SD on 5/11/2006 at 19:38
Quote Posted by pavlovscat
You are too easy.
:thumb:
Vigil on 5/11/2006 at 19:58
Quote Posted by pavlovscat
Why work for understanding when you can more easily use offensive lables to rile up the general populus?
Why work for understanding when you can more easily use snide supercilious remarks to sidestep a valid point about your hypocrisy that you fail to actually address?
Guess what honey, pretending someone is no match for you isn't any better a debating tactic than calling someone a cunt.
Gorgonseye on 5/11/2006 at 20:03
THIS ISN'T GETTING ANYWHERE. THIS HAS TURNED INTO A FREAKING BACK AND FORTH OF "YOU'RE STUPID" "NO YOU ARE" FIGHT! In the end we ALL are a bunch of idiots. EITHER DEBATE OR JUST DROP IT WITH THE BULL SHIT! URRRGH!
Rug Burn Junky on 5/11/2006 at 20:03
:rolleyes:
Quote Posted by some dumb cunt
you're calling me names, therefor I'm right
Are you really this dumb?
Honestly. I mean, it was plainly evident that you, and WingedKagouti, are falling back on the old "You're calling names because you can't make a point." HURRRRR
Yeah, I got that. No really, I did realize that you THINK I was the target. I'm not quite as stupid as you are, and don't need that shit explained to me. I was going to let that slide, rather than point out that portion of your stupidity further (especially since Scots and Vigil had already nicely explained the deficiencies of that line of thinking), but fuck you're dense.
The thing is, I HAVE managed to rationally support a point. Go back and read what I wrote. For that matter, go back and read Monkeysee's exposition which follows mine up quite nicely.
There is a nice logical flow showing why you're just. plain. fucking. wrong.
Sure, you haven't resorted to name calling, bully on you. That doesn't change the fact that your whole point is fucktarded.
Now, If you REALLY think that I'm unable to support a rational point, you're welcome to go back and read not only my previous posts in this thread, but go further and you have a nice little selection of my 6,000+ posts on this board to choose from. While it's common knowledge around here that I may be an abusive dick, it's also fairly common knowledge that I don't swing my dick in the ring unless I know what I'm talking about, and can and do support points logically.
And jesus fucking christ, I really don't give a shit about the fact that your opinion disagrees with mine. Fuck, I think Kerry is a boob. The problem is that you are not talking about "opinion," you're ascribing positions to the man that just don't exist. Not only that, you're doing it based on faulty facts and even faultier interpretations of these facts. So the entire basis for your "opinion" is incorrect.
Now, run the fuck along, you
DUMB CUNT.pavlovscat on 5/11/2006 at 21:09
The best part here is that some people decided to bash me AFTER I already admitted that Strontium Dog had made several points that I found valid. And, I stated my intention to research Kerry and re-evaluate my opinion. The negative posts that followed my concessions were totally unnecessary. I had already indicated I questioned the validity of my own assumptions. What more do you expect? Of course, I got defensive during further attacks. And yes, RBJ, I have read many of your past posts and those of others. That is one reason I am so disappointed that people who obviously have well reasoned opinions would rather insult than instruct.
You have destroyed any pleasure I might have gotten out of learning anything more about Kerry or your positions. Of course, you don't really want to help others understand your points, so you won't care. I made the mistake of thinking I could participate & actually learn something useful here.
Rug Burn Junky on 5/11/2006 at 21:18
Quote Posted by pavlovscat
would rather insult than instruct.
That, as Scots has pointed out, is entirely a reflection of to whom I am speaking.
Regardless, your "concessions" still display a remarkable amount of ignorance, and thus, you've given no-one any indication that you have the rational capacity to actually examine and correct your mistaken opinions.
Never mind the fact that YOU also extended this by your misguided attempt at "Teehee, they insult me cuz they r dum."
Finally, I'm rather glad that your enjoyment has been ruined: ignorance should be unpleasant.
Gorgonseye on 5/11/2006 at 21:51
There is just no stopping you people.....I give up, carry on....
Stitch on 5/11/2006 at 21:54
Why should they stop? There is a discussion of the issues going on here, although so far it's been ridiculously one-sided because pavlovscat's game is frankly terrible.
TheGreatGodPan on 6/11/2006 at 00:49
I think a lot of people have a mistaken idea of the composition of the military. I don't feel like repeating myself, so just follow the links I posted (
http://rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=290539񆻫) here. Or if you'd prefer to get the heritage institute's take on it, click (
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm) here.
You are correct that I did not live in Washington. I live in Illinois.
You are free to disregard the opinion of nonvoters. We're the majority though, and we have the right to disregard your opinion as well, so I don't see where that really gets you.
I'm not sure if you understood the idea of rational irrationality from your response, although it's possible you did. He is not merely stating that voters are ignorant, although polls certainly show them to be. If they were merely "rationally ignorant" because they did not seek out information, we would expect random results. His point is that voters are not randomly wrong, but systematically wrong. People do not suffer much consequence from their belief in certain wrong ideas but get to feel good about believing in them and symbolically expressing them through voting. As far as I know Caplan hasn't thought up any remedy, which would be hard to execute if everybody is too systematically wrong to choose a better option. His colleague Robin Hanson has come up with an (
http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.html) interesting idea which I doubt will ever spread to anyone who wasn't already familiar with Robin Hanson. I think the founding fathers were rightfully skeptical of democracy, although perhaps not skeptical enough to avoid replacing the articles of confederation with the constitution. They got to that situation by seceding from england, but our misnamed "civil war" serves as evidence that such an action is not feasible anymore. Perhaps the free state project will accomplish something, but I'm not going to bet on it.
Paz on 6/11/2006 at 01:28
Hey, screw those naysayers - I completely support your decision not to vote.
And if you'd like to extend that non-participance to anything even vaguely likely to have a political impact, that would be swell.
