582 Forum Posts by "PreacherJ"
Real quick, for everybody's benefit, the definition of the word "government."
1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
6. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
"The television, press and films all support obedience. When anarchy is mentioned it is presented as senseless damage. They have to believe that authority and obedience are necessary in order to validate their own crimes."
Could you explain this further? I wasn't sure if you meant that the media commits these crimes, or the government behind them?
"Anarchists have differing ideas on precisely how society should to be organized. They all agree that the State must be replaced by a society without classes and without force."
Doesn't this seem to be a bit of a paradox following the sentence in which you mentioned "anarchy (which means simply no government)."?
If there was an organization of society, isn't that a form of governmental involvement? Who would organize it? What would cause me to follow it?
Anarchists seek to replace the state, not with chaos, but with the natural, spontaneous forms of organization that emerged wherever mutual aid and common interests through coordination and self-government became necessary.
Could you further elaborate on this non-governmental form of organization? How are decisions made? Who determines what a common interest is? Are you referring to everybody becoming self-sufficient? How are they coordinated without someone telling someone else to do?
Leaders claim to be protecting us from each other, they’re actually more interested in protecting themselves and their property from us.
This is entirely a matter of opinion, really, even if you quoted it from a thousand prominent Anarchists.
Crimes of rage are unavoidable by police or anyone else however, in a less wearisome society such crimes would be uncommon.
Yeah, I'd think so, but once again, do you have any evidence to back this up? I think you'll be hard pressed to find a government that reverted to anarchy and committed less of these atrocities, and, the entire concept of "a less wearisome society" is relative, to a point.
Even so, the thought that such happy shiny bonding together in an anarchistic society dedicated to uniting against common goals creating "a less wearisome society" is unfounded (it hasn't happened before in our modern civilization yet), and, since we have no knowledge of this fictitious society, we haven't a clue as to how people will react to different situations in such a society. Maybe, since there's less "emotional strain" on the populace, somebody'll get bored, and let me tell you, there's nothing worse than a bored serial killer...
If we become members of our local community, own and share all the resources it would become meaningless to steal and an important motive for crime would be eradicated.
This is preposterous. If that were true, then multimillion dollar atheletes wouldn't bitch and complain and strike when thier contracts are $28 million instead of $30 million. There's a natural instinct of greed in all animals (a dog will get fat if you keep feeding it, for example), and humans are the worst of the lot. There isn't a species on Earth that goes to the lengths the human race does to "grab all you can and fuck the other guy."
Just because there's enough for everybody doesn't mean I don't still want more than you. Jealousy/Greed makes me unhappy. Unhappiness = dissent. Dissent + Time = Uprising. Uprising + Pseudo-Anarchy = Riots/Revolutions and a new form of government.
To Be Continued~
At 5/13/03 05:57 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
:For your clarification, my IQ is 135. Are you saying all us Mensans are unnatural and deserve to be shot?
135, eh? When's was the last test you took? Is that the score you got, or the average (Tests are different)?
I always did alright on them there IQ testamajigs.
You should go back and read the thread in its entirety. I have had to fight tooth and nail for this topic thread, and I only keep it alive because of the amount of e-mail I get from it. If you move it to the club forum, it will sink into obscurity even faster. At least here in the General forum, it gets exposure.
Due to the amount of problem e-mails, I've recieved, I've decided to bump this topic back to the top in case anybody else wants advice that doesn't know about it. I actually just recieved my 100th e-mail, and I'd like to thank everybody for the success of the thread, even if it doesn't seem apparent. Not everyone is willing to post here, and that's what the e-mail is for. Be sure, though, if you do send an e-mail, title the subject "confessional". I sift through mountains of spam, so anybody I don't know or recognize as a "confessional," will be deleted.
Thanks again to eveybody willing to come forward!
Send problems to-
preacherj@hotmail.com
Or check the profile if you want to IM me.
Ugh... Cloves... Affectionately referred to as "lungbleeders" by my circle of friends. Oh well. Whatever gets you action, I suppose :-P
*Pfft!*
That'll never work. Here, try this.
*Kicks a frog*
At 5/13/03 02:44 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:At 5/13/03 02:39 PM, PreacherJ wrote: Yes. Not really my style, but occaisionally. Why do you ask?I guess I overdid the subtlety. Or maybe it just wasnt funny. Here goes:
What do kids who argue whether or not a word is "cool" do to seem cool? They smoke cigarettes, because they are obviously stupid and juvenile. I had to ignore the sarcasm to appear to be a stupid brat with no depth. I thought the self-deprecation was funny.....
Ahh, I see. Clever. The subtlety was a little overdone, but yes, it's quite humorous now that you've brought it to my attention.
Also, you know it looks cool when you smoke. I look way badass in the priest shirt with a cigarette dangling from my lip. Chicks love it. :-D
Yes. Not really my style, but occaisionally. Why do you ask?
At 5/5/03 11:35 AM, Shih wrote: Evolutionary-anarchist
Can you explain this a little more?
*Readies the anti-anarchy (AA) guns*
At 5/13/03 02:29 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:At 5/13/03 02:14 PM, PreacherJ wrote: Ahh. Very classy. Indeed, an interesting story. There was a thread for that over in the general forum for that (screen name stories), wasn't there?1 I dont check the general forum, and anyway, what good is a lounge thread you cant lounge in it?
2 Youre just jealous that "logos" is cooler and more original than "word"
logos
Ahh yes, my blood burns green with envy as the word "logos" turns over and over in my mind. Why couldn't I be as cool as you, FUNK? (/sarcasm)
*Pulls out duct tape, covers nitro's mouth with it.*
Word.
Ahh. Very classy. Indeed, an interesting story. There was a thread for that over in the general forum for that (screen name stories), wasn't there?
At 5/13/03 01:46 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
whoa..... not so fast there, silver! I love my brother, but I dont fuck him, do I? Anyone can love anyone else, as far as I'm concerned. At worst, homosexuality is as bad as alcoholism. At best, its people who have just a little bit TOO much love to go around. Im sure you have lots of same sex friends that you love, as do I, but that has nothing to do with whether or not were homosexual, does it? Homosexuality is all about sex, and love or the lack thereof has nothing to do with it. I love my dog, but I dont fuck him, do I?
Alright, now that I better understand your opinion, I see your point, which is a valid one (on the premise of homosexuality being based strictly on sexual preference, indeed, that's it's very definition). As for your dog, well... I'll leave that to the spy satellite photos to determine.
Are you sure it's not from having the word "funk" in your name? Try a different Judge name, or add an "x". I guarantee you'll feel cooler.
At 5/12/03 04:58 PM, nitroxide wrote: There are aspects of life which we call occult or hidden, or we call them esoteric or inner. Many definitions and explanations have been offered to make clear what is meant by the occult. But the occult does not need to be explained as if it was something that we had never encountered and were still seeking; for we have all had the experience of discovering the occult in the simple process of growing up from childhood to adulthood.
The occult is something that is hidden from us, not by some unkind person who will not reveal it to us, but by our own lack of growth and inability to comprehend. The occult is not hidden from us even by the fact that we do not possess various kinds of psychic capacity, such as clairvoyance, and the power to see entities not in physical manifestation, or the non-physical results of thoughts and feelings. Occult vision does not necessarily see more, but it sees differently and more comprehensively.
Grown-up life is occult to us when we are children. By no stretch of our childish imaginations can we come to understand the world of sympathies and functions and relationships which constitute grown-up life. Nor can anybody convey to us a real understanding of them by giving us teachings and explanations about them. The activities of grown-up life are occult and incommunicable to us because we have not yet achieved the growth which would enable us to comprehend them.
As children, we see most of what goes on in the grown-up world; and yet we cannot understand it and interpret it for ourselves in a way that will enable us to appreciate its full grown-up meaning. Even the possession of some form of clairvoyance or psychic capacity would not help us much towards a real understanding of the grown-up point of view.
but the time when all can become clear and nothing is hidden is random and it does depend on how someone grew up some people can see these truths in early ages as 16.
Alright, Nitro, where did you cut and paste this from? This is entirely to lucid to be anything spouted from you. You never even use a simple period or comma, let alone a freakin' semicolon. Not to be a dick or anything, but you don't strike me as the type to use words like "manifestation," "incommunicable," and "comprehensively." I don't mind you cutting and pasting opinions, just mention where you got it from. The only thing I think you actually wrote was the last paragraph. Most of it is just slightly off topic, too. Like you just wrote the last paragraph to try and link it all together.
As for adult ages-
Everybody develops differently. Many people look like adults at younger ages, nowadays, even if they have the mindset of a child. Many children nowadays are being forced at younger and younger ages to make adult decisions they should never have had to make before their full maturity. I myself had my own innocence stripped from me at an early age, because I had to take care of younger siblings, due to, *ahem* let's just say... "parental negligence" to be nice.
Nitro is one of these people who have been sapped of a childhood like I have. He's married and is embedded in society at a very young age. He moved out of the house at 16, I believe. I've been taking care of my brother (In more ways than one... think "protection" from the worst possible source) since I hit double-digits in age.
My point is, is that you can't pin down any one age for adulthood, really. It's becoming increasingly hard to do biologically, even. I just wish that more people at least live thier childhoods out to be 16 or so. Parents, it's a terrible day when the most responsible person in your home is a ten year-old. He or she doesn't deserve that burden. Let him/her go and chase bugs and eat whatever he/she wants from time to time, and kids, don't be in such a fucking rush to grow up. It's not all that much better being an adult, either.
Word.
At 5/13/03 07:08 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: There sue are a lot of Judges.
Judge Dredd, Judgemeharsh, Judge Volt, etc.
I guess it's cuz everyone wants to be judge!
Really. You'd think that people would want some sense or originality. A sense of self, you know? Instead, you have a bunch of different Judges running around. Oh well. At least there isn't a bunch of Teds running around. That'd just be creepy (no offense, or anything Mr. Easton), because, c'mon, Judge is at leat a title, and... *mumbles incoherently, like nitro*
Anyone remember all the Rancid Psycho Josh clones?
At 5/13/03 12:35 PM, GnarlyCar wrote: Why do people hate gays, anyway? Is someone else's sexual preference a threat to them? What exactly are they afraid of, anyway? Maybe if a gay person hits on them, they might cave and take them up on it and enjoy it? Do they think homosexuality is contagious? How fucking ignorant can you get?
OOh! BURN!
I love that. That was great. I feel myself regaining hope in humanity because of this post. Not much hope, mind you, but enough so that the rest of my day will be a little better.
At 5/13/03 02:17 AM, nitroxide wrote: preacher please dont qoute me wrongly i never said hey man the goverment sucks...
No, it's true. You didn't. But you did advocate bringing the government down, and said it was "ruled with an iron fist of laws most of which are shit." Sorry if I cut that down to "sucks."
:i have backed up my ideas do not generalize me as a pot head anyone would look at me and never see that i do drugs yet i do daily and i am just as much of a slave as all man but i dont give up like you have you believe they lie to you yet you dont fight...
I'll just let everyone read this post and take it at face value. You're right. I was wrong to generalize you as a pot head. It appears that I am completely off base in the assumption that drugs haven't altered your ability to, say, string together a simple sentence. I don't "fight" as you so asininely put it, because there's no NEED for me to "fight." I'm content with the job that they're doing, and I don't feel like a slave. Maybe the US government has just institutionalized me to the point where my slavery becomes my freedom. I'm one happy slave, then, if to be free I need to do what you're suggesting.
:i may do drugs but dont think i dont have a job i work in a company with great pay i dont lack anything i am independent i have lived and worked on my own since i was 16 i have a beautiful wife i am happy and healthy i have a great sex life and social life
This is totally off topic. I never said you weren't a productive member of society. Your wife and sex life have no relvance to this conversation at all. Good job in your triumph over adversity and in becoming normal despite your continued drug use.
:but it is sad that becuse the image that AMERICA has implanted in your head you think im just some hippy that talk like chong man you dont know me dont catagorize me or judge me i love all man
I wasn't really generalizing you as a hippie. You're doing a pretty good job of fulfilling that stereotype. You're ranting about the government implanting ideas in my head, advocating drug use, claiming I'm categorizing and judging you, and you claim to love everybody. If that isn't a hippie, the only thing I think that could complete the set is a VW van and a tie-dye shirt.
:and that is why i can believe that morals can become its own goverment but only after anarchy i dont expect the whole world to embrace and rejoice after the goverment falls i expect them to work together to establish utopia a heaven on earth...
Alright, after the government falls, you don't expect everyone to embrace and rejoice, but you DO expect them to work together to establish a Utopia. That's in-fucking-sane. What I've been trying to say is that people WON'T work together. They'll be reduced to the lowest common denominator- Themselves, and their families.
:is this so bad what i want a life based on understanding following a principle of karma caring towards all man not america but worldwide.
No, it isn't. I never said it was wrong. You misunderstood me. Again. It's a great idea, and concept. Very noble. Just painfully, painfully naive, and very unrealistic.
:The absence of laws would only work if we all embraced a standard code of personal ethics. We would need to define what constitutes an unethical act. There would have to be an effective, internal motivation to act respectfully towards one another. Spirituality could provide this incentive, but many people have become spiritually empty.an unethical act is anything done which results in predictable harm or manipulation of other people, when it's not necessary for immediate survival or self-protection.
You see, this is all well and good, but the thing is, NOT EVERYBODY WILL CONFORM TO YOUR HAPPY-GO-LUCKY "MORALS!" I've been trying to say that the Human race is entirely too selfish to give a rat's ass about moral structure. Rioting would ensue. A government would rise from the ashes.
:so what if there was proof that there is no god i see that proof everyday but ethics and morals are in every man even without god i dont believe in god yet i dont kill steal or hurt my fellow man my body is my temple let me do as i please with it.
*sigh*
This was merely an example of the repurcussions of a so-called "truth" becoming unveiled. Religion would collapse. I guarantee that would have a pretty big fucking impact upon the world in general.
:Our worst problems do not actually result from any particular political system. Unethical acts are performed around the globe in the name of environmental activism, patriotism, and righteous retaliation.
Well, then. Perhaps you should consider this fact before you go off calling the US an iron-fisted tyranny.
It's a shame that more people don't believe in karma, the automatic balancing function of the universe. According to karmic law, there is no possibility of any act going undetected. Automatic consequences are built into every human action or inaction. As long as its basic premise is accepted, karma could appeal even to the most logical among us.
Yes, it's true. And it is a shame. But by that same token I could say it's a shame N*Sync has a musical career, and I'm not married to a doublejointed supermaodel who owns her own brewery and has access to free concert tickets who loves me no matter what I do, even if it happens to be her hotter, younger sister. I'm done here. Think your arguments through and pick up an English book before you say anything to me about politics.
Word again. (To mop up any remaining vestiges of your logic).
*Ahem*
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thank you, Nemmy. That was the funniest thing I've read today (5/12/03) as of 11:00 PM PST.
At 5/12/03 04:11 PM, nitroxide wrote: as cristianity and catholism are basically the same just some small changes i am not staying true to the principle of anarchy, never did i say it would work. once the goverment falls i believe in humanity establishing order for all mankind but taking on that responsibility yourself not allowing intrusion from people that want to have more than others i say it myself that society is not ready for this but that is becuase we have been shaped into feeling inferior why does mankind hate himself preacher?could it not be from implanted thoughts to realizing the shit they live in.is drugdealing a game or a way for the poor to survive police are not out protecting your stereo they are policing a society with an iron fist of laws many of wich are shit and oppresive they are just puuting more people in the prison system so they can benefit from this the prison system is a profital organization as is drug dealing anarchy will work to bring the goverment down but not to establishing a peaceful society afterwards...humanity has been fed so many lies that every lie and truth is distorted anarchy is not the answer to the world problems...but it is the best way to expose the world problems to the people.
*Sigh*
Head... hurting... too... incoherent...
Ok, look-
Once the government falls, we won't all come together and hold hands, singing "Kumbaya." Regardless of whether or not it's the responsibility of the individual to the species, there are too many people concerned with nothing but their own survival to care about the species. The belief that humans won't degrade to their base instinct of self over all else is completely asinine, and naive, to boot.
You're right in the fact that the human race isn't ready for this, but your pedomorphic assumption that the Human Race will some day be able to accomplish this task and overcome this "feeling inferior" without the advent of mind-control or mass-propoganda (a la' Alduous Huxley), is fucking ridiculous.
You're right. Mankind doesn't hate itself, nor has it ever. Tell that to the 3 million Jews exterminated in WWII; tell that to all the murdered/displaced/enslaved Native American Indians; Tell that to a black man; or a gay man; or a woman, for that matter.
Hell, I'll even go so far as to say "Tell it to the POOR."
These people weren't hated, for the most part, upon the hating group living in a shitty situation (The Jews, however, were unfairly blamed for Germany's shitty situation, to which I will concede as an example of your skewed logic).
What are you talking about with the whole drug dealing thing? The fact it might be hard for a poor person to get legitimate work only supports my theory about how mankind hates itself. Yes, plenty of poor people resort to selling drugs to make ends meet because of the increased costs of living coupled with the difficulty to find work if one is poor to begin with. I know this. Just ask one of the several members of my family who have done time (my last name, sadly, is synonomus with "drug dealing" in the small town I originally come from. Thanks, Dad). But poor people being forced to sell drugs to make ends meet is a far cry from "being ruled with an iron fist of laws."
Courtesy of dictionary.com-
iron fist
n.
Rigorous or despotic control: as in "ruled the nation with an iron fist."
despotic
\Des*pot"ic\, Despotical \Des*pot"ic*al\, a. [Gr. ?: cf. F. despotique.] Having the character of, or pertaining to, a despot; absolute in power; possessing and abusing unlimited power; evincing despotism; tyrannical; arbitrary. -- Des*pot\"ic*al*ly, adv. -- Des*pot\"ic*al*ness, n.
The US is a tyrannical government, now, is it? Have you ever even talked to a police officer? Sure, everyplace has it's corrupt officers (more support of the human race hating itself on a personal level), but most police officers are generally good. Regardless of what you say, they are protecting my stereo. They are cutting down the amount of rapes, murders, and thefts. Even if this "iron fist of laws many of which are shit" combined to make a "benefit" from this "profital prison system," you still have a bunch of murderers, rapists, and thieves locked away in jail (where they can't steal my stereo), and that seems to me to be worth any benefit that would perhaps be entitled to me.
The bottom line is, that even if the cops benefit, I still feel safe knowing that there's a bunch of murderers and rapists in jail, due to this "iron fist of shitty laws."
So, you want to bring down the government with a drug dealing anarchy? To bring truth to the people? How will you do this? Everyone will all just get high after the collapse of the United States? There's no doubt in my mind that the US government has lied to us. Some of it was for our benefit, and some of it was for their own, I'm sure. But truth, well, truth is a powerful thing, not to be taken lightly. Wars are fought over the definition of what's "true". In fact, many people could and would argue that truth is relative. Just look at the crusades. Or any religious war, for that matter.
Fuck, just take a look at Sept. 11th! Those guys thought they were doing the right thing for chrissakes! Everyone in the US thinks they'll be burning in Hell, and do you know what? NOBODY REALLY KNOWS.
A person is smart. People are stupid. K- Men In Black
K brings this up to prove a point that the "truth" about alien life in MIB would only cause panic and dissent among the populace. This is an example of a constructive lie. As much as I hate being in the dark about things, there really are just too many stupid people in the world to unleash such truths. Just imagine what would happen if there were concrete proof God did not exist.
All you can do to bring "truth" to the people is carve out your own niche in society. Become a newscaster, and report on actual news, and not just the story about some guy rescuing a kitten from a tree, or Robert Downey Jr.'s new trip to rehab. Become a writer. Become a filmmaker. Don't become an anarchist, and don't bitch about the government if you aren't willing to back up your argument and do something other than getting stoned and saying "Yeah, man, the government sucks." Shit or get off the pot, because I'm fucking tired of hearing whiny bitches like you complain about one of the best places to live in the world.
Word. No, fuck that. Double Word.
At 5/12/03 11:03 PM, kittie_cross wrote: ....whoa... did I make this topic? Err, sorry people, but I really don't remember doing this at all. I guess that's what happens when I'm drunk and have a bad day. I remember wanting to start a topic, but I don't know where all that other b.s. came from that I posted... Ack! Sorry! I think what I really wanted to say was "The war isn't about oil. It's about exterminating the terrorists," but I don't remember ever thinking all that other crap. ~shrugs~ Oh well, it's a topic now, and I've managed to piss off a lot of people with my drunken logic (or lack thereof). Sorry... but, heh, this does serve as a good way to see other people's opinions. Just look at the bright side. I think I'll stay away from the politics forum for a while, or at least I won't start any topics for a good couple of weeks. </apology>
Holy Jeebus, you're a lot more cohehent when you're sober. That was some drunken rant. I'm not half as productive when it comes to political writing when I'm drunk. I just go out and try to get laid.
It's a shame nitro couldn't be as lucid as you...
Alright-
For clarification purposes, I shall explain the "200 posts" rule.
The number 200 is meaningless, for purposes of membership only. That's not the basis of entry. We use that as a benchmark so we have a sizable amount of your posts to judge whether or not you're a Nemmy. It's a sizable number, and shows some semblance of forum regularity, if not forum experience/elder status. The 200 posts thing is only a minor part of that rule. The main purpose of it is the effects that come from having to post a lot.
At 5/12/03 03:27 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:I think youre getting sex and love confused here, Shih. Homosexuality is a sexual preference, not an emotional one. Love is an emotion. Therefore homosexuality is not a form of love, but a form of sex that does not produce offspring, making it, if not unnatural, then definitively uproductive. God says to be fruitful and multiply, and its hard to do that without heterosexual sex. Therefore, God cannot condone homosexuality without contradicting himself.At 5/12/03 10:43 AM, Shih wrote: Here's afun question for Christian homophobes.
If God is love how can he condemn a form of love without condemning himself?
So.... are you saying that gay people don't love each other, and only date for the sex? That would be doing a whole lot of generalizing...
Oh, and for Jimmy-
"Prisons."
So, in the interest of not having this thread fall below the 1st page mark, I believe I would like to ask a question to the members of the Politics Crew-
What made you want to join?
I like the idea that a lot of people can come together and state different opinions of whether or not "Bush is ghey" without degrading to just insults. I feel a connection, a comradery, a sense of feeling like I belong. It rocks.
So why do you like being in the PC? What inspired your decision?
At 5/12/03 03:44 AM, nitroxide wrote: shrike a witty comic proves nothing i mean i thought you were gonna defend yourself with real facts anarchy is the only way to get attention...do protest work does your goverment listen i am not saying that i want to run this world on total disorder as most anarchist believe i am not an anarchist because i dont commit attacks as true anachy is about but i would do everything in my power to bring our present goverment down with full disoder and chaos i have found that the principle in many religions is that at first their must be chaos to establish order america is synthetic they control what we run..this goverment is not for us no goverment is worldwide but humanity can establish a utopia pass the anarchy...shrike keep in mind im not attacking you im just politricking with you.
Ahhh, anarchy in a simple, true form.... the run-on sentence. *whew* It looks like you got a little excited writing, that, cheif. Calm down a little.
As for Anarchy not working, it can't, at least not for the betterment of society. Governments exist to protect the weak, at heart. With anarchy, there's absolutely nothing stopping the complete and total breakdown of civilization.
As for your beliefs on the American government... They may have their fingers in a lot of pies, but they don't have YOU on a leash, do they? America is indeed land of the free in many respects. If it weren't, I couldn't walk outside tomorrow and write a treastise on how the government is brainwashing us all to be slaves. I can in America. They don't have control over that. I happen to like the fact that there's a line of men (and women) in blue ready to step up and stop you from stealing my stereo.
As for a utopia-
I hate to burst your little bubble, but this isn't possible, short of some Orwellian nightmare. People are too different to be happy and productive together. The human race hates itself entirely too much, no matter what you think they're capable of.
At 5/11/03 03:57 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
Yet another example of the elitism embedded in the PC psyche.
GnarlyCar is clearly a forum regular, just not a Newgrounds regular. He has (from what Ive read), excellent debating skills and sound reasoning. However, were he to apply to the PC, or to even post on the lounge thread for that matter, be attacked with cries of "N00b!" and the like, and be told that he needs 200 posts or some such elitist nosense. However, in the DAG, he is immediately embraced for his abilities, which are obvious in his few posts.
Also, one of the main purposes of the DAG was to help increase N00b involvement, in order to create a larger opinion base for the clarification of debate. How many times have we tread over the same old ground in this forum? Even Ted_Easton complained of needing "new blood". The DAG is dedicated to the education, and not discrimination, for N00bs, and all other non-politicos. If the PC embraced these ideas, instead of only claiming to, there would be no need for a DAG.
The concept of the DAG is a good one, at heart. The whole point of the Politics discussions is to explore beliefs/topics in all aspects of such an abstract concept, is it not? We do need a D.A. from time to time, if nothing else, to reaffirm our own beliefs, so we don't all just end up sitting around saying something is stupid "just because."
The DAG brings about encouragement to use facts in the smiting of those who oppose our viewpoints, and in doing so, educates us to the truths of society, making us all better people, at least in the realm of political discussion. It destroys the concept of the yes-man.
However-
There is ultimately too much that's wrong with the DAG to be an effective tool in the betterment of the Politics Forum. People would support opinions that they don't support, normally, in some cases, and "arguing for the sake of arguing" is NOT constructive, and pissing people off simply to bring attention to a topic is rather asinine.
The basis behind it, according to it's proposed leader (FUNKbrs, right?), is to supply an opposition to an argument. The true purpose of a devil's advocate is not just to take an opposite stand, but merely to ask questions judging the viability of said opinion/topic/etc.
Now, that being said, any club or crew shows signs of so-called "elitism". What's the purpose of a club? It's to separate yourselves from everybody else, with a label. Siply doing that puts you "above" anyone else who isn't the member of a club. You do it for comradery, and to make your entity (ie: DAG) into something more powerful. Somehow, though, I doubt the "ever enveloping arms" of the DAG would be so willing as to accept Neo-Nazis and hatemongers into the ranks. What you're saying is that any "n00b" (Christ, I hate that word) can just waltz in and join on the basis of a couple of posts? Suppose somebody debated on something, and made an intelligent argument. Then, on that one post, you accept him/her into the group of kids you have going. Then, suppose the rest of his/her posts talk about hating everyone from gay people to black people. You'd find yourself wishing you weren't so eager to swell your ranks with crap, now, would you?
No doubt, the 200 post prerequisite comes off as uppity. But we don't care. We want someone who cares enough about Politics to apply, not someone who just occaisionally logs on and starts a "Bush suxx0rs/r0xx0rs" thread. We aren't elitist in the aspect you make it appear. We just turn down people who we have no idea of their post ability, and their dedication. Where I come from, that isn't elitist. That's safe.
Just curious, FUNKbrs, how much of all this anti-PC "fighting" of yours stems from not being admitted into the Crew? How much of it is jealousy? A need to be admitted/accepted? You're just stomping around, with cute little Shih on a leash, saying "LONG LIVE TEH DAG," when you yourself once applied to the PC.
If that's how you do things in life, by suddenly disapproving of things that don't accept you because of a standard, and by pointing fingers, then that's your perogative. It's nice that you have your own little thing going here. I just think it's a little juvenile, is all.
The PC is dedicated to the ideals of education and self-enlightenment. You, once again, point a finger, claiming we are not. Even IF we're the big meanies because we don't want idiots running around tarnishing the PC name with hatemongery and stupidity (indeed, would you want people to think that, on the basis of one member's posts, that most members of the DAG were a big group of juvenile morons?), that still makes us big meanies who have a dedication to the excellence of political debate, and the education and self-enlightenment that stems from it.
We encourage "n00bs" to post more. That's what the 200 post limit is for. Besides, even if that doesn't, as you claim, then don't you think it's a little cocky to assume that by being accepted by your group is the only way these people willl post more?
I'm glad you've decided to assume a "leadership" role in the Forum. It's nice that you can "lead" those easily manipulated into believing they have a false sense of superiority and that they're fighting a "noble" cause of "destroying the monopoly." The concept that we alone hold dominion over the politics forum shows (or insinuates, at the very least) on your part that the PC is superior to the DAG. What a twisted moment of paradoxical irony, that you, with your PC-made sig pic, start a group to fight us on the basis that we're better, even though you claim to be. I like the thought of such power, certainly, but the PC doesn't have a "monopoly." If we did, do you think we'd allow you to post some of the nonsense that you've posted here?
Can we help it if we have a dedication to excellence? I suppose so, but then the name wouldn't mean anything. There's a lot of crap to sift through out in the forums, and don't you at least give pause when you see that yin-yang, FUNK? Doesn't it strike you as something that needs to be read? Honestly, how many of the PC's posts have been stupid?
I'm done ranting in the defense of the PC. I think you get the point. I don't think you're an idiot, FUNK. I just happen to think you don't quite understand our position.
Word.
At 5/9/03 07:01 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Sure, let them spread AIDS to your town.
Yeah, because all gay people have AIDS (/sarcasm)
I have a friend in Australia who says a "dag" is someone who's a nerd or a loser.
*Realizes he's on the internet right now, too...*
Damn.
At 5/7/03 11:02 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Im a musician, but I believe I should get paid by the performance, not by royalties. You make comics, but you are not a printer. Im not saying you shouldnt recieve payment for the master copy of your comics, just the royalties. The printer should get the money for the copies, and you should get paid for the master. But why should you make money off the copier when youre not doing any extra work to deserve it? Your profit should come from the master copy only, so that prices can stay low and your popularity as an artist can spread. Then when the next master copy comes out, you can charge more for it.
Aren't copyright laws a part of the reason why someone recieves royalties?
Anyhoo-
I feel that copyright laws are pretty necessary as well, because, as a writer myself (or a cartoonist like foka), we'd get pretty goddamn pissed off if we poured all our effort into something, only to have it exploited and mass-produced by someone we don't want using it. Also, don't copyright laws stop people from stealing your stuff and claiming it's your own?
Well, it isn't Shrike, last I checked, but the English language mocking you...
