|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 78 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 48 of 78:
| 
Jul 11 17:58 UTC 2003 |
sabre has given so many needy people a chance to feel good about
themselves. Is there an award for that?
|
jazz
|
|
response 49 of 78:
|
Jul 11 18:00 UTC 2003 |
Yes, a large golden troll.
|
twenex
|
|
response 50 of 78:
|
Jul 11 18:41 UTC 2003 |
An award for for who give others a chance to feel good about themselves? Good
idea.
|
sabre
|
|
response 51 of 78:
|
Jul 11 18:59 UTC 2003 |
RE:#47
<sabre claps> whew that's mouthful. It challenages my adult ADD.
I will respond as best as possible however.
I never said Plato was an advocate of democracy. He was a critic of it.
As for Platos argument for the inherent weakness of democracy in The Republic,
I have to clarify what is meant by democracy in this context. By democracy
Plato is not referring to modern democracy, which he would have perceived as
alien. Nor is he referring to the democracy of Athens in this argument. In
this argument, Plato characterises democracy as being the extreme of popular
liberty, where slaves - male and female - have the same liberty as their
owners and where there is complete equality and liberty in the relations
between the sexes. The one point I was referring to is the liberal's desire
to legislate funds for it's electorate. He said one the electorate figures
this can be done democracy is FINISHED. That's what you commie..er poeple(
the ones that know thier fathers anyway) are trying to do. By appropiating
funds to the electorate to please them your are creating a social state.
That is what I was referring to.
My quote about liberals "living a godly life" was misunderstood..perhaps due
to my grammer and syntax. the statement should have read "The liberals
persecute those with religious beliefs and who try to live a godly life"
That is all my ADD will let me deal with now. Cool post though you spent a
lot of time...er do you like football? <grin>
|
flem
|
|
response 52 of 78:
|
Jul 11 19:13 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, it's a good thing those liberals can't use the government to legislate
themselves money. Thank god only the conservatives can do that.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 53 of 78:
|
Jul 11 19:35 UTC 2003 |
Please stop feeding the troll.
|
flem
|
|
response 54 of 78:
|
Jul 11 19:36 UTC 2003 |
Aw, c'mon, we're having fun. :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 55 of 78:
|
Jul 11 20:54 UTC 2003 |
An example, please, of liberals "persecuting" those with religious
beliefs? Liberals *created* freedom of religions for the religious, and
defend it for them too.
|
flem
|
|
response 56 of 78:
|
Jul 11 21:11 UTC 2003 |
Rane Curl, champion of religious freedom.
|
dcat
|
|
response 57 of 78:
|
Jul 11 21:13 UTC 2003 |
resp:47 paragraph 4: silly Christian. The Bible's much older than 2000
years. [http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/ageoftorah.html] has a proof
that the Torah is at least 3,313 years old. (While the New Testament is not as
old, as the above site says, "The Christians have been using their confused
mistranslations of the Tanach at least since the second century C. E., and even
trying to prove their mistaken beliefs from the Torah.")
|
twenex
|
|
response 58 of 78:
|
Jul 11 22:34 UTC 2003 |
Dcat - ok, point about the age of the bible conceded. I should have said, New
Testament. However, (a) I'm not saying all Christians are silly; (b) plenty
of non-Christians are silly; (c) I am not a Christian; (d) 2K or 3.31K years
old, it's still old and does not reflect modern life. Consider this quote from
a Christian (once heard on tv), concerning evolution:
Well, people say that humans evolved from monkeys, but it's not in the Bible,
so I don't really believe it
Are televisions and space shuttles mentioned in the Bible? No? Do they not,
then, exist? Is our knowledge of the world grater now than x000 years ago
(Discovery of America, invention of penicillin, etc?) How is this explained
by what is (or is not) in the Bible? Evolution is a scientific concept
(derived from a theory by way of trial and error. The existence of God, by
contrast, cannot be proven logically, however the actions of humans cannot
be proven logically either, so at most I'm keeping an open mind.
|
twenex
|
|
response 59 of 78:
|
Jul 11 23:37 UTC 2003 |
Oh yeah, i almost forgot. My arse *is* ignorant! Fortunately, unlike some
people round here ("who shall remain nameless"), I think with my *brain*.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 60 of 78:
|
Jul 12 04:21 UTC 2003 |
resp:45 I do not believe that faith can be empirically measured;
therefore, I doubt many empiricists give credence to it. One
definition of faith is things hoped for which are not seen-- that is,
faith usually requires a suspension of the senses. So therefore...
|
senna
|
|
response 61 of 78:
|
Jul 12 05:21 UTC 2003 |
Man, one post by a *known* troll full of complete, unbelievable malarky, and
there are a good 40 solid bites before anyone mentions that someone's chain
is being yanked. I'm disappointed.
On several levels, not the least of which is how suppressed even powerful
intellects become when they allow themselves to fall into the trap of
stereotyping "the enemy."
|
janc
|
|
response 62 of 78:
|
Jul 12 05:49 UTC 2003 |
Re 61: Do you think that because someone is a "troll" he is "the enemy"
and should not be responded to? People (including you) use trolls as
an excuse to say things they want to say. Why is this a problem?
|
russ
|
|
response 63 of 78:
|
Jul 12 06:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #42: Feeding the troll is wasting your time. Once you're done
venting and otherwise having fun, remember to twit-filter him.
|
sabre
|
|
response 64 of 78:
|
Jul 12 11:25 UTC 2003 |
I love your labels
If someone doesn't bow down and agree with you you call them a troll
if they say whatever they want with total disreguard for your reaction ...
they're a troll.
If they care little for your literary bias..they are a troll
If that's a "troll" then I'm far worse...I'm a fucking OGRE!!
russ the puss..I see you still post to my threads. What a fucking hypocrite.
If you want to know who I REALLY am then join pseudo
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 65 of 78:
|
Jul 12 13:46 UTC 2003 |
No, if you're deliberately posting to get a rise out of people -- which you
are -- you're a troll.
In your case, an effective one.
|
jazz
|
|
response 66 of 78:
|
Jul 12 16:13 UTC 2003 |
An effective troll can get a rise out of people who're making an effort
to maintain decorum. Getting a rise out of GREX is prety easy - just state
a position on the far right and don't back it up.
|
sabre
|
|
response 67 of 78:
|
Jul 12 17:07 UTC 2003 |
I've backed everything that I have said with fact.
Give me an example of where this didn't happen and it will be corrected.
and for the record that's all your posts are "decorum"
|
senna
|
|
response 68 of 78:
|
Jul 13 01:44 UTC 2003 |
#62: We all bite occasionally, but when it turns into a giant landslide of
a strawman contest, it gets a bit annoying. My reference to the "enemy" was
a reference to people of the opposite viewpoint, not the troll who represents
them in this situation, by the way.
I actually just wonder when it occurs to people that they are being trolled.
Most people mention it when they figure it out, but some don't--however, those
are rare, because there is pride involved.
|
janc
|
|
response 69 of 78:
|
Jul 13 04:13 UTC 2003 |
I don't even buy into the concept of "troll". Is sabre posting things "just
to get a response?" Partly, but that's about 75% of why I post to Grex too.
I'm always rather disappointed when something I post doesn't get a response.
Are the opinions he puts forward different than what he actually believes?
I have no way of telling that about anyone, but I'd bet good money that he
really is pro-life, and basically believes nearly every opinion he has stated
here, though sometimes in a slightly less extreme form. We all are sometimes
deliberately provocative. We'd be danged dull conversationalists if we
didn't.
I don't believe there is a class of people who should not be responded to.
I do believe in trying to keep my responses fresh, even if responding to
something that is far from fresh. Sabre's statements are mostly pretty
darn stale, but that doesn't mean all responses to them have to be.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 70 of 78:
|
Jul 13 05:41 UTC 2003 |
Well, yeah, but there are some folks that just like to rile people up,
and some that do it for sheer amusement. Apparently on the 'Net, they
gave that a name. At least our little man here is self-professed.
|
slynne
|
|
response 71 of 78:
|
Jul 13 06:38 UTC 2003 |
Sometimes things need to be riled up a little bit.
|
gull
|
|
response 72 of 78:
|
Jul 14 15:39 UTC 2003 |
Re #70: Yes, and I've known several who would take any extreme position as
long as it was contrary and would generate a lot of argument. They weren't
trying to convince anyone, just stir the pot. Those are the people I think
of as trolls.
|