If you think i'm as facile as you, and will rise to your bait, you're very much mistaken.
Ask yourself, Boy, who makes you call me foul names, who makes you follow me from thread to thread, commenting on posts which i make which are not directed at you, and which do not refer to you. Ask yourself who has the obsession here.
Even your buddy Intrepid is not obsessed as you are, there are many occasions upon which he and i can exchange observations without being at one another's throats.
But you keep it up, Snood, i know that you enjoy stoking your self-righteous indignation, and i wouldn't want to deprive your of the pleasure.
Who you callin boy, cracker?
Didn't your momma teach you it ain't polite to call a black man "boy", and that doing so makes you look like a lowdown bigot?
Oh yeah - I forgot - we've been through this before - you knew that, and you do it anyway.
I'm glad I'm not you, "boss".
I can assure you that that sentiment if fully reciprocated.
What is amazing is that someone with such an unhealthy obsession about online interactions is considered by some, by anyone, to be qualified to counsel others.
I wouldn't trust you to walk the dogs.
...which is probably all you are qualified to do....
Mindonfire wrote: Well, not considering the fact that all forms of governments are forms of religion
you start off wrong, and then just lose any connection to sense
and the two posting above me
Gotcha, ehbeth - I DO respect you, and your opinions matter.
<taking silent oath to attempt desisting>
Try to swim away from the bait.
That'd be my recommendation.
ok....
<face begins swelling and turning purple...>
Well, that was enlightening. Perhaps the topic should have been 'would we be better off without expletives'.
ehBeth wrote:Are you governed by your religion?
I'm not. I am governed by municipal/provincial and federal laws.
But many of those laws enact principles of Social Democracy, an ideology that I as a libertarian don't believe in. Why do you object to laws enacting Christian views on homosexuality and stem cell research, but not to laws enacting Social Democratic views on annuities, college slots for minorities, and smoking in restaurants? Why is it not okay to enact Catholic laws against Protestants, but okay to enact conservative laws against liberals? Don't the same principles that make separation of church and state a good idea also make separation of secular ideologies and state a good idea?
I believe they do, and that the cases are more similar than you think.
The upshot of it is that ALL laws are based on SOMEONE'S idea of what is right and what is wrong.
If the only laws that were allowed were those that bear no resemblance to any part of any religious creed of anyone's, then anarchy is what you'd be left with.
real life wrote:The upshot of it is that ALL laws are based on SOMEONE'S idea of what is right and what is wrong.
If the only laws that were allowed were those that bear no resemblance to any part of any religious creed of anyone's, then anarchy is what you'd be left with.
Well, then who is the SOMEONE who decides what is right and what is wrong?
Quote:Well, then who is the SOMEONE who decides what is right and what is wrong?
Ideally, it should be made obvious to everyone. Before that can happen, I guess we will have to agree on what qualifies something as "true" and what qualifies something as "not true".
Any ideas?
