Give up? But I'm doing so well! So far, we've ascertained that:Funk N. Furter wrote:Just give up now. You're so out of your depth.
But wait! if he gives up then you give up. You two are exactly the same. You both have chosen gods, and which god is irrelevant because the significance is that you have both chosen gods. You both have chosen gods that are impossible to define because neither god has been experienced or apprehended; Therefore, you define your respective gods through a process of elimination: That's not a true free market; not my god. Never seen true socialism, so that which you call socialism is not my god. And this is exactly the world you two want. Opposition seems to give one a delusional sense of purpose, and since you two really can't define your terms in the positive, you're each left with defining your gods in terms of that which they are not. Through the insincere lack of acknowledging this, you two are sheltered from the actual effort and sincerity that would be required to implement even the slightest step towards your god. Your badges, both cut from the same material, give you a false sense of security. The sad and disgusting aspect of your ideals is that their sole purpose is to get off. You two are, in essence, finger flapping into a mirror, and so the glee you receive from throwing quips is simply masturbation.Steve Ballmer wrote:Give up? But I'm doing so well! So far, we've ascertained that:Funk N. Furter wrote:Just give up now. You're so out of your depth.
1. You have no idea how to "create" jobs.
2. Your revolution will require violence.
3. By your logic, Hitler's views are valid.
That was my third post in this thread. You see, this is how I'm trying to help you. You and Steve are each half-stupid. You each insist on focusing on the half that is not half-stupid and both incorrectly believe that by getting together you combine into a full not-stupid. It doesn't work like that; you both still only make a full-stupid.Funk N. Furter wrote:Hmm.. hope it didn't take you too long to think that up. It is a masterpiece I have to admit. A masterpiece of drivel. It is quite obvious that you are another one who would not dare attempt a straight debate so after 20 odd pages your first post is just a tired internet cliché dressed up with vague waffle and highly personalised to try to avoid any real political debate.scott nathaniel wrote: You two are exactly the same. You both have chosen gods, and which god is irrelevant because the significance is that you have both chosen gods. You both have chosen gods that are impossible to define because neither god has been experienced or apprehended; Therefore, you define your respective gods through a process of elimination: That's not a true free market; not my god. Never seen true socialism, so that which you call socialism is not my god. And this is exactly the world you two want. Opposition seems to give one a delusional sense of purpose, and since you two really can't define your terms in the positive, you're each left with defining your gods in terms of that which they are not. Through the insincere lack of acknowledging this, you two are sheltered from the actual effort and sincerity that would be required to implement even the slightest step towards your god. Your badges, both cut from the same material, give you a false sense of security. The sad and disgusting aspect of your ideals is that their sole purpose is to get off. You two are, in essence, finger flapping into a mirror, and so the glee you receive from throwing quips is simply masturbation.
And that is how it is.
The difference is, as I support freedom, I'm in favor of any single step in that direction, and will argue it's economic benefits. Funky on the other hand seems to believe that any step towards his tyrannical dream is not his tyrannical dream (even though it's a two step process!), and thus dissociates himself from it entirely.scott nathaniel wrote:But wait! if he gives up then you give up. You two are exactly the same. You both have chosen gods, and which god is irrelevant because the significance is that you have both chosen gods. You both have chosen gods that are impossible to define because neither god has been experienced or apprehended; Therefore, you define your respective gods through a process of elimination: That's not a true free market; not my god. Never seen true socialism, so that which you call socialism is not my god. And this is exactly the world you two want. Opposition seems to give one a delusional sense of purpose, and since you two really can't define your terms in the positive, you're each left with defining your gods in terms of that which they are not. Through the insincere lack of acknowledging this, you two are sheltered from the actual effort and sincerity that would be required to implement even the slightest step towards your god. Your badges, both cut from the same material, give you a false sense of security. The sad and disgusting aspect of your ideals is that their sole purpose is to get off. You two are, in essence, finger flapping into a mirror, and so the glee you receive from throwing quips is simply masturbation.Steve Ballmer wrote:Give up? But I'm doing so well! So far, we've ascertained that:Funk N. Furter wrote:Just give up now. You're so out of your depth.
1. You have no idea how to "create" jobs.
2. Your revolution will require violence.
3. By your logic, Hitler's views are valid.
And that is how it is.
Well I'm 7/7 stoopid, so take what I write with what you will. Anyway, I think you're half-stupid because you cling to big empty tags like "freedom." Do you know how long it would take you to truly define that? It seems simple, hell it's only one word, but within that one word, you would have to, using code-talk, throw an exception error at every turn because that definition would twist into a messy distortion. But, that being said, I don't think you are stupid in the sense that you are incapable of useful thought, I make the claim that you've allowed yourself to inadvertently mimic funken's strange way of discourse, which is stupid--half-stupid, sorry. Funken, on the other hand--still half stupid! Joking F, you're a funken geniusSteve Ballmer wrote: The difference is, as I support freedom, I'm in favor of any single step in that direction, and will argue it's economic benefits. Funky on the other hand seems to believe that any step towards his tyrannical dream is not his tyrannical dream (even though it's a two step process!), and thus dissociates himself from it entirely.
Also, while I've simply been questioning Funky's views, nearly everything that's been said of "my views" has been presupposed by others. But don't let that stop you
If you claim I'm half stupid, why not explain why, rather than simply taking random shots from the sidelines?
I get way too cocky when I drink. I'm a self-assured turd as it is. Drink locks away that filter necessary for survival and protection against bodily harm. Good news is that I haven't had a drink in a couple of months; bad news is that I continue to be an a-hole. So much blame deflection.H20nly wrote:one I will buy Scott a drink.
I'm sure the conversation will be a most enlightening discourse.
So basically you're saying that I'm "half-stupid" because I *gasp* said "freedom". Thank you for this valuable contribution. I define (economic) freedom as the absence of government intervention; I define government as an institution that has a monopoly on violence over a given area; and I postulate that there is a direct causal relation between economic freedom and economic prosperity. And that's it. There's nothing complicated about it.scott nathaniel wrote:Well I'm 7/7 stoopid, so take what I write with what you will. Anyway, I think you're half-stupid because you cling to big empty tags like "freedom." Do you know how long it would take you to truly define that? It seems simple, hell it's only one word, but within that one word, you would have to, using code-talk, throw an exception error at every turn because that definition would twist into a messy distortion. But, that being said, I don't think you are stupid in the sense that you are incapable of useful thought, I make the claim that you've allowed yourself to inadvertently mimic funken's strange way of discourse, which is stupid--half-stupid, sorry. Funken, on the other hand--still half stupid! Joking F, you're a funken geniusSteve Ballmer wrote: The difference is, as I support freedom, I'm in favor of any single step in that direction, and will argue it's economic benefits. Funky on the other hand seems to believe that any step towards his tyrannical dream is not his tyrannical dream (even though it's a two step process!), and thus dissociates himself from it entirely.
Also, while I've simply been questioning Funky's views, nearly everything that's been said of "my views" has been presupposed by others. But don't let that stop you
If you claim I'm half stupid, why not explain why, rather than simply taking random shots from the sidelines?
I knew I kept clicking this link for something...That's what I'm talking about. Your first exception throw: (economic). You had to further constrain freedom to economic freedom. Ok, now we have that delimitation. Effin' great. What's your definition of economic freedom: No gubberment intervention! No intervention until I decide not to pay. No, not cool. So sue me. Oops, no intervention--courts. A free market also entails the freedom to get phucked over. But again, this is a matter of priority. Yes, I agree with you that there are economic restraints that inhibit, almost render null, the ability for individuals to acquire and dispose of their assets. I see that this is important to you. It's not to me. So I recuse myself from the topic of this thread and will instead make attempts to get a few more winks. It's the closest thing to affection I could ever hope to receive here.Steve Ballmer wrote:So basically you're saying that I'm "half-stupid" because I *gasp* said "freedom". Thank you for this valuable contribution. I define (economic) freedom as the absence of government intervention; I define government as an institution that has a monopoly on violence over a given area; and I postulate that there is a direct causal relation between economic freedom and economic prosperity. And that's it. There's nothing complicated about it.scott nathaniel wrote:Well I'm 7/7 stoopid, so take what I write with what you will. Anyway, I think you're half-stupid because you cling to big empty tags like "freedom." Do you know how long it would take you to truly define that? It seems simple, hell it's only one word, but within that one word, you would have to, using code-talk, throw an exception error at every turn because that definition would twist into a messy distortion. But, that being said, I don't think you are stupid in the sense that you are incapable of useful thought, I make the claim that you've allowed yourself to inadvertently mimic funken's strange way of discourse, which is stupid--half-stupid, sorry. Funken, on the other hand--still half stupid! Joking F, you're a funken geniusSteve Ballmer wrote: The difference is, as I support freedom, I'm in favor of any single step in that direction, and will argue it's economic benefits. Funky on the other hand seems to believe that any step towards his tyrannical dream is not his tyrannical dream (even though it's a two step process!), and thus dissociates himself from it entirely.
Also, while I've simply been questioning Funky's views, nearly everything that's been said of "my views" has been presupposed by others. But don't let that stop you
If you claim I'm half stupid, why not explain why, rather than simply taking random shots from the sidelines?
You may also note that the one time you actually asked me a question, I responded politely and in good faith. As for you drawing attention to the fact that I've been mimicking Funk N., I assure you it's not inadvertent, and indeed I thank you, as I didn't think anyone had noticed.
That's right, I winked at you, biotch.