4,237 Forum Posts by "Samuel-HALL"
At 1/31/06 05:56 PM, redskunk_ wrote:At 1/31/06 05:54 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: How about morally, guys? Is it moral for someone to have a sex-change operation, in your opinion?Sure.
Why? Do you not think that it shows a mental imbalance in someone? Doesn't it seem unnatural (more unnatural than, say, smoking cigaretes or having recreational sex)?
Go ahead and call me intolerant.You're intolerant. Happy?
You're goddamn right.
At 1/31/06 05:55 PM, redskunk_ wrote: Nobody is bothering to distinguish between gender and sex?
Not everyone thinks that sex has little connection to gender, as you do.
Anyway, I think we're speaking of both, on different levels. I know I'm trying to.
At 1/31/06 05:48 PM, mackid wrote:At 1/31/06 05:44 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: So if there was a technilogical advancement that allowed sex-changed men to have a period, and become pregnant...would this man's sex be redefined as 'woman'?Probably. But even if you get surgery for removing your penis etc., you become, legally, a woman.
They don't 'remove' the penis. They invert it.
And we're not talking legalities. We're talking morality, and logic. The person is legally a woman...but don't we know better? Isn't a sex-change operation just a dedicated way to cross-dress?
How about morally, guys? Is it moral for someone to have a sex-change operation, in your opinion?
I don't, personally, feel it is. It shows that someone is so uncomfortable with themselves, that they have to pretend to be something else. There's not an act I can think of that more accurately demonstrates someone's insecurities, and lack of self-esteem.
There was a guy (and he was a guy, goddamnit) who was taking female hormones since fifth grade. He said he planned on getting the sex-change surgery when he turned 18. One time, a friend of my friend invited him to one of my parties...and I straight up told the guy he was not allowed in my house.
Go ahead and call me intolerant.
At 1/31/06 05:31 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: The man isn't a woman, does he have a period No, can he get pregnant No.
So if there was a technilogical advancement that allowed sex-changed men to have a period, and become pregnant...would this man's sex be redefined as 'woman'?
At 1/31/06 05:30 PM, AzureFenrir wrote:At 1/31/06 05:11 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: So for one individual, that amount of money is 'in poverty'?Don't forget income taxes. And while I admit that it is possible to live on ~$14000 (which comes to around $10000 after taxes), when you look at the average of ~$8000 (less than $6000 after taxes), that becomes disturbing.
Let's do some math.
I wouldn't call it 'disturbing'. Is it hard for people to live on that? Of course
But what's your solution? Free money for the poor? More social programs? Communism? A mass theft of American's money (wealth distribution, I mean)?
Or were you just complaining about something that you had no solution for?
While it's possible to keep on living through that salary, there is also healthcare and other unexpected bills.
And that's why welfare, Taniff, WIC, unemployment, foodstamps, bankruptcy, and government housing exists.
And what are even talking about, when you say 'do something about' pop idols?I actually have no idea what I'm talking about there
Yea. That's kind of what I figured.
At 1/31/06 04:51 PM, Sarai wrote:At 1/31/06 03:16 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote:Utopia cannot exist because it has a human element to it, however one person's definition of it differs to someone elses'.At 1/31/06 04:48 AM, Sarai wrote: Although flawed in a number of ways, social utopia can only come from Communism, never Capatilism.Social utopia? Social utopia?
You do know that, by definition, utopias cannot exist. That's why they're called 'utopia'.
I'm not going by your silly little personal defintion.
I'm going by the textbook definition of 'utopia'. I can use the word 'dog' to mean 'ignorant American'...but that doesn't mean I've changed the definition of 'dog'.
There's no such thing as an utopia.
I find that mindset a little immature, considering that utopias do not (and cannot) exist.Playing with words is kinda silly and immature of you. Of course they can exist.
Look the word up.
Utopia.
The term "utopia"" is combined from 2 Greek words - "not" (ou) and "place" (topos), thus meaning "nowhere" or more literally, "not-place".
Maybe your bullshit personal definitions float in the General Forum (you know, where you come from). They don't, however, float with people with half a brain.
Welcome to the political forum, Sarai.
In China we are glad of our jobs.
Of course. The starving dog in the street is also thankful and glad for the pitiful scraps the passerby throws.
Child labour, ho hmmmm.... Not very common. Also your own CIA factbook says poverty in America is higher than in the PRC.
That's great. I'll take American poverty over your brand of poverty, any day of the week.
Socialism opens the door for equality, free health care, free schools and the right to choose how your life works.
That's fine, if you support giving people things they didn't work for.
At 1/31/06 04:37 PM, AzureFenrir wrote:At 1/31/06 04:23 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: Can someone tell me the yearly monetary income that classifies somoene as 'below the poverty line'?$14,600, as someone before me said. That's definitely not enough to be buying PS2s and stuff, especially with taxes.
So for one individual, that amount of money is 'in poverty'?
Let's do some math.
Let's say someone is paying 700 dollars a month, in rent. That's eight-thousand four-hundred dollars a year.
Let's say they pay five-hundred dollars a month for utilities/groceries (five hundred is a lot of money alloted for groceries and utilities, by the way. One individual usually doesn't pay near that much for electricity, water, and groceries). That's six-thousand dollars.
That leaves us with a grand total of fourteen-thousand six-hundred.
That leaves two hundred dollars a year for extras. Keep in mind that seven-hundred a month is far more than many people pay for rent, and five-hundred is far more than people spend on the water bill, and groceries.
For a single person, $14,600 a year is not poverty. Combine that fact that many people live with friends, or a signifigant other...making the total household income almost thirty thousand dollars. Most people don't live alone, for very long. They have a girlfriend, or a husband, or roomates.
Now, I realize I have not included things like clothing, transportation, health-care, and such.
I'm not saying $14,600 is easily lived upon, by far. I'm simply saying that the phrase 'poverty line' gives the wrong impression. It leads one to believe that people making fifteen thousand dollars a year are suffering... and they are not, always.
We could have forced bans on job exportion, securely control education so it's readily available, and "doing something about" pop idols, but all of these are definitely not capitalistic/democratic.
We cannot ban job exportation. I feel this would devastate the global economy.
When you say 'securely control education' so it's 'readily available'...do you mean college educations, or k-12? Do you mean public, or private schools?
And what are even talking about, when you say 'do something about' pop idols?
At 1/31/06 04:45 PM, Proteas wrote:At 1/31/06 04:23 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: That's the thing about this 'poverty gap': Many people that are mentioned as 'in poverty' have two cars, and a computer. They have playstations, and Nikes. They buy hundred dollar Starter jackets. They buy two packs of cigaretes a day, and a couple twelve packs every week. They pick up the new cd by their favorite musician.See what I mean? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because the poor people are trying to buy more than their paychecks can allow. You can't accumulate wealth if your constantly living outside your means.
Exactly. Look around 'the ghetto' of America.
You'll see people (black, white, asian, latino, and everything else) wearing hundred dollar sneakers. You'll see souped up Honda Civics. You'll see three hundred dollar football jackets. You'll see people drinking beer, and purchasing drugs. You'll see them buying cds, and movies, and other things for entertainment. They go out to bars. They gamble.
If you're so fucking poor that you need welfare, foodstamps, WIC, Taniff, and government housing...why are you spending your money on expensive shoes, and jackets? Why are you souping up your Honda? Why are you buying albums, and videogames? Why are you spending your money on beer and pot?
I'm not saying these people created their poverty...I'm not saying anything even close to that. I'm just saying that many people contribute to their own poverty.
You know what my family does, in hard times? The first thing we do is call up our ISP, and tell them to turn off service. We stop buying pot, and beer. We start purchasing our clothing and shoes from thrift shops. We stop spending money on recreational activities. We pawn everything we own, that's pawnable. We go down to the unemployment office, if we can't find work.
And guess what? My family never stays poor, for long.
I've been on food stamps just like everyone else, man. Most of my family has recieved unemployment, at one time or another. We've been evicted, repossessed, leined on, and sued. We've been unemployed, and down and out. Taniff had to pay to repair our shitty old truck, twice now. We've been evicted, and have to be out by the fifth of next month.
I get really tired of people assuming, that because my opinions are hard on the poor, that I must be well-off. I get tired of people assuming that because I'm a republican, I must not know hard-times.
My hard times define my beliefs. I'm a conservative because of what I've gone through. Poverty can be beat. It is not insurmountable. Being poor isn't a choice...staying poor is.
Sorry about ranting, too.
I've thought of a topic that will (hopefully) delve into the true defintion of 'gender roles' and 'a human's sex'.
So, Maury is on my television. There's a man, on there, who had a hundred surgeries to becomes a woman. He looks like a woman, sounds like a woman, and claims to feel like a woman.
So here's the question:
A person is born a male. They are raised a male, until they are eighteen. From birth, however, this person claims to 'feel' like a woman, mentally and emotionally.
At age eighteen, this man has a surgery to become a woman.
The penis is inverted, breasts are implanted, and the adam's apple is shaved off.
He is given silicone injections to his hips, ass, thighs, and legs. He takes female hormone drugs. He looks, acts, and dresses like a female. This person sleeps with males, and thinks of itself as a woman.
The question is, what is this person? After the surgery, are they male or female?
Is the requirement for 'being a female' simply 'not having a dick'?
Is a person what they look like, or what they were born as?
Do you believe our 'gender roles' are truley created by society?
Personally, this is how I feel: The man that has a sex-change operation is still a man.
It doesn't matter if he doesn't have a dick, or if he has breasts. He was born a male, and remains a male...regardless of how he mutilates his body.
I'm dying to hear opinions from the kind of people who say 'gender does not exist'.
At 1/31/06 04:01 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: 1) How serious of a problem is this? Is growing income inequality a serious problem if almost all people have access to basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing?
It only matters if the lower-income class cannot afford basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, basic utilities, etc).
I don't want to hear about the 'poverty gap' if someone can afford to buy groceries, pay rent, pay utilities, buy a car, and purchase a computer with an ISP.
That's the thing about this 'poverty gap': Many people that are mentioned as 'in poverty' have two cars, and a computer. They have playstations, and Nikes. They buy hundred dollar Starter jackets. They buy two packs of cigaretes a day, and a couple twelve packs every week. They pick up the new cd by their favorite musician.
And that's not fucking poverty. If you have a computer with an ISP, you're not 'in poverty'. If you have a brand new pair of nikes, you're not 'below the poverty line'.
Can someone tell me the yearly monetary income that classifies somoene as 'below the poverty line'?
2) How can the United States or other liberal governments reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor? Or can it be stopped at all?
I don't feel it can be stopped. If we want to maintain capitilism, we must, in turn, want to preseerve the American class sytem.
At 1/31/06 04:16 PM, fli wrote: ...I think we should take care of them and preserve whatever remnants of their culture before they die off.
Little late for that.
Chiapas: New home for America.
I guess someone better educate them, then.
Being an American, America has done loads and loads for me.
They provide me with every freedom that I have. My country fought various wars to keep communism from spreading in the world, and to keep America's enemies from gaining power (Germany and Russia come to mind). America has an economy that provides me with every single thing I own, and possess...from my home to my Dell.
They allow me a say in the government, via local and federal elections. My country gives me the oppurtunity to become anything I set my mind to (assuming I've the intelligence, dedication, and willingness to work hard). My country arrests, prosecutes, and incarcerates dangerous criminals that seek to do harm to the general population.
I could go on and on.
At 1/31/06 02:25 PM, Imperator wrote: Will you (as individuals) stop drinking coke as a result?
Goddamn right I will.
Why or why not?
Because it tastes good. I like it.
What's everyone think of the allegations, etc?
I honestly don't give a fuck. I hope whatever they're currently doing continutes, as to provide me with cheap and flavorful cola.
At 1/31/06 10:36 AM, DancingTurkeyGod wrote:At 1/31/06 01:15 AM, Samuel_HALL wrote: I'm indiscriminate on this topic.How exactly to do you label a whole group of people a "high-risk" group WITHOUT being discriminate on a certain level?
The respective groups just need to be tested. If a hundred homosexuals come in, and are tested for HIVE/AIDS, and only four have it...I wouldn't call that a 'high risk' group.
Now, if a hundred homosexuals come in, and sixty-five of them have HIV/AIDS...that makes them 'high risk'.
The same testing process should be used on any group that's suspected of being high risk. Blacks, whites, gays, straights, or police officers...
That's what I meant by 'indiscriminate'. Every suspected 'high risk' group needs to be tested, on an individual basis. If, after testing, homosexuals are still a 'high risk group'...the legislation that stops them from donating should stand.
If tests reveal they aren't high-risk...the legislation should be changed.
And yes, BTW, if blacks are a high risk group..they should be stopped from donating.
I love how the gay community supports giving innocent Americans potentially lethal blood, all in the name of their little 'equality crusade'.
At 1/31/06 04:48 AM, Sarai wrote: Although flawed in a number of ways, social utopia can only come from Communism, never Capatilism.
Social utopia? Social utopia?
You do know that, by definition, utopias cannot exist. That's why they're called 'utopia'.
I fully support Communism or it's final solution; socialism utopia, but I do not believe or support some of the policies to get there.
You support social utopias?
I find that mindset a little immature, considering that utopias do not (and cannot) exist.
It's American and other Western countries fault that there aren't enough resources for everyone.
That's called global competition. We have more money, and also require more resources...therefore, we purchase and procur more.
That's just the way the wheel turns.
Isn't it strange a Capatalist country is beaten by a socialist country on the main score of human life?
Not really. Their socialism is what allows them to exploit workers, oppress their people, and produce cheap goods.
Because of our capatilism, we're not (per se) allowed to pay our workers a dollar and hour. We're not allowed to use child labor. We're not allowed to break it off in our worker-pool, like China does.
So in a way, you're right. China is 'beating us' (lol) because of their socialism...but only because socialism opens the doors for child-abuse in the work-place, economic explotaition, and oppression.
Way to prove everyone that hates China right.
At 1/30/06 11:35 PM, mofomojo wrote: social standards = kiss my ass, you fag.
You make a post about how people shouldn't call others 'childish' or 'immature'...and then prove your immaturity by calling people 'fags'?
Way to go.
Any high risk group (for communicable disease, AIDS, whatever) should be screened out. If homosexuals are, in fact, a 'high risk' group...cull them out of the donor group.
If straight white CEO from Florida are a 'high risk' group...screen them out.
I'm indiscriminate on this topic.
At 1/30/06 01:03 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote:At 1/30/06 01:47 AM, Samuel_HALL wrote: And we need to shut the fuck up about the expulsion of the Native American from our soil.Their soil?
You know what I meant.
At 1/30/06 12:32 AM, theburningliberal wrote: Shit happens. Afterwards, you have no choice but to get busy living. Dwelling on the past makes you incapable of seeing the future, which is, sadly, where this administration is leading us.
Oh, I agree.
We need to shut the fuck up about 9-11. It's over and done with, you know?
We also need to shut the fuck up about the Nazi genocide. And we need to shut the fuck up about the expulsion of the Native American from our soil. We need to 'move past' the atrocity of Hiroshima. We need to 'forget' all that crap about the civil rights movement. The civil right's movement is over with, you dolts! Stop talking about it!
Rosa Parks is dead. So is Martin Luther King. Let them be forgotten.
Let's forget every bad thing that happened. Afterall, we should forget things as soon as they happen.
Like goldfish.
At 1/23/06 01:51 PM, Streakydesign wrote: Rice =^-^=
I figured since everyone was posting wings i'd post rice.
That looks like someone threw up a bunch of maggots into a styrofoam bowl.
At 1/19/06 11:52 PM, LordXanthus wrote:At 1/19/06 10:04 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: That being said, my big badass wall-crushing party is tomorrow. It's a combination of a 'we are getting evicted party' and 'birthday party'. Who knows if anyone will be left standing, when the sun comes up saturday morning.Well, for what little it's worth, happy birthday.
It's very much appreciated.
I did ex with my girlfriend. It was fucking grand.
At 1/20/06 04:48 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Flagg, I was just perusing your site (via your sig) and stumbled across your Between Angels and Archers piece.
I liked it.
So I checked out a few more pages, and liked it even more. Left me feeling mentally nourished afterwards. Very nice.
Thanks man. I'm always glad to hear stuff like that :)
At 1/21/06 02:56 AM, JoS wrote: So basically do you think its wrong for this kind of action in society, where serious criminals get off or the law cant even touch them?
Where do 'serious criminals' get off?
You might see crack dealers get back on the street, sure. You might see the glorified, media-fed rarities of a pedophile 'slipping out of the system'.
But for the most part, the justice system hits the worst criminals the hardest.
And even if they didn't, I'd stand against vigilante justice. It's an undermining of law and order. If a problem existed with the justice system, I wouldn't support vigilante justice among the public...I'd support correcting the problems in the justice system.
At 1/21/06 12:11 PM, JoS wrote: You know that it takes the government in somecases years to investigate leaders of organize crime rings. Everyone knows they are guilty, yet they are allowed to walk the streets and contnue to commit crimes while the police gather more evidence on them. Then often they even will get aquited.
I know you're not complaining about this.
The Patriot Act (something that everyoneone's against, these days) sought to attempt to get dangerous men off the street quicker, by cutting through all that 'evidence gathering red-tape'.
And people threw a fit.
At 1/20/06 05:25 PM, red_skunk wrote:At 1/20/06 04:01 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: That seems like splitting hairs, to me.I wouldn't say it's splitting hairs. You can attack my example, it wasn't a great one. But there's a lot of terrorism that isn't hate related. Another example of this (besides ALF & ELF, which isn't particularly "hateful" against actual people) would be nearly any state terrorism – Russia's response to problems in Chechnya, for example. The 'state of Russia' does not hate the Chechnians.
Alright. Point conceeded.
If I want to be more specific, I will narow this down to the use of violence and intimidation against civilians, to achieve political aims. No, that doesn't really narrow it down much, but that's as narrow as I like to go. I don't define terrorism as "any Muslim who hate the US", if that's what you're fishing for.
Course not. My definition is, in fact, 'the use of violence and/or intimidation against non-military or civilian targets, to achieve political or cultural change'.
I find it's a fairly simple and accurate definition. Something either falls into the definition, or does not.
Calling Bush's campaign tactics (or any politicians campaign tactics. If I remember correctly, Kerry was just as quick to point out that America 'wouldn't be safe' under Bush's presidency) might work, if you stretched the definition all to hell. Under the same way of stretching, though, I can call gang-members buying weapons and selling crack 'terrorism'. Stretching, or narrowing, the defintion is something everyone wants to do.
Contrary to how I may present myself, I don't seek to stretch or narrow that defintion. I calls 'em like I see's em. If a muslim blows up a market-place to frighten an occupying force out of their homeland...it's terrorism. If an Irishman kills a group of school-children, it's terrorism. If an American plane intentionally targets civilian structures...it's terrorism.
At 1/20/06 03:06 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote:Merely stating the point that laws are not absolute.Go ahead and produce your little petition, so it can be thrown away and laughed at by our government. Not to mention myself.
Go ahead and try to get the right to vote taken away.
You'll find very few who support you.
If so, it's a shame.
Don't know what to tell you.
Nothing? Not who the pres. is, or the vice, or ANYTHING? I can't agree with that.
Again, sorry. Years of precedant, a constitutional amendment or two, and a huge majority of Americans think you're full of shit.
Nothing pretentious about it. 'blue sparks' is a term taken from mario kart double dash, you need not worry about it being some sort of eletist jargon.May all your sparks be blue, and have a nice day.May you choke on your own pretentious tongue.
Me calling you pretentious had nothing to do with your stupid little video-game crap.
At 1/20/06 04:09 PM, _StillBorn_ wrote: Does nation-building include securing oil for the west or killing roughly 6000 (I think this was the figure, correct me if I'm wrong) Iraqis, then?
Yes, it does.
And for the record: Forces in iraq need to 'secure the oil' a little faster, so the gas prices go down in America. Funny, that during the Iraqi occupation, we faced the highest gas prices in history.
At 1/20/06 03:42 PM, red_skunk wrote:At 1/20/06 03:21 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: Which part was overgeneralized? The part about them being hate groups? The part about them being racist? Or the part about them actively planning the demise of civilians?Well, a lot of terrorism in S. America (where most of the terrorism in the world occurs, as we all know) is politically-motived, not really hate-motivated. I know, hate-based terrorism is almost nearly political, but there is a distinction to be made here. You can kill villagers in a village to provoke fear, and not generally "hate" them.
I'd say the second 'fact' is overgeneralized, seeing as how only most terrorist groups are racist. The other two are right on the money.
That seems like splitting hairs, to me.
I mean, realistically...it's not like these terrorists in S. America have nuetral feelings towards these villagers. I'd have to venture to say that you don't committ such acts on innocents, without some variation of hate.
Finally, the 'demise of civilians' apparently doesn't have to be a factor in terrorism, since I just read a news story with ELF and ALF being labelled "ecoterrorists".
We're speaking of two different breeds of terrorists, then. Destroying valuable property is not in the same class of terrorism as crashing a plane into a building, or blowing up a market full of people is (IMO).
Ecoterrorists aren't treated the same as muslims blowing up markets (much to my displeasure). People have this silly idea that unless someone dies, it's not real terrorism (ask JoS...that's how he feels).
Since you frequently appear (to me) to attempt to water down the definition of terrorism...why don't you give me your personal defintion, Red?
What do you call terrorism? Real terrorism I mean...not Bush's label.
What are the motivating factors of terrorism? Do you, yourself, consider terrorism morally wrong?
I only ask that last question, because it appears that you often stand up for such people, and defend them. Is it because you consider terrorism a viable power-gaining tactic?
At 1/20/06 02:29 PM, red_skunk wrote:At 1/20/06 09:55 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: They are a bunch of racist hate groups that actively plan the demise of Americans and Jews.Overgeneralization.
Which part was overgeneralized? The part about them being hate groups? The part about them being racist? Or the part about them actively planning the demise of civilians?
I'd say the second 'fact' is overgeneralized, seeing as how only most terrorist groups are racist. The other two are right on the money.
At 1/20/06 01:45 PM, Pandaman64 wrote:At 1/19/06 07:31 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: The law, and the majority, stands behind me. There's no reason to pity my platform.Of course there IS the option to, say, run a petition of some sort in favor of a test, or something. Conforming or not voting are not the only two options, at least not the only ones in the long term.
Go ahead and produce your little petition, so it can be thrown away and laughed at by our government.
Not to mention myself.
As it stands, I still feel some pity that you undervalue your opinion, and feel your opinion equal to someone that knows nothing. I think it's a shame that you feel it okay to have your future decided in some way by people that may not know crap from shit.
It's no more decided by the unintelligent than the intelligent. Everyone's vote counts the same....that's part of the greatness of this country.
You feel that any reason is perfectly acceptable to vote?
I surely do.
Welcome to America.
You think it shouldn't be madatory to know SOMETHING about politics?
No, I don't. That's the kind of elitism we don't need, in America.
Please explain to me where on my little test I am being unreasonable.
The very concept of a test like that is unreasonable. I'll not oblige you by going question-by-question, saying the same thing over and over.
How's this - a test like that discriminates against Americans who aren't intelligent.
Why not let zoo animals vote as well?
Because they are niether Americans, or humans.
Now, what questions do you oppose on my mock test?
All if it. It's very concept.
May all your sparks be blue, and have a nice day.
May you choke on your own pretentious tongue.
Today is my birthday. I worked today, and have to work tomorrow. The new people we're working for are a bunch of retarded Amherst Folken. We all got jobs through the unemployment agency, right? On the third or fourth day of work, a guy takes a bunch of someone elses tools, makes up a story about his step-father having a heart attack (the mans wife later called later, and ended up saying her father was absolutely fine, but her husband was suppossed to be at work). The guy pawns all the tools, buys crack, and is found shortly there-after in an incoherant state.
That being said, my big badass wall-crushing party is tomorrow. It's a combination of a 'we are getting evicted party' and 'birthday party'. Who knows if anyone will be left standing, when the sun comes up saturday morning.
I'm hoping for lsd. And lots of it.
At 1/19/06 09:46 PM, Elfer wrote: Anyway, the point is, it doesn't matter, because nobody likes listening to those cunts anyway.
He's got a point, guys.
At 1/19/06 09:43 PM, red_skunk wrote:At 1/19/06 09:26 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: Pfffft. To justify the worth and truthfulness of one man's opinion, you post the opinion's of two other men?Is it just me or did the first half of his post totally trash Aristotle?
I noticed the same thing, and it perplexed me, as well.
So much, actually, that I took valuable resin-smoking time to google the two men that he quoted. I did this, thinking 'maybe he quoted two total whack-jobs, that are eccentric like Coulter, or something. That would help his point of how lame Aristotle was, by showing the kinds of people that support him'.
I found nothing on Apeldoom. Nothing informative, anyway. And Asimov seems fairly respectable...I guess. He's not Ann Coulter, anyway.
So I decided to throw caution to the wind, ignore the upper half of his post, and criticize what was there to criticize.
If you can figure out what the fuck he was talking about, I'm open to opinions.
