms while you're there. History will vindicate me. Hell, it has already, I think. [ Wednesday, May 05, 2004 17:56: Message edited by: Custerbly Numb ] -------------------- AnamaFreak (3:59:56 AM): Shounen-ai to the MAX ...there really is nothing that can compare to hot gay sex with a mythological icon. --665 Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |