Yeah, right, you must do that a lot. Perhaps you should put a winkie icon at the end of such statments so we can seperate when you are joking from when you aren't.
Personally I think you meant it when you said it, if for no other reason then to piss people off and stir the pot (trolling) but after me advertising in my sig it you want to pass it off as an attempt at satire. I'm not buying it.
You're right. Things get out of hand here.
Best to just identify the worst offenders and either pass over their Posts or Block them.
I like the hatred filled posters justifying their hate. LOL
No.
Watch the news come tuesday.
The ignore feature of this new site software works great.
You don't even see the Bullshit posted by the worst ilk once you banish them.
You are your own ultimate Moderator.
Oh I'm not joking or trolling in the least.
Read some of my posts in the religion threads, I dive into this same rhetoric. I'm simply pointing out the futility of any pro-human-rights [this isn't really the word I'm looking for] policies that the liberals often clamor for.
I am pointing out their inconsistency. Not trolling-- that it elicits extremely angry responses, is not my fault (it is, in fact, part of the proof that I have struck too close to home).
I'll take an easy one-- welfare. In the liberal worldview, if there is no God, why does it matter if humans survive? Why does it matter if we take care of them? The universe does not care whether poor live or die. They can argue "I care that we take care of them" but they cannot logically argue "you should care that we take care of them". While they cannot logically argue for the necessity of human survival, they insist its importance and force their implementation of how to enhance it [welfare assisting the poor's survival] on others, with their vote. If they would be consistent with themselves they would have to say "absolute morality does not exist. I may believe it is important for these people to survive, but in my worldview, I cannot rationally appeal to an authority [because in the liberal worldview, there is none] that makes the value of a human life imperative."
This is a complex argument that few grasp, further this futility of existence [because there is no absolute morality] is usually too cognitively dissonant and thus most just reply with flames like "your retarded". Others misunderstand and prove my point and say "morality doesn't have to be absolute" (in such a case if it's decided by the majority, then there's no reason why I should also believe what the "liberal" majority [if there is one] says, other than "because there are more of them and they are the majority"-- majority is not a sufficient authority claim for decisions of morality-- see: "Appeal to Majority" fallacy).
Hearing you desperately trying to logically justify your religion to yourself is always good for a laugh.
Hate is all Republicans have left since they have abandoned their country.
This is a complex argument that few grasp, further this futility of existence [because there is no absolute morality] is usually too cognitively dissonant and thus most just reply with flames like "your retarded". Others misunderstand and prove my point and say "morality doesn't have to be absolute" (in such a case if it's decided by the majority, then there's no reason why I should also believe what the "liberal" majority [if there is one] says, other than "because there are more of them and they are the majority"-- majority is not a sufficient authority claim for decisions of morality-- see: "Appeal to Majority" fallacy).
Hearing you desperately trying to logically justify your religion to yourself is always good for a laugh.
Reading a thread on Howard Zinn, I am getting more and more disturbed about the rage and hate expressed in this forum.
Are people legitimately thinking about the issues, or are the AnandTech forums more of a punching bag for people to work out their personal issues?
On the flip side, maybe it is good that we know where people in America stand. I think people write things here that they would not say in public.
For example, this was written in a recent thread:
Perhaps here in P&N, the true nature of where we stand as a nation is revealed: widespread racism, distrust & open hatred of fellow citizens, disdain for the less fortunate.
Is this the kind of nation we want? The kind of legacy we want to pass to the next generation?
Oh I'm not joking or trolling in the least.
Read some of my posts in the religion threads, I dive into this same rhetoric. I'm simply pointing out the futility of any pro-human-rights [this isn't really the word I'm looking for] policies that the liberals often clamor for.
I am pointing out their inconsistency. Not trolling-- that it elicits extremely angry responses, is not my fault (it is, in fact, part of the proof that I have struck too close to home).
I'll take an easy one-- welfare. In the liberal worldview, if there is no God, why does it matter if humans survive? Why does it matter if we take care of them? The universe does not care whether poor live or die. They can argue "I care that we take care of them" but they cannot logically argue "you should care that we take care of them". While they cannot logically argue for the necessity of human survival, they insist its importance and force their implementation of how to enhance it [welfare assisting the poor's survival] on others, with their vote. If they would be consistent with themselves they would have to say "absolute morality does not exist. I may believe it is important for these people to survive, but in my worldview, I cannot rationally appeal to an authority [because in the liberal worldview, there is none] that makes the value of a human life imperative."
This is a complex argument that few grasp, further this futility of existence [because there is no absolute morality] is usually too cognitively dissonant and thus most just reply with flames like "your retarded". Others misunderstand and prove my point and say "morality doesn't have to be absolute" (in such a case if it's decided by the majority, then there's no reason why I should also believe what the "liberal" majority [if there is one] says, other than "because there are more of them and they are the majority"-- majority is not a sufficient authority claim for decisions of morality-- see: "Appeal to Majority" fallacy).
The US as a whole nation took me seriously enough to let me lead the initial invasion in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do take myself and what i do very seriously, i'm not a clown like you, what i do actually makes a difference.
Was there anything else that you wanted to say or is this it? I don't have the time to spend on clowns unless you can juggle...
Can you juggle? If you can't then what good are you? Just another clown thinking that if he acts as big as his imaginary dick he will be ok... boring the living daylights out of me.
This.
Pretty much half the white people in this country can't stand a black man as President.
Until a blue eyed white man from Arkansas is President again politics in this country more closely resembles the MMA
and I'm thru with it, I can't take it seriously anymore.
Reading a thread on Howard Zinn, I am getting more and more disturbed about the rage and hate expressed in this forum.
Are people legitimately thinking about the issues, or are the AnandTech forums more of a punching bag for people to work out their personal issues?
On the flip side, maybe it is good that we know where people in America stand. I think people write things here that they would not say in public.
For example, this was written in a recent thread:
Perhaps here in P&N, the true nature of where we stand as a nation is revealed: widespread racism, distrust & open hatred of fellow citizens, disdain for the less fortunate.
Is this the kind of nation we want? The kind of legacy we want to pass to the next generation?
Hate is all Republicans have left since they have abandoned their country.
Everyone on this forum needs to read the books 1984 and Jennifer Government. Hell, it should be a requirement for posting. As for the rest, see sig. We're all human, sometimes our emotions get the better of us. Live and let live.
*Edit*: Just wanted to add that everything you see people post on the forum publicly isn't always how they are privately. Even on this forum I've been surprised by the amount of PMs I receive from people who almost never agree with me politically offering some words of support or understanding.
That is because behind the bluster we are all human and by definition agree on many things. This is why I could call a person the reincarnation of Lucifer and should die (not that I would unless it was true!) and then in actual fact that we hold similar views on the best way to strengthen a boat's hull with fiberglass and wouldn't you know it I don't hate that person so much after all.Even on this forum I've been surprised by the amount of PMs I receive from people who almost never agree with me politically offering some words of support or understanding.
Oh I'm not joking or trolling in the least.
Read some of my posts in the religion threads, I dive into this same rhetoric. I'm simply pointing out the futility of any pro-human-rights [this isn't really the word I'm looking for] policies that the liberals often clamor for.
I am pointing out their inconsistency. Not trolling-- that it elicits extremely angry responses, is not my fault (it is, in fact, part of the proof that I have struck too close to home).
I'll take an easy one-- welfare. In the liberal worldview, if there is no God, why does it matter if humans survive? Why does it matter if we take care of them? The universe does not care whether poor live or die. They can argue "I care that we take care of them" but they cannot logically argue "you should care that we take care of them". While they cannot logically argue for the necessity of human survival, they insist its importance and force their implementation of how to enhance it [welfare assisting the poor's survival] on others, with their vote. If they would be consistent with themselves they would have to say "absolute morality does not exist. I may believe it is important for these people to survive, but in my worldview, I cannot rationally appeal to an authority [because in the liberal worldview, there is none] that makes the value of a human life imperative."
This is a complex argument that few grasp, further this futility of existence [because there is no absolute morality] is usually too cognitively dissonant and thus most just reply with flames like "your retarded". Others misunderstand and prove my point and say "morality doesn't have to be absolute" (in such a case if it's decided by the majority, then there's no reason why I should also believe what the "liberal" majority [if there is one] says, other than "because there are more of them and they are the majority"-- majority is not a sufficient authority claim for decisions of morality-- see: "Appeal to Majority" fallacy).
Reading a thread on Howard Zinn, I am getting more and more disturbed about the rage and hate expressed in this forum.
Are people legitimately thinking about the issues, or are the AnandTech forums more of a punching bag for people to work out their personal issues?
On the flip side, maybe it is good that we know where people in America stand. I think people write things here that they would not say in public.
For example, this was written in a recent thread:
Perhaps here in P&N, the true nature of where we stand as a nation is revealed: widespread racism, distrust & open hatred of fellow citizens, disdain for the less fortunate.
Is this the kind of nation we want? The kind of legacy we want to pass to the next generation?
Welfare is around to keep a first world country from devolving into chaos. We can afford to keep our poor out of poverty so we do. It costs more in the long run to not share the wealth. Nice try smart guy.