@fallingknife0001 Where do you plan on moving? Manchester and Concord are both pretty cheap and are close to everywhere (Concord is 1.5 hours from Boston, 1.5 hours from the lakes, less than an hour from the beach, etc.).
@fallingknife0001 Actually, now would be a great time to move to NH since property values are dirt cheap. Every other home in the Merrimack Valley area is for sale.
@Joe11Blue In Windham, where I live, you can find homes selling for 200k$ which five years ago would have sold for 500k$ (seeing as how Windham is a rich town full of bourgeois scum). Employment varies from region to region but there's hi-tech jobs in Manch and Merrimack.
The libertarians need to increase their neutrality a few centimeters.
Gayness is a mental illnus. It conforms to the definitions of one.
The purpose of DNA is to reproduce, without it there is no evolution and extinction so how could gayness possibly -ever- be healthy? Science has no answer for this yet...
I've seen this many times before; factions are so desperate for support their willing to accept anyone atall. This is wrong, but inevitable i would try to help them, but it may be too hard.
@Elephantintheroom01 Do you scrape together this bullshit and try and pass it off as fact? Go back to your bible thumping. Homosexuality has been here since recorded history. And if you haven't noticed our population is steadily increasing. Your argument carries no weight whatsoever. You fail. go back to your dark little scared cubby hole and continue to wait for someone to do your thinking for you.
Straw man fallasy; i'm not a christian, nore american
Appeal to history fallasy; so has mental illnuss and the cold. That doesnt make them acceptable.
"Population steadily increasing"; nope, most of the developed world has birth rates too low. Overpopulation is a myth if you dont allready know. This is actually a naturalistic fallasy.
@Elephantintheroom01 Gayness is a mental illnus? [illness] I'm not gay, but I think you are missing the ''elephant in the room'' its a non issue, and ,none of my business as long as I remain straight, it's an issue [if you can even call it that ] between the 2 people involved. Thats called ''privacy'' ,another great libertarian principle.
Well, It was gonna be either one or the other of those options. Either its nones business what you do or its everyone’s business.
Rather than proposing a system for the whole of the human race, as your doing there. (QED i dont have that level of control over society, nore do i want it.)
I tend to take the view that if its illogical then you dont have the right to tell people to stop bugging you about it and doing it in secret is no consolation.
@Elephantintheroom01 I suggest you purchase a dictionary and use it. It will help you to better understand what others are saying here and maybe help you get your message across more clearly and spelled correctly. You seem to like to add things that are not necessarily in the responses to try and force your viewpoint which is not only unclear, but total gibberish.I'd like to debate further, but I have 2 very attractive ladies here with a large bottle of rum that need my attention. Buh-bye.
@bastardchildofmary I didnt spell anything wrong, unless you count 'gonna'. I'm British btw.
Criticising spelling is allways the refuge of a weak mind. You arn't even able to debate because i bet you dont have any training. Also your saying you dont comprehend the point: It doesnt matter someone is ill in private, their still ill.
@Elephantintheroom01 If "gayness" is a problem, it is one that is self-correcting and will result in more options in women for you in the meantime. Why complain? There are so many problems in the world that need attention that I don't see why one would spend time worrying about one that will fix itself anyway.
I wouldn’t ignore people with correctable mental illnesses just because it eliminates competitors.
Long and complex argument short; gay are parasitized by the government which is why they say it is acceptable, and the gays parasitize the straight people. They consume non renewable resources and any argument about them helping society is flawed.
Besides, I’m a debater and critical thinker and its illogical and has to be worked out.
@Elephantintheroom01 If a person is working in the free market, he is by definition contributing to society whether he has children or not. That is why people give him money for his work.
Also, assuming I did not misunderstand you, I wonder if you do not think the following childless people helped society: Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal, Francis Bacon, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Alan Turing, Michael Faraday, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.
@asdfqwerty2000 "If a person is working in the free market, he is by definition contributing to society whether he has children or not." That is an idealistic assumption.
Economics is a misunderstanding of ecosystems. The gays are within a food chain, just as everything else. They consume food & resources, and perhaps they pass some of that energy on, but it is wasteful. When they retire they rely on other peoples children to pay their social security. Resulting in a loss a breeder wouldnt make
@Elephantintheroom01 I should make clear that if we are discussing philosophy, there is no "social security" in my worldview. I realize it exists today (ignoring its bankruptcy), but I do not and cannot endorse it.
@asdfqwerty2000 You make a good point but only in a half-sh way. These men can be said to have contributed ideas, therefore increasing the efficiency of the food chain. But that doesn’t gain back the resources they wasted. They should have done both. Everyone knows that. They should have bred. However some of them seemed to consider it an accomplishment. You don’t suppose this is in some way connected to gays do you?
@Elephantintheroom01 Consider the following. We use computers and other machines. They consume a lot of resources (electricity, gas, etc.) in order to run. In your mind, is this by definition a waste of resources since these machines never produce human offspring? If not, why is it different if an entity that we use to help us runs on "food?"
@asdfqwerty2000 This is a ridiculous disanalogy. Computers are not alive, nor do they breed. They cannot even operate independently.
Gays deliver little in return, a good analogy is that you are have a farm and a load of rabbits come and eat your carrots. But you are also a rabbit, but you have a family and they cannot.
AND it is unhealthy not to breed.
In conclusion: you have fat rabbits that are unhealthy and stole food you were going to give to your childeren.
@Elephantintheroom01 Also, I don't know of a way to determine that resources have been "wasted" other than by a calculation of profit and loss. Furthermore, given that economists of one ilk or another have been working on finding another such method of calculation for as long as there have been economists (to no avail), I rather doubt I will find one.
@Elephantintheroom01 Cute, you managed to label all of the Individual's that adhere to the principles of Liberty and Freedom with a political non-term of Libertarian. Congratulation's, you have stayed the terrifying temptation's of being an Individual and remained a collectivist. Then you tried to throw a rather weak Ad-Hom attack about the sexuality of those same Individual's that you assume knowledge of. Let me guess, the thought of a man's penis scares you. You call yourself civilized....
@Elephantintheroom01 By calling yourself Libertarian, you are declaring how collectivist you still are. Your argument otherwise is what is called a logical fallacy. Nice try though, I guess you missed that little detail.
My fear's are not within the realm of your understanding. You'd have to get past that political ad-ploy, and see the world the way I do before you could grasp them. Either way the action's of men do not scare me, nor do your meager attempt's at intellectualism.
@Elephantintheroom01 Inconsistent rhetoric is typical of a weak position based upon false understanding of the principles of one's stance.
Let me guess you jumped on the Libertarian bandwagon, because seemed like the right thing to do, while not understand the ethical consideration's behind it. That's the typical morality argument that creates an unstable platform from which to base any principled stance.
Keep laughing, you don't pay me enough to care what you think.
@Joe11Blue implying rhetoric, implying inconsistent. I was merely rebutting your argument, perfectly normal in a debate.
"Jumped on bandwagon"
Is there any way you can interpret my decisions in a non negative way? Or are you really that biased. What makes you think i didnt consider it and came to many of the conclusions you came to? Surely you wouldnt rob me of my free thought?
"ethical consideration"
I've proved that gayness is an illness and unhealthy. That’s my ethics.
@Elephantintheroom01 You are distorting my commentary by viewing in any fashion other than rational and concise. There is no ill or negative connotation's behind it.
Saying something is an illness or unhealthy is a judgement. Judgements are based on a moral argument. By that nature they can not be ethical, as ethical consideration's are not bound by morality, nor are they a measure of it. This is the problem with Libertarian's, they tend to speak about ethics while using morality based claims.
@Elephantintheroom01 The question is not this ''how could gayness possibly -ever- be healthy?'' but rather is it a problem? Its is not contagious, & even according to your own Darwinian ideas they can reproduce in modern society all they need is a surrogate. (& reproductive technology moving fast). (also as a side note culture is more important then genes alone for survival, a trend that began as we became modern humans.)
No, i think weather its healthy is a far better question because of the definition.
If by surrogate you mean woman, why yes.
But i can't see that it is healthy for man to reproduce without attraction either. Attraction is natures way of making assessments of compatibility, and we wouldn’t want to interfere with a million year old genetic technology. Besides, the woman would ask for a great deal of money and you’d end up with the same system as with straight people
According to genetics. The reason women dress attractivly (i.e. makup) is because it seems to be more important that they attract men than it is for men to attract women...
This is probably because women who want to go for a domestic bliss scenario have to keep the man interested rather than going off with easy women...
The reason it is not this way for men is apparently because the woman has to go through several months of pregnancy and the man doesnt have to...
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I like Bakunin more than Rothbard as well, then again anything's better than the Neo-Con, christian, fascists that occupy a majority of the Congress.
@cwbyfan223 The "neocon" movement is led by jews and "Christian zionists". Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Kristol, Kagan, Wurmser, Frum, Podhoretz, Zakheim, Zellikow, Abrams, Abramoff... Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol, is known as the "godfather of neoconservatism". He was influenced by Leo Strauss, yet another jew. There is your "fascism".
@1776Matthew Newt Gingrich? George Bush ( on second thought he's to stupid)? Michele Bachmen? Dick Cheney? Rick Santorum? Half of the people running for the GOP Nomination? The only honest man in the race is Dr. Paul. The jews have a killer lobby yes and we do sell them weapons and give them aid to wage their genocide against the Palestinians but they are not the people who want to establish a Christian caliphate in the U.S.
@cwbyfan223 Most of those people are baddies too. Didn't Bachmann recently pledge her undying love for Israel? She is a fake "Tea-Partier". Just another marketing agent.
The Democraps are just as big and steamy a pile as the Repugnantcan'ts
I do admire Ron Paul but what worries me is his devotion to the "Austrian" economists, and his followers' love for Ayn Rand... Most "libertarians" seem to (INSANELY) be for open borders.
@cwbyfan223 By the way, Rothbard, von Mises, Rand, Greensopan... More jews. Seems that America just can't think for herself without some jew telling her what to believe in, huh?
ht tp : / /thezog. wordpress. co m/
Oh, and they control all the media and banks, as very clearly catalogued in the lists available on the website above.
It's a very healthy state of affairs. Don't worry your pretty little head about it.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I'm not likly to be able to do this any time soon and i dont yet see what the relevance to the argument is. Perhapse you are saying that the government invented the family as an expedient to tax? This is wrong and in any case i reccomend to you "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins. This explains the true mechanism behind genes and altruism.
Gays are not actually altruistic as they consume non renewable resources. But Dawkins doesnt say that.
@Elephantintheroom01 No. Read Engels' book. The nuclear family developed when private property and money (and therefore the concept of wealth) came into existence as men needed to forcefully keep women monogamous in order to pass their property down to their sons. I'm not saying I'm against nuclear families but still. And I've read Dawkins and he basically reenforces things anarchists like myself were saying about human relations for years.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 That is an oversimplification. If i may paraphrase part of Dawkins book:
"Men can produces thousands of sperms but woman can only produce 1 egg at a time. The resources a woman needs and the time this takes means that the man can breed more often and leave her with the kid. To combat this she has to trick him into providing everything she needs before she allows impregnation. She selects men who are more able and likly to do this meaning that the son will also have this gene
Citing a book that was written over 100 years ago & that is largely speculative is not going to change his mind. Nor mine ether. I agree with Elephantintheroom01 description only to add the vital element of cultural selection that is intertwined with the genetic to create social norms.
@Malthus0 Actually, a lot of what Engels said has been confirmed by anthropologists. Sure, there's stuff in there that's outdated and has been disproven, but for the most part the thesis holds true.
@Elephantintheroom01 Again more Smallminded uninformed drivel. What is attractive is subjective to the culture in which it exists. Pacific Islanders pierce themselves with bones and tattoos to be attractive both in accentuation of "femanine qualities" and in "proof of manhood" Indian women take hours to paint patterns on their feet and arms while the men go to painstaking degrees of Hygene inspection to be suitable for eachother in marraige. travel outside your little box and get some learnin.
"Smallminded" Ad hominem fallacy. I'm open to anything which can be proven with science, critical thinking and debating.
"What is attractive" Since when is attraction how we measure right and wrong? Some people are addicted to sex with furniture should we just update the definition of love then? That is precisly what the gays want...
@macchef01 Your interpretation of the meaning of my words is up to you. But you certainly cant disprove them. Thats what i'm skilled at, and this is how i find truth. By proving/disproving hypothesise.
Well i guess i'll speak english while you speak gobbledigook. Perhapse you should join the police with their "plastic baton rounds" aka "rubber bullets" and you can fight 'terrorism' in a nonsymetrical warfare. Did you know that the a 'computer' was actually an accountant during the 1800?
C'mon, beliving you can just make up your own words is a matter of self dicipline.
@macchef01 Attractivness is not subjective to culture, it is subjective to logic. We are all trying to improve ourselves. If it confers no benefit then it is what genetics calls "a deliberate handicap", such as a male bird of paridice with a long tail and colourfull body, where camoflage would probably work better. It seems that the females select males for this handicap for unknown reasons. And a mathematical model has not been descovered. However, in humans it is the woman who dresses up.
56 comments and NONE about Pirates and wenches. SAD! Thanks for the awesome pimp Ridley, this party will be huge next year!
LCLREPORT 7 months ago
But why is the rum gone?
MrPloppy1 7 months ago
i own one of those martin backpackin stringy things and wow u love the ladies dont you :)
stonergirl1605 7 months ago
What a charming song about high-seas faggotry.
Actually, not really.
1776Matthew 7 months ago
@1776Matthew lol
bastardchildofmary 7 months ago
gay
cincinatus90 7 months ago
@fallingknife0001 Where do you plan on moving? Manchester and Concord are both pretty cheap and are close to everywhere (Concord is 1.5 hours from Boston, 1.5 hours from the lakes, less than an hour from the beach, etc.).
juliaisafilmbuff123 7 months ago
@fallingknife0001 Actually, now would be a great time to move to NH since property values are dirt cheap. Every other home in the Merrimack Valley area is for sale.
juliaisafilmbuff123 7 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 same everywhere
ekennye 7 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 How cheap is dirt cheap? What about employment?
Joe11Blue 7 months ago
@Joe11Blue In Windham, where I live, you can find homes selling for 200k$ which five years ago would have sold for 500k$ (seeing as how Windham is a rich town full of bourgeois scum). Employment varies from region to region but there's hi-tech jobs in Manch and Merrimack.
juliaisafilmbuff123 7 months ago
@Joe11Blue I'll send you a PM.
juliaisafilmbuff123 7 months ago
The libertarians need to increase their neutrality a few centimeters.
Gayness is a mental illnus. It conforms to the definitions of one.
The purpose of DNA is to reproduce, without it there is no evolution and extinction so how could gayness possibly -ever- be healthy? Science has no answer for this yet...
I've seen this many times before; factions are so desperate for support their willing to accept anyone atall. This is wrong, but inevitable i would try to help them, but it may be too hard.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 Do you scrape together this bullshit and try and pass it off as fact? Go back to your bible thumping. Homosexuality has been here since recorded history. And if you haven't noticed our population is steadily increasing. Your argument carries no weight whatsoever. You fail. go back to your dark little scared cubby hole and continue to wait for someone to do your thinking for you.
macchef01 7 months ago
@macchef01 (i'm quite busy so i'll keep it short)
Straw man fallasy; i'm not a christian, nore american
Appeal to history fallasy; so has mental illnuss and the cold. That doesnt make them acceptable.
"Population steadily increasing"; nope, most of the developed world has birth rates too low. Overpopulation is a myth if you dont allready know. This is actually a naturalistic fallasy.
Look up the fallasies online.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 Gayness is a mental illnus? [illness] I'm not gay, but I think you are missing the ''elephant in the room'' its a non issue, and ,none of my business as long as I remain straight, it's an issue [if you can even call it that ] between the 2 people involved. Thats called ''privacy'' ,another great libertarian principle.
bastardchildofmary 7 months ago
@bastardchildofmary Nice story brah.
Well, It was gonna be either one or the other of those options. Either its nones business what you do or its everyone’s business.
Rather than proposing a system for the whole of the human race, as your doing there. (QED i dont have that level of control over society, nore do i want it.)
I tend to take the view that if its illogical then you dont have the right to tell people to stop bugging you about it and doing it in secret is no consolation.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 I suggest you purchase a dictionary and use it. It will help you to better understand what others are saying here and maybe help you get your message across more clearly and spelled correctly. You seem to like to add things that are not necessarily in the responses to try and force your viewpoint which is not only unclear, but total gibberish.I'd like to debate further, but I have 2 very attractive ladies here with a large bottle of rum that need my attention. Buh-bye.
bastardchildofmary 7 months ago
@bastardchildofmary I didnt spell anything wrong, unless you count 'gonna'. I'm British btw.
Criticising spelling is allways the refuge of a weak mind. You arn't even able to debate because i bet you dont have any training. Also your saying you dont comprehend the point: It doesnt matter someone is ill in private, their still ill.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 aqs for spelling you better check your stream. Ahh, the british, yes, you must be the last. lol
bastardchildofmary 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 If "gayness" is a problem, it is one that is self-correcting and will result in more options in women for you in the meantime. Why complain? There are so many problems in the world that need attention that I don't see why one would spend time worrying about one that will fix itself anyway.
asdfqwerty2000 7 months ago
@asdfqwerty2000
I wouldn’t ignore people with correctable mental illnesses just because it eliminates competitors.
Long and complex argument short; gay are parasitized by the government which is why they say it is acceptable, and the gays parasitize the straight people. They consume non renewable resources and any argument about them helping society is flawed.
Besides, I’m a debater and critical thinker and its illogical and has to be worked out.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 If a person is working in the free market, he is by definition contributing to society whether he has children or not. That is why people give him money for his work.
Also, assuming I did not misunderstand you, I wonder if you do not think the following childless people helped society: Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal, Francis Bacon, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Alan Turing, Michael Faraday, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.
asdfqwerty2000 7 months ago
@asdfqwerty2000 "If a person is working in the free market, he is by definition contributing to society whether he has children or not." That is an idealistic assumption.
Economics is a misunderstanding of ecosystems. The gays are within a food chain, just as everything else. They consume food & resources, and perhaps they pass some of that energy on, but it is wasteful. When they retire they rely on other peoples children to pay their social security. Resulting in a loss a breeder wouldnt make
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 I should make clear that if we are discussing philosophy, there is no "social security" in my worldview. I realize it exists today (ignoring its bankruptcy), but I do not and cannot endorse it.
asdfqwerty2000 7 months ago
@asdfqwerty2000 You make a good point but only in a half-sh way. These men can be said to have contributed ideas, therefore increasing the efficiency of the food chain. But that doesn’t gain back the resources they wasted. They should have done both. Everyone knows that. They should have bred. However some of them seemed to consider it an accomplishment. You don’t suppose this is in some way connected to gays do you?
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 Consider the following. We use computers and other machines. They consume a lot of resources (electricity, gas, etc.) in order to run. In your mind, is this by definition a waste of resources since these machines never produce human offspring? If not, why is it different if an entity that we use to help us runs on "food?"
asdfqwerty2000 7 months ago
@asdfqwerty2000 This is a ridiculous disanalogy. Computers are not alive, nor do they breed. They cannot even operate independently.
Gays deliver little in return, a good analogy is that you are have a farm and a load of rabbits come and eat your carrots. But you are also a rabbit, but you have a family and they cannot.
AND it is unhealthy not to breed.
In conclusion: you have fat rabbits that are unhealthy and stole food you were going to give to your childeren.
PROVE ME WRONG.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 Also, I don't know of a way to determine that resources have been "wasted" other than by a calculation of profit and loss. Furthermore, given that economists of one ilk or another have been working on finding another such method of calculation for as long as there have been economists (to no avail), I rather doubt I will find one.
asdfqwerty2000 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 Cute, you managed to label all of the Individual's that adhere to the principles of Liberty and Freedom with a political non-term of Libertarian. Congratulation's, you have stayed the terrifying temptation's of being an Individual and remained a collectivist. Then you tried to throw a rather weak Ad-Hom attack about the sexuality of those same Individual's that you assume knowledge of. Let me guess, the thought of a man's penis scares you. You call yourself civilized....
Joe11Blue 7 months ago
@Joe11Blue lol, strawman ragedump, i'm not a collectivist, i'm a libertarian, which is apparently a non political term according to you.
lol ad harmonium about an illness. Yeh... thats not how you use ad hominem.
I think your confusing scared with grossed out.
But lets talk about fear, like how you fear that i'm right about all that i said, and that this goes against your biases. Do you know what a bias is?
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 By calling yourself Libertarian, you are declaring how collectivist you still are. Your argument otherwise is what is called a logical fallacy. Nice try though, I guess you missed that little detail.
My fear's are not within the realm of your understanding. You'd have to get past that political ad-ploy, and see the world the way I do before you could grasp them. Either way the action's of men do not scare me, nor do your meager attempt's at intellectualism.
Joe11Blue 7 months ago
@Joe11Blue Fine then, i'm not.
>meager attempt's at intellectualism.
>Calling it a fallacy, doesnt say which one
>My fear's are not within the realm of your understanding.
Nore yours by the sounds of it.
Epic yarn brotholomew...
haha ohh i'm laughing at you now.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 Inconsistent rhetoric is typical of a weak position based upon false understanding of the principles of one's stance.
Let me guess you jumped on the Libertarian bandwagon, because seemed like the right thing to do, while not understand the ethical consideration's behind it. That's the typical morality argument that creates an unstable platform from which to base any principled stance.
Keep laughing, you don't pay me enough to care what you think.
Joe11Blue 7 months ago
@Joe11Blue implying rhetoric, implying inconsistent. I was merely rebutting your argument, perfectly normal in a debate.
"Jumped on bandwagon"
Is there any way you can interpret my decisions in a non negative way? Or are you really that biased. What makes you think i didnt consider it and came to many of the conclusions you came to? Surely you wouldnt rob me of my free thought?
"ethical consideration"
I've proved that gayness is an illness and unhealthy. That’s my ethics.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 You are distorting my commentary by viewing in any fashion other than rational and concise. There is no ill or negative connotation's behind it.
Saying something is an illness or unhealthy is a judgement. Judgements are based on a moral argument. By that nature they can not be ethical, as ethical consideration's are not bound by morality, nor are they a measure of it. This is the problem with Libertarian's, they tend to speak about ethics while using morality based claims.
Joe11Blue 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 The question is not this ''how could gayness possibly -ever- be healthy?'' but rather is it a problem? Its is not contagious, & even according to your own Darwinian ideas they can reproduce in modern society all they need is a surrogate. (& reproductive technology moving fast). (also as a side note culture is more important then genes alone for survival, a trend that began as we became modern humans.)
Malthus0 7 months ago
@Malthus0
No, i think weather its healthy is a far better question because of the definition.
If by surrogate you mean woman, why yes.
But i can't see that it is healthy for man to reproduce without attraction either. Attraction is natures way of making assessments of compatibility, and we wouldn’t want to interfere with a million year old genetic technology. Besides, the woman would ask for a great deal of money and you’d end up with the same system as with straight people
Genes make culture
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
According to genetics. The reason women dress attractivly (i.e. makup) is because it seems to be more important that they attract men than it is for men to attract women...
This is probably because women who want to go for a domestic bliss scenario have to keep the man interested rather than going off with easy women...
The reason it is not this way for men is apparently because the woman has to go through several months of pregnancy and the man doesnt have to...
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 Dude, read Engels' "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State". Truly insightful.
juliaisafilmbuff123 7 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 A fellow youtuber citing Engels or Marx in a positive manner? Thank you comrade, you have given me hope for the world.
cwbyfan223 7 months ago
@cwbyfan223 Thanks. I'm a classical anarchist actually, i.e. my views are 100000000x closer to Bakunin's than Rothbard's.
juliaisafilmbuff123 7 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I like Bakunin more than Rothbard as well, then again anything's better than the Neo-Con, christian, fascists that occupy a majority of the Congress.
cwbyfan223 7 months ago
@cwbyfan223 The "neocon" movement is led by jews and "Christian zionists". Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Kristol, Kagan, Wurmser, Frum, Podhoretz, Zakheim, Zellikow, Abrams, Abramoff... Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol, is known as the "godfather of neoconservatism". He was influenced by Leo Strauss, yet another jew. There is your "fascism".
1776Matthew 7 months ago
@1776Matthew Newt Gingrich? George Bush ( on second thought he's to stupid)? Michele Bachmen? Dick Cheney? Rick Santorum? Half of the people running for the GOP Nomination? The only honest man in the race is Dr. Paul. The jews have a killer lobby yes and we do sell them weapons and give them aid to wage their genocide against the Palestinians but they are not the people who want to establish a Christian caliphate in the U.S.
cwbyfan223 7 months ago
@cwbyfan223 Most of those people are baddies too. Didn't Bachmann recently pledge her undying love for Israel? She is a fake "Tea-Partier". Just another marketing agent.
The Democraps are just as big and steamy a pile as the Repugnantcan'ts
I do admire Ron Paul but what worries me is his devotion to the "Austrian" economists, and his followers' love for Ayn Rand... Most "libertarians" seem to (INSANELY) be for open borders.
(See my earlier comment to you below.)
1776Matthew 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cwbyfan223 By the way, Rothbard, von Mises, Rand, Greensopan... More jews. Seems that America just can't think for herself without some jew telling her what to believe in, huh?
ht tp : / /thezog. wordpress. co m/
Oh, and they control all the media and banks, as very clearly catalogued in the lists available on the website above.
It's a very healthy state of affairs. Don't worry your pretty little head about it.
1776Matthew 7 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I'm not likly to be able to do this any time soon and i dont yet see what the relevance to the argument is. Perhapse you are saying that the government invented the family as an expedient to tax? This is wrong and in any case i reccomend to you "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins. This explains the true mechanism behind genes and altruism.
Gays are not actually altruistic as they consume non renewable resources. But Dawkins doesnt say that.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 No. Read Engels' book. The nuclear family developed when private property and money (and therefore the concept of wealth) came into existence as men needed to forcefully keep women monogamous in order to pass their property down to their sons. I'm not saying I'm against nuclear families but still. And I've read Dawkins and he basically reenforces things anarchists like myself were saying about human relations for years.
juliaisafilmbuff123 7 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 That is an oversimplification. If i may paraphrase part of Dawkins book:
"Men can produces thousands of sperms but woman can only produce 1 egg at a time. The resources a woman needs and the time this takes means that the man can breed more often and leave her with the kid. To combat this she has to trick him into providing everything she needs before she allows impregnation. She selects men who are more able and likly to do this meaning that the son will also have this gene
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 Elephantintheroom01 holds some outlandish ideas however
Citing a book that was written over 100 years ago & that is largely speculative is not going to change his mind. Nor mine ether. I agree with Elephantintheroom01 description only to add the vital element of cultural selection that is intertwined with the genetic to create social norms.
Malthus0 7 months ago
@Malthus0 Actually, a lot of what Engels said has been confirmed by anthropologists. Sure, there's stuff in there that's outdated and has been disproven, but for the most part the thesis holds true.
juliaisafilmbuff123 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 Again more Smallminded uninformed drivel. What is attractive is subjective to the culture in which it exists. Pacific Islanders pierce themselves with bones and tattoos to be attractive both in accentuation of "femanine qualities" and in "proof of manhood" Indian women take hours to paint patterns on their feet and arms while the men go to painstaking degrees of Hygene inspection to be suitable for eachother in marraige. travel outside your little box and get some learnin.
macchef01 7 months ago
@macchef01 (i'm quite busy so i'll keep it short)
"Smallminded" Ad hominem fallacy. I'm open to anything which can be proven with science, critical thinking and debating.
"What is attractive" Since when is attraction how we measure right and wrong? Some people are addicted to sex with furniture should we just update the definition of love then? That is precisly what the gays want...
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Elephantintheroom01 Your own words show just how small minded you are.
macchef01 7 months ago
@macchef01 Your interpretation of the meaning of my words is up to you. But you certainly cant disprove them. Thats what i'm skilled at, and this is how i find truth. By proving/disproving hypothesise.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 "interpretation of the meaning of my words is up to you"
Well i guess i'll speak english while you speak gobbledigook. Perhapse you should join the police with their "plastic baton rounds" aka "rubber bullets" and you can fight 'terrorism' in a nonsymetrical warfare. Did you know that the a 'computer' was actually an accountant during the 1800?
C'mon, beliving you can just make up your own words is a matter of self dicipline.
Times may change me, but i cant change time.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago
@macchef01 Attractivness is not subjective to culture, it is subjective to logic. We are all trying to improve ourselves. If it confers no benefit then it is what genetics calls "a deliberate handicap", such as a male bird of paridice with a long tail and colourfull body, where camoflage would probably work better. It seems that the females select males for this handicap for unknown reasons. And a mathematical model has not been descovered. However, in humans it is the woman who dresses up.
Elephantintheroom01 7 months ago