Got a new cat, PIX! [Archive] - Debate Policy

glockmail

01-04-2010, 09:56 PM

Being a vegetarian in your formative years can stunt your growth. That explains why you look so emaciated. I feed my son a three egg plain omelet with three slices of thick bacon nearly every morning and he still is skinny. My kids favorite meal is steak and I'll feed him a half-pound and my daughter a bit less than that. They run track, play hockey and ski and they need that nutrition just to maintain weight.

Cats are meat eaters, predators. We've domesticated them for the primary purpose to rid our homes and fields of vermin. I have a cat at home and his job is to do just that, and in 12 years I've seen zero mice in the house but many, many partially eaten ones on my front step. Such is his gift to me, his savior, protector and god. I have a place in the mountains that I'm not at most of the time and I send a huge effort trying to keep the mice out and destroying my property and spreading disease. I've killed as many as 8 in one week with instant kill traps.

Jeff

01-04-2010, 09:56 PM

Cute cat Noir, good luck with him

Noir

01-04-2010, 10:07 PM

-Cp

01-05-2010, 04:24 AM

I knows dude, listen when I got back from uni a few weeks ago I did my best to try and convince my dad that my dog should be feed veggie dog food, I think my dad thought I was joking at first lol, but try as I did he just doesn't care as I do, and as he's the one buying the food ect it's his choice, but I wouldn't buy meat pet foods, and when I come back for the summer and starting buying pet food again then they will go veggie for those months.

But anyways this isn't a srs thread, don't wana get all heavy.

But cats and dogs are DESIGNED to eat meat....

Noir

01-05-2010, 07:04 AM

But cats and dogs are DESIGNED to eat meat....

True, but they can live perfectly healthy lives not eating it.

Also, the human body is not designed to eat meat and yet we do, would that make you any less likly to eat meat?

glockmail

01-05-2010, 07:57 AM

The human body was designed to eat meat. God made us the domain over everything.

Noir

01-05-2010, 08:05 AM

The human body was designed to eat meat. God made us the domain over everything.

O rly?
Consider the facts

We're omnivore by behavior, not by biological build, function, or design.

* Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.
* Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.
* Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.
* Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.
* Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.
* Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.
* Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.

glockmail

01-05-2010, 08:07 AM

O rly?
Consider the facts

Omnivores eat meat, dummy.

What we are really not designed for is sugar and to a lesser extent bread, since they rot teeth.

Noir

01-05-2010, 08:14 AM

Omnivores eat meat, dummy.

What we are really not designed for is sugar and to a lesser extent bread, since they rot teeth.

I know, didn't you read the bloomin thing? Even if you only read the title 'We're omnivore by behavior, not by biological build, function, or design.' I think you'd have a pretty good understandig of what it is about.

Ofcourse we're not designed for bread ect, but atleast no animals are murderedmin it's making.

Now if you please go back are re-read why we are NOT biological omnivores, cus you seem to have missed it completly.

glockmail

01-05-2010, 08:22 AM

I know, didn't you read the bloomin thing? Even if you only read the title 'We're omnivore by behavior, not by biological build, function, or design.' I think you'd have a pretty good understandig of what it is about.

Ofcourse we're not designed for bread ect, but atleast no animals are murderedmin it's making.

Now if you please go back are re-read why we are NOT biological omnivores, cus you seem to have missed it completly.

Your post explains why we're not carnivores, dummy. We're omnivores, designed to eat plants and animals. God gave us dexterity and large fore brains to use tools (knives) to cut up out food before we eat it instead of ripping it apart like wolves. Or cats.

Noir

01-05-2010, 08:46 AM

Your post explains why we're not carnivores, dummy. We're omnivores, designed to eat plants and animals. God gave us dexterity and large fore brains to use tools (knives) to cut up out food before we eat it instead of ripping it apart like wolves. Or cats.

so you think god wants monkeys to be meat eaters too? After all they have the abilty to use tools.
And you would think what with it being god, he would have designed an more effective way for use to digest meat, in a way that say doesn't give us high colestoral,
but ofcourse what god does, he does, and what he doesn't do, he doesn't do. There is no explination for it, other than it is the way it is, because it is the way it is.

glockmail

01-05-2010, 08:56 AM

so you think god wants monkeys to be meat eaters too? After all they have the abilty to use tools.
And you would think what with it being god, he would have designed an more effective way for use to digest meat, in a way that say doesn't give us high colestoral,
but ofcourse what god does, he does, and what he doesn't do, he doesn't do. There is no explination for it, other than it is the way it is, because it is the way it is.

You dummy God didn't give monkeys large fore brains, so their tools ain't sharp.

You must be a atheist as well as a vegetarian.

Noir

01-05-2010, 09:10 AM

You dummy God didn't give monkeys large fore brains, so their tools ain't sharp.

You must be a atheist as well as a vegetarian.

I am an athiest.

And I do suggest you look up 'monkeys using tools' or somethig to that effect in YouTube. You'd be amazed.

Noir

01-05-2010, 10:11 AM

You dummy God didn't give monkeys large fore brains, so their tools ain't sharp.

You sure? Those that have observed it would say otherwise

For First Time, Chimps Seen Making Weapons for Hunting

Bo is one of the chimps on the Senegal being studied by researchers, who recently discovered that chimps have the ability to make their own weapons to hunt small mammels. (Paco Bertolani)
TOOLBOX
ResizePrint
E-mail

COMMENT
0*Comments*
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED
WHO'S BLOGGING
» Links to this article
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 23, 2007
Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals -- the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.

The multistep spearmaking practice, documented by researchers in Senegal who spent years gaining the chimpanzees' trust, adds credence to the idea that human forebears fashioned similar tools millions of years ago.

The landmark observation also supports the long-debated proposition that females -- the main makers and users of spears among the Senegalese chimps -- tend to be the innovators and creative problem solvers in primate culture.

Using their hands and teeth, the chimpanzees were repeatedly seen tearing the side branches off long, straight sticks, peeling back the bark and sharpening one end. Then, grasping the weapons in a "power grip," they jabbed them into tree-branch hollows where bush babies -- small, monkeylike mammals -- sleep during the day.

In one case, after repeated stabs, a chimpanzee removed the injured or dead animal and ate it, the researchers reported in yesterday's online issue of the journal Current Biology.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201007.html

You better ask this God bloke what's going on.

glockmail

01-05-2010, 12:08 PM

I am an athiest.

And I do suggest you look up 'monkeys using tools' or somethig to that effect in YouTube. You'd be amazed.
And if you lived in the US you'd drive a pink Prius. I know liberals like the back of my hand.

So monkeys sharpen sticks. Undoubtedly a learned behavior from observing man. Just like my dog has learned to go through a dog door.

Trigg

01-05-2010, 12:45 PM

I'm not a cat person, but the kitten is cute.

I think my anti-cat feelings stem from the fact that ALL of the cats we had as kids were mean and vindictive. The one my mom has now is almost nice, we keep wondering how it ever found her house.:laugh2:

Barn cats are vicious little guys, for some reason those are the ones my mom always liked.

Noir

01-05-2010, 12:57 PM

And if you lived in the US you'd drive a pink Prius. I know liberals like the back of my hand.

So monkeys sharpen sticks. Undoubtedly a learned behavior from observing man. Just like my dog has learned to go through a dog door.

Naw I wouldn't, I don't believe in man made global warming, and certainty don't like the colour pink, if I were to have a car of my own choice it would be a clasic mini cooper, or a Moris Miner.

They didn't learn it from humans, this is a group of small chimps that were followed by a few observers for years, tis truly quiet amazing. And runs counter to what you were claiming.

glockmail

01-05-2010, 01:03 PM

I've owned three cats and the best one was a feral kitten. He rid my house of every rodent, even in the attic and in the walls, then worked the barn, even under the concrete slab, then around the garden and compost heap. He caught snakes, frogs, bugs; anything smaller than him that moved.

I worked with a farmer who had dozens of cats in his dairy barn, so I caught one and brought him home. We had him before my favorite, and they got along well, but he was only a so-so mouser and after my kids were born he proceed to shit on the basement carpet to spite. So I bagged him and drowned him in the bathtub.

The one I have now was a feral kitten as well and is a decent mouser and clean but he had a habit of inviting his buddies into my house at night through the cat door. He also didn't take care of the vole problem in the back yard.

My dog though is a rat terrier mix so she took care of the late night visitations as well as the voles.

glockmail

01-05-2010, 01:08 PM

Naw I wouldn't, I don't believe in man made global warming, and certainty don't like the colour pink, if I were to have a car of my own choice it would be a clasic mini cooper, or a Moris Miner.

They didn't learn it from humans, this is a group of small chimps that were followed by a few observers for years, tis truly quiet amazing. And runs counter to what you were claiming.

It doesn't run counter at all. The mini is a wimpie car just like the Prius even if you paint it laser red. Liberals are wimps and drive wimpy cars, and they hate God and the US Constitution, and they shun personal responsibility.

You don't know if the monkeys learned it from humans. They could have learned it centuries ago from observing a man then the technique got passed down through generations. Even if they figured it out themselves it doesn't counter what I've said.

Noir

01-05-2010, 01:48 PM

It doesn't run counter at all. The mini is a wimpie car just like the Prius even if you paint it laser red. Liberals are wimps and drive wimpy cars, and they hate God and the US Constitution, and they shun personal responsibility.

Fair enough if you see it as wimpie, I see it as clasic, I love the style of the 60s/70s, from the cars to the clothes and the music, and such. What I would give to have grown up during the first Mod era, but alas I was not so lucky.

You don't know if the monkeys learned it from humans. They could have learned it centuries ago from observing a man then the technique got passed down through generations. Even if they figured it out themselves it doesn't counter what I've said.

Well you did say
God gave us dexterity and large fore brains to use tools

and
You dummy God didn't give monkeys large fore brains, so their tools ain't sharp.

and the best that you can come up with was that they may have seen men do it centries ago? :laugh2:

and to go from calling me a dummy and saying God gave humans the dexterity and brain power, to then saying "Even if they figured it out themselves" that sounds about as opposite as you could get. But then what do I know, I'm just a dummy...

glockmail

01-05-2010, 02:49 PM

Noir

01-05-2010, 03:19 PM

You dummy, it doesn't take a large fore brain to mimic a simple action like breaking a stick in half and sharpening on a rock. It takes a large fore brain to develop knives and fire, cook and cut meat for eating with smaller size mouths.

Now we're having to be more specific I see, not surprising, because you can just make this up as you go. Not that you'd care, but I'm not going to bother to debate on an issue with which you have displyed how happily you will change one of you stories to another,

and along the way you tried to get in an insult by claiming you knew me like the back of your hand....and then fell flat on your face with you assumption, how silly, no?

darin

01-05-2010, 05:42 PM

gats you guys are missing the biggest part of his post.

Should read "Tigger and Me."

:)

Neat kitty (Never said that to another guy) Rick! Congrats!

Agnapostate

01-05-2010, 06:01 PM

The human body was designed to eat meat.

Sounds like a fairly straightforward naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature).

God made us the domain over everything.

Fascinating, but you'll understand if some don't want explicitly religious doctrines to be the basis for the formation of laws in the public sphere. Some of us rely on logic to reach ethical conclusions. ;)

glockmail

01-05-2010, 07:21 PM

Now we're having to be more specific I see, not surprising, because you can just make this up as you go. Not that you'd care, but I'm not going to bother to debate on an issue with which you have displyed how happily you will change one of you stories to another,

and along the way you tried to get in an insult by claiming you knew me like the back of your hand....and then fell flat on your face with you assumption, how silly, no? Actually, you have committed a simple straw man; a logical fallacy.

glockmail

01-05-2010, 07:23 PM

Sounds like a fairly straightforward naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature).

Fascinating, but you'll understand if some don't want explicitly religious doctrines to be the basis for the formation of laws in the public sphere. Some of us rely on logic to reach ethical conclusions. ;)

Your logical fallacy would apply if we were arguing religious doctrines or formations of laws. However we are not. Therefore you have committed a logical fallacy yourself, perhaps the most common, which is the classic straw man.

Kathianne

01-05-2010, 07:28 PM

@ hog & Mr P

Tell me about it, I posted this on another site and people started calling me a liar :laugh2:
I think it's just the way I'm holding him makes him look bigger, but like tge people at the shelter said he was 2 months, so unless they made a mistake or something, but he is pretty small,

They're non-observant. A big cat would have been hanging on the backside of your arm. This shot has the whole body there, only the tail shows. Small kitty. I don't like cats, but he's cute.

Noir

01-05-2010, 07:36 PM

gats you guys are missing the biggest part of his post.

Should read "Tigger and Me."

:)

Neat kitty (Never said that to another guy) Rick! Congrats!

Like you care, you yanks trashed the English lingo a long time ago =P

Cheers, but that's Mr. Rick to you...

Noir

01-05-2010, 07:39 PM

Some of us rely on logic to reach ethical conclusions

May I take from this that you don't eat meat?

Agnapostate

01-05-2010, 08:08 PM

Your logical fallacy would apply if we were arguing religious doctrines or formations of laws. However we are not. Therefore you have committed a logical fallacy yourself, perhaps the most common, which is the classic straw man.

"Strawman" is usually an overused platitude thrown out by people who don't actually know what they're talking about, much like "Correlation is not causation!" That's certainly true in this case, as I never claimed that you were speaking of formation of laws.

May I take from this that you don't eat meat?

No, I eat meat. I'm not a vegetarian for the same reason I don't vote; individual actions by anonymous persons do not alter consequences.

Noir

01-05-2010, 08:15 PM

No, I eat meat. I'm not a vegetarian for the same reason I don't vote; individual actions by anonymous persons do not alter consequences.

What utter crap. Nature shows us otherwise, how may the ants overcome the Praying Mantis? Death by a thousand cuts. Whenever in doubt, follow nature, it is never wrong.

Also...you have yet to reply to my thread about your form of communism, am I to expect a reply or is such waiting in vain?

Agnapostate

01-05-2010, 09:45 PM

What utter crap. Nature shows us otherwise, how may the ants overcome the Praying Mantis? Death by a thousand cuts. Whenever in doubt, follow nature, it is never wrong.

Yes, and that would be a thousand cuts. Not a single cut. If you can demonstrate to me how individual action would change the consequences one way or the other, do so. You cannot.

Also...you have yet to reply to my thread about your form of communism, am I to expect a reply or is such waiting in vain?

Didn't happen to see it, mainly because you said that you had much to read and never sent me any message that it had been posted. I don't have a crystal ball.

Noir

01-05-2010, 10:03 PM

Yes, and that would be a thousand cuts. Not a single cut. If you can demonstrate to me how individual action would change the consequences one way or the other, do so. You cannot.

Indeed, that's the whole point, if there where a thousand ants and every one thought 'my one cut won't make a difference' then they would all be food for the Praying Mantis. But if they all act, then the Mantis will fall.
I am amazed that someone who believes in anarchy, and thus revolutionary politics is so apathetic using the 'what can one person' do excuse to justify their apathy.

Didn't happen to see it, mainly because you said that you had much to read and never sent me any message that it had been posted. I don't have a crystal ball.

Righto, I said it would take a few hours, and did indeed post it that night after a few hours, it's in the international politics forum, the title should be obvious.

glockmail

01-05-2010, 10:36 PM

"Strawman" is usually an overused platitude thrown out by people who don't actually know what they're talking about, much like "Correlation is not causation!" That's certainly true in this case, as I never claimed that you were speaking of formation of laws...

Actually, its perhaps the most common logical fallacy, and you implemented it nicely. I just didn't take the bait. :)

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 12:49 AM

Indeed, that's the whole point, if there where a thousand ants and every one thought 'my one cut won't make a difference' then they would all be food for the Praying Mantis. But if they all act, then the Mantis will fall.

You've confronted the conflict between individual and collective perceptions. The reason that the president cannot look into a television camera and say "You do not have to vote," is because his words will be broadcast to a large number and will have a dramatically different effect from my communication to one individual. The fact remains, however, that individual actions have no effect whatsoever on consequences. One vote will not make a difference, and neither will one case of abstinence from meat consumption make a difference. So I choose to conduct my personal affairs in accordance with that reality.

I am amazed that someone who believes in anarchy, and thus revolutionary politics is so apathetic using the 'what can one person' do excuse to justify their apathy.

That's because you have a misconception of radical leftists as young idealistic utopians. You apparently haven't imagined that a pessimistic cynic who recognizes that capitalism will exist throughout his lifetime and beyond could be among their ranks.

Righto, I said it would take a few hours, and did indeed post it that night after a few hours, it's in the international politics forum, the title should be obvious.

I glanced at the thread a few hours ago and didn't see anything particularly impressive, to be brutally frank. While you're new at these types of exchanges with me, I'm not new to this sort of anti-anarchist cliche. Answers to effectively all of your "objections" can be found in Section I (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html) of An Anarchist FAQ, and while I'll respond to you myself, I don't relish tedious exchanges about basic material. I want elevated, complex debate, but can hardly ever find it from anti-socialists. There's only been one thing that's actually stumped me: this (http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/59067-george-orwell-communist-3.html#post963550). At the time, I wasn't knowledgeable enough to provide a response to it. I am now, but have since been banned. I want to find someone like that again, basically.

Actually, its perhaps the most common logical fallacy, and you implemented it nicely. I just didn't take the bait. :)

There was no strawman "implemented," as I never claimed that you'd provided a religious justification for the law. I suggested that you not apply it in that direction, so it seems that the strawman is yours.

Mr. P

01-06-2010, 01:12 AM

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 01:23 AM

Try NOT eating and check out the "individual" consequences. IDIOT.:laugh2:

Listen, I know every husband and wife from Atlanta to Macon are cousins, but do you really have to be so retarded? I spoke of the lack of effect that individual abstinence from meat consumption had in prevention of animal slaughter. :slap:

Noir

01-06-2010, 05:52 AM

You've confronted the conflict between individual and collective perceptions. The reason that the president cannot look into a television camera and say "You do not have to vote," is because his words will be broadcast to a large number and will have a dramatically different effect from my communication to one individual. The fact remains, however, that individual actions have no effect whatsoever on consequences. One vote will not make a difference, and neither will one case of abstinence from meat consumption make a difference. So I choose to conduct my personal affairs in accordance with that reality.

But only through the actions of an individual can you have tge actions of a collective. If every individual in the collective decides they will not be able to make a difference by themselves then there will be no difference.

Now I'm not saying that my not eating meat is going to bring down this massive slaughtering industry. But even if it doesn't make a bean of difference I know i've done what I believe to be right, and nit surrorped the murder of these animals. To be so blunt as to say ypu may aswell support the murder and eat their flesh because you won't be able to stop it is quite a vile view to take IMO.

That's because you have a misconception of radical leftists as young idealistic utopians. You apparently haven't imagined that a pessimistic cynic who recognizes that capitalism will exist throughout his lifetime and beyond could be among their ranks.

LOL, what a horrid way to trod through life. Yet surly you must be greatful to capitalism. Afterall, without it you would not be where you are today.

I glanced at the thread a few hours ago and didn't see anything particularly impressive, to be brutally frank. While you're new at these types of exchanges with me, I'm not new to this sort of anti-anarchist cliche. Answers to effectively all of your "objections" can be found in Section I (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html) of An Anarchist FAQ, and while I'll respond to you myself, I don't relish tedious exchanges about basic material. I want elevated, complex debate, but can hardly ever find it from anti-socialists. There's only been one thing that's actually stumped me: this (http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/59067-george-orwell-communist-3.html#post963550). At the time, I wasn't knowledgeable enough to provide a response to it. I am now, but have since been banned. I want to find someone like that again, basically.

Well what you may consider tedious are bread a butter issues. I don't know how you came to know so much on this subject, I assume through personal learning, but given I first came across it two nights ago you could hardly expect much in the way of complexity. As I acknowledged in my opening post of that thread. However, tge simple arguments are always the most important, areas like schooling and the lack of currency can not be over looked just because you may consider them too basic.

Abbey Marie

01-06-2010, 10:56 AM

Noir, very cute! You are up yet another notch for taking in a rescue cat.

I apologize that your simple and positive post about adopting a new cat turned into a 4 page challenge to you for your beliefs. If you'd like, I can split the rest into a separate thread.

Trigg

01-06-2010, 02:14 PM

Listen, I know every husband and wife from Atlanta to Macon are cousins, but do you really have to be so retarded?

Now that's just rude! It's kind of like saying every beaner in Cali is a TB carrying illegal.

Nukeman

01-06-2010, 02:22 PM

Now that's just rude! It's kind of like saying every beaner in Cali, NM, AZ, TX, and Mexico is a TB carrying illegal.

What you mean they aren't?????????????? :eek:

fixed ot for you too!!!!

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 03:46 PM

But only through the actions of an individual can you have tge actions of a collective. If every individual in the collective decides they will not be able to make a difference by themselves then there will be no difference.

Thank you for repeating what I just said.

Now I'm not saying that my not eating meat is going to bring down this massive slaughtering industry. But even if it doesn't make a bean of difference I know i've done what I believe to be right, and nit surrorped the murder of these animals. To be so blunt as to say ypu may aswell support the murder and eat their flesh because you won't be able to stop it is quite a vile view to take IMO.

An assertion without sound or logical arguments behind it. Moral rightness is determined by the consequences of actions; that's the basis (even if a distant one) behind the development of moral codes, after all.

LOL, what a horrid way to trod through life. Yet surly you must be greatful to capitalism. Afterall, without it you would not be where you are today.

It's a matter of realistic expectations; I think you'll find when whatever utopian little fantasies you have are shattered that it's ultimately a happier outlook to have. Capitalism has placed most of us behind where we could have been...I don't even know what your comment is supposed to mean. An authoritarian state might place someone "further" than nothing, but not further than a democratic state. That you can't see such a basic fallacy is troubling.

Well what you may consider tedious are bread a butter issues. I don't know how you came to know so much on this subject, I assume through personal learning, but given I first came across it two nights ago you could hardly expect much in the way of complexity. As I acknowledged in my opening post of that thread. However, tge simple arguments are always the most important, areas like schooling and the lack of currency can not be over looked just because you may consider them too basic.

They're the most important, as well as the ones that could have been well-understood and answered without consulting me. I'd like a challenge, not an encounter with the sort of repetitive cliches I've faced too many times before.

Now that's just rude! It's kind of like saying every beaner in Cali is a TB carrying illegal.

Yeah, but you don't even know what beaners are. They're Mexican nationals, and since Mexicans are by definition nationals rather than a race or ethnicity, these people are beaners:

http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/mexican_girls.jpg

The mestizos surrounding me aren't, but thanks for attempting to make a racist/ethnicist remark in response to a regionalist one. :poke:

Nukeman

01-06-2010, 03:50 PM

Thank you for repeating what I just said.

An assertion without sound or logical arguments behind it. Moral rightness is determined by the consequences of actions; that's the basis (even if a distant one) behind the development of moral codes, after all.

It's a matter of realistic expectations; I think you'll find when whatever utopian little fantasies you have are shattered that it's ultimately a happier outlook to have. Capitalism has placed most of us behind where we could have been...I don't even know what your comment is supposed to mean. An authoritarian state might place someone "further" than nothing, but not further than a democratic state. That you can't see such a basic fallacy is troubling.

They're the most important, as well as the ones that could have been well-understood and answered without consulting me. I'd like a challenge, not an encounter with the sort of repetitive cliches I've faced too many times before.

Yeah, but you don't even know what beaners are. They're Mexican nationals, and since Mexicans are by definition nationals rather than a race or ethnicity, these people are beaners:

http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/mexican_girls.jpg

The mestizos surrounding me aren't, but thanks for attempting to make a racist/ethnicist remark in response to a regionalist one. :poke:

Hey we aren't talking about the classy "white mexicans" we are talking about the "beaner wet backs" and you know exactly who those are dont you!!! I seem to recall seeing a pic of you somewhere!!!!!!!!!!! hmmmm!!!!!!!

You bring the same stupid pic out all the time give it a rest... I am quite sure she fully understands what she posted and who she was referencing, you on the other hand seem to get off on playing ignorance at one turn and superiority at another!!!!!!!! Idiot!!!!

YOUR "INBRED HILLBILLY DIRT FAMRER"REMARKS AREN'T MEANT TO BE RACIST OR ETHNICIST????????

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 03:58 PM

Hey we aren't talking about the classy "white mexicans" we are talking about the "beaner wet backs" and you know exactly who those are dont you!!! I seem to recall seeing a pic of you somewhere!!!!!!!!!!! hmmmm!!!!!!!

I'm a Southwest Indian and I was born in Los Angeles. How would you be able to discern my country of origin from my apperance? Sounds like a failure on your part to realize that the dark-skinned people you fallaciously assume are representative of "Hispanics" or "Mexicans" are actually Indians, native to America.

Exactly how am I a "beaner wet back," you idiot? If anyone's a wetback, it's you; your entire race migrated from across the body of water known as the Atlantic, and your Spanish cousins imported smallpox and a spic mentality. :lol:

Trigg

01-06-2010, 04:05 PM

Yeah, but you don't even know what beaners are. They're Mexican nationals, and since Mexicans are by definition nationals rather than a race or ethnicity, these people are beaners:

The mestizos surrounding me aren't, but thanks for attempting to make a racist/ethnicist remark in response to a regionalist one. :poke:

Racist???

I know exactly what a beaner is, their the little brown bastards that sneak across the Rio Grand.

I was not referancing the white Mexicans in your picture.

Trigg

01-06-2010, 04:08 PM

I'm a Southwest Indian and I was born in Los Angeles. How would you be able to discern my country of origin from my appearance? Sounds like a failure on your part to realize that the dark-skinned people you fallaciously assume are representative of "Hispanics" or "Mexicans" are actually Indians, native to America.

Exactly how am I a "beaner wet back," you idiot? If anyone's a wetback, it's you; your entire race migrated from across the body of water known as the Atlantic, and your Spanish cousins imported smallpox and a spic mentality. :lol:

American Indians look different from South American and Central American Indians. They are in general taller with longer faces.

You can tell the difference in the same way that Japanese look different from Chinese or Koreans. All Asians, but they look different just like the Indians in the Americas.

I'll post my family pictures if you have questions about what American Indians look like, idiot.

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 04:10 PM

Racist???

I know exactly what a beaner is, their the little brown bastards that sneak across the Rio Grand.

I was not referancing the white Mexicans in your picture.

Beaners are Mexican nationals, paleface. Brown people can go where they wish; I consider them as Indian as me: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/indios.htm

In a great irony of U.S. history, the true natives of this land have become the immigrants. People who can trace their ancestry back the farthest are stopped and questioned because "they look Hispanic"--meaning they look Indian.

Mexico is ruled by the spics of Spain. Migration is merely caused by a perpetuation of the history of Indian oppression. Why do you know nothing? :lol:

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 04:14 PM

American Indians look different from South American and Central American Indians. They are in general taller with longer faces.

They're all "American Indians," you idiot. They're all in America. Moreover, we were speaking of Mexicans. Mexico is firmly north of Central America, with a Mexican tribe such as the Tarahumara or a binational tribe such as the Apache being more closely related to the Navajo and Hopi than those tribes are to the Iroquois, for example.

I'll post my family pictures if you have questions about what American Indians look like, idiot.

I'm not interested in laying eyes on a one-drop Cherokee, 1/16. :lol:

Trigg

01-06-2010, 04:20 PM

Beaners are Mexican nationals, paleface. Brown people can go where they wish; I consider them as Indian as me: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/indios.htm

Mexico is ruled by the spics of Spain. Migration is merely caused by a perpetuation of the history of Indian oppression. Why do you know nothing? :lol:

poor baby just can't take the fact that MEXICO LOST THE WAR.

Beaners are little brown people who sneak into this country, they can't go where they wish because THEY LOST.

Indian oppression??? They need to stay in their own country and take it back instead of running up here. What's wrong aren't they smart enough??

I'm as Indian as you profess to be, the difference is I don't have an inferiority complex about it and I'm proud to be an American.

You don't like the leaders of Mexico go down there and change things, crying and whining about beaners being able to travel at will is idiotic at best.

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 04:28 PM

poor baby just can't take the fact that MEXICO LOST THE WAR.

Beaners are little brown people who sneak into this country, they can't go where they wish because THEY LOST.

I don't give a fuck about Mexico, you moron. Mexico is a country ruled by spics, once having imported smallpox and now having imported political authoritarianism. "The war" was lost by Santa Anna, a white man of Spanish descent.Where do you get the dumbfuck idea that Mexico is somehow an Indian country when a Mayan like Rigoberta Menchu can still be kicked out of a hotel for being Indian (www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/17/international.travelnews)? This is the country where a snide spic can remark that the Tzotzil are "difficult Chinese."

Beaners are Mexican nationals, of any sort. Indians and mestizos, however, travel where they please. I know that many of them have a relation to the Indians of the U.S. Southwest; oppression under Spanish rule through the Spanish empire and later through Mexico left us all with Spanish surnames too. So, look to some diseased wop like Columbus if you want to see a real illegal immigrant, as opposed to a native of America. :salute:

Trigg

01-06-2010, 04:30 PM

They're all "American Indians," you idiot. They're all in America. Moreover, we were speaking of Mexicans. Mexico is firmly north of Central America, with a Mexican tribe such as the Tarahumara or a binational tribe such as the Apache being more closely related to the Navajo and Hopi than those tribes are to the Iroquois, for example.

I'm not interested in laying eyes on a one-drop Cherokee, 1/16. :lol:

American Indians look different from South American and Central American Indians. They are in general taller with longer faces.

Yep, that'd be why I mentioned Central American Indians when making the point that American Indians look different from the Indians in Mexico and beyond. I'm not even going to get into your "we're all Americans" argument. Especially when your the only person on the planet that doesn't consider people from the US Americans. Get a clue.

So since I'm Cherokee I'm not really Indian????

Your a beaner with an inferiority complex and it's sad. I bet your the first person in your family to step out of the field and into college, maybe that's why you have this obsession with big words. Your trying to prove your just as good as anyone else.

Trigg

01-06-2010, 04:36 PM

I don't give a fuck about Mexico, you moron. Mexico is a country ruled by spics, once having imported smallpox and now having imported political authoritarianism. "The war" was lost by Santa Anna, a white man of Spanish descent.Where do you get the dumbfuck idea that Mexico is somehow an Indian country when a Mayan like Rigoberta Menchu can still be kicked out of a hotel for being Indian (www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/17/international.travelnews)? This is the country where a snide spic can remark that the Tzotzil are "difficult Chinese."

Beaners are Mexican nationals, of any sort. Indians and mestizos, however, travel where they please. I know that many of them have a relation to the Indians of the U.S. Southwest; oppression under Spanish rule through the Spanish empire and later through Mexico left us all with Spanish surnames too. So, look to some diseased wop like Columbus if you want to see a real illegal immigrant, as opposed to a native of America. :salute:

temper temper, all hail La Raza :laugh2:

beaners are and always will be those little brown people who look just like you.

Those pretty white Mexicans will never be beaners, to anyone but you.

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 04:37 PM

Yep, that'd be why I mentioned Central American Indians when making the point that American Indians look different from the Indians in Mexico and beyond.

You did that because you're ignorant. Mexico isn't in Central America, you idiot. And it's just really fucking retarded to think that the Apache of Mexico, for example, are somehow more closely related to the Inca or the Aymara of South America than to the Apache of the U.S. While there are genetic and physical differences between different Amerindians, it's not something based on national divisions. :slap:

I'm not even going to get into your "we're all Americans" argument. Especially when your the only person on the planet that doesn't consider people from the US Americans. Get a clue.

Actually, pretty much every other country in the American continents disputes that. Ever heard of the Organization of American States? It doesn't have Georgia and Louisiana at its helm!

So since I'm Cherokee I'm not really Indian????

No, since you're a white pretending to be 1/16 Cherokee, as so many do, you're not Indian.

Your a beaner with an inferiority complex and it's sad. I bet your the first person in your family to step out of the field and into college, maybe that's why you have this obsession with big words. Your trying to prove your just as good as anyone else.

No more than you are, you retarded clown. I'm not from Mexico, unlike the Mexicans in the picture I posted, and unlike you, I actually have Amerindian ancestry.

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 04:39 PM

temper temper, all hail La Raza :laugh2:

beaners are and always will be those little brown people who look just like you.

Those pretty white Mexicans will never be beaners, to anyone but you.

"La Raza" is a Spanish term, you moron. Spaniards are European whites, and those spics in Mexico will never be anything but spics and the rulers of Mexico, no matter how they attempt to disguise themselves. Now stop yapping, one-drop Cherokee, and don't be so retarded as to believe that you're somehow an Indian. :lol:

Trigg

01-06-2010, 04:45 PM

You did that because you're ignorant. Mexico isn't in Central America, you idiot. And it's just really fucking retarded to think that the Apache of Mexico, for example, are somehow more closely related to the Inca or the Aymara of South America than to the Apache of the U.S. While there are genetic and physical differences between different Amerindians, it's not something based on national divisions. :slap:

Actually, pretty much every other country in the American continents disputes that. Ever heard of the Organization of American States? It doesn't have Georgia and Louisiana at its helm!

No, since you're a white pretending to be 1/16 Cherokee, as so many do, you're not Indian.

No more than you are, you retarded clown. I'm not from Mexico, unlike the Mexicans in the picture I posted, and unlike you, I actually have Amerindian ancestry.

I'm not pretending to be anything. You want to sit there and think I don't have Indian ancestry than fine. I have better things to do than try to convince a dip shit like you.

You are the only person I have ever met that doesn't consider people from the US, Americans. It's an idiotic argument that only you subscribe to.

Back on topic I said that nucman can tell your ancestry by looking at a picture because American Indians look different from the Indians in Central and South America. There are definite physical differences. Also, I never said the bolded part, learn to read instead of flipping through your thesaurus.

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 04:53 PM

I'm not pretending to be anything. You want to sit there and think I don't have Indian ancestry than fine. I have better things to do than try to convince a dip shit like you.

I have some pity for you, Chief One-Drop. I can only imagine the ordeal of you trying to go to a local casino to cash in on your inheritance and them flipping you the pair of poker chips you're due. :lol:

You are the only person I have ever met that doesn't consider people from the US, Americans. It's an idiotic argument that only you subscribe to.

Of course I consider people from the U.S. "Americans." It's just that Canadians, Mexicans, and Venezuelans are just as "American," as they're all residents of America. While you screech and wail that this is wrong, you never actually disprove it with argument. :poke:

Back on topic I said that nucman can tell your ancestry by looking at a picture because American Indians look different from the Indians in Central and South America. There are definite physical differences. Also, I never said the bolded part, learn to read instead of flipping through your thesaurus.

Aside from the fact that they're all American Indians, you never specifically said the bolded portion, but it's an application of your belief. Firstly, you moronically imply that Mexico is in Central America, despite the fact that it is not. Then you continue to insist that there are differences between American Indians based on national divisions. While there are indeed genetic differences based on geographical location, it's idiotic to imply that "Central and South American Indians" are somehow a homogenous group just as "North American Indians" are. The Indians of the U.S. Southwest, for example, are more closely related to the Indians of Northern Mexico than the Indians of Northern Mexico are related to those of southern Mexico.

Trigg

01-06-2010, 04:56 PM

La Raza web sight.......they sure don't look white to me, they look like beaners (little brown people like you).

http://www.nclr.org/

The Organization of American states looks like a good organization, however they changed their name a scant 20 years and 4 conferences into "Union of American Republics" and the Bureau became the "Pan American Union". This makes complete sense because they are in the Americas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States

Trigg

01-06-2010, 05:02 PM

I have some pity for you, Chief One-Drop. I can only imagine the ordeal of you trying to go to a local casino to cash in on your inheritance and them flipping you the pair of poker chips you're due. :lol:

Of course I consider people from the U.S. "Americans." It's just that Canadians, Mexicans, and Venezuelans are just as "American," as they're all residents of America. While you screech and wail that this is wrong, you never actually disprove it with argument. :poke:

Aside from the fact that they're all American Indians, you never specifically said the bolded portion, but it's an application of your belief. Firstly, you moronically imply that Mexico is in Central America, despite the fact that it is not. Then you continue to insist that there are differences between American Indians based on national divisions. While there are indeed genetic differences based on geographical location, it's idiotic to imply that "Central and South American Indians" are somehow a homogenous group just as "North American Indians" are. The Indians of the U.S. Southwest, for example, are more closely related to the Indians of Northern Mexico than the Indians of Northern Mexico are related to those of southern Mexico.

dumbass I NEVER said the differences were because of national divisions. YOU EVEN SAID THAT YOURSELF, geesh

AMERICAN Indians are in general taller than the beaners where you come from.

Tell ya what you go up to Canada and call them Americans, I dare ya. Stupid argument from a little person with an inferiority complex.

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 05:02 PM

La Raza web sight.......they sure don't look white to me, they look like beaners (little brown people like you).

http://www.nclr.org/

Beaners are Mexican nationals, you imbecile. The "brown people" are Indians, and members of an American Indian race. Personally, I'm more closely related to the Indians of the U.S. Southwest (unlike you, one-drop), but I acknowledge that these folks are Indians also. Some Indians are short; some are tall. There's no homogeneity, just as there's no homogeneity among any other race.

This makes complete sense because they are in the Americas.

And American, as a result. Thanks for playing.

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 05:06 PM

dumbass I NEVER said the differences were because of national divisions. YOU EVEN SAID THAT YOURSELF, geesh

AMERICAN Indians are in general taller than the beaners where you come from.

I come from California, you pathetic moron. And with ancestry from the Southwest Indians. Look at you contradict yourself in one fucking post. Genetic differences between American Indians aren't based on national divisions; as mentioned, the Indians of the U.S. Southwest are more closely related to those of northern Mexico than to the Iroquois, for example. There's greater differences between the Iroquois and the Apache than between the Apache and the Huichol.

Tell ya what you go up to Canada and call them Americans, I dare ya. Stupid argument from a little person with an inferiority complex.

Where's the basis for concluding that all within the American continents are not Americans, particularly when the term "America" is derived from the name of an explorer who landed in South America?

Trigg

01-06-2010, 05:08 PM

Beaners are Mexican nationals, you imbecile. The "brown people" are Indians, and members of an American Indian race. Personally, I'm more closely related to the Indians of the U.S. Southwest (unlike you, one-drop), but I acknowledge that these folks are Indians also. Some Indians are short; some are tall. There's no homogeneity, just as there's no homogeneity among any other race.

And American, as a result. Thanks for playing.

Americas refers to the continant. I am American. Thanks for playing.

La Raza is a spanish term, as you pointed out. I bet the beaners (Indians) in the La Raza picture speak Spanish.

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 05:11 PM

Americas refers to the continant. I am American. Thanks for playing.

There would be two continents. I am American. So are Bolivians. Thanks for playing.

La Raza is a spanish term, as you pointed out. I bet the beaners (Indians) in the La Raza picture speak Spanish.

Most of the people in that picture probably aren't beaners (Mexicans), as they're most likely U.S. citizens. Usage of Spanish isn't a basis for inclusion among spics; Spanish-speaking Indians are no more "Hispanic" than English-speaking African-Americans are "Anglos." They're Indians, and their ancestry can't be diluted by spic impositions.

Trigg

01-06-2010, 05:14 PM

I come from California, you pathetic moron. And with ancestry from the Southwest Indians. Look at you contradict yourself in one fucking post. Genetic differences between American Indians aren't based on national divisions; as mentioned, the Indians of the U.S. Southwest are more closely related to those of northern Mexico than to the Iroquois, for example. There's greater differences between the Iroquois and the Apache than between the Apache and the Huichol.

Where's the basis for concluding that all within the American continents are not Americans, particularly when the term "America" is derived from the name of an explorer who landed in South America?

Again, no one but you considers people from Mexico, Peru, Honderus ad nauseum, Americans. So your argument is imbecilic.

Again YOU ARE THE ONE WHO KEEPS TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL DIVISIONS. I am the one who keeps saying there are physical differences between tribes.

I have better things to do now, enjoy your sad little life and say hi to the folks when they come in from the fields. I'm sure they worked hard for your education so keep studying.

Nukeman

01-06-2010, 05:16 PM

There would be two continents. I am American. So are Bolivians. Thanks for playing.

Most of the people in that picture probably aren't beaners (Mexicans), as they're most likely U.S. citizens. Usage of Spanish isn't a basis for inclusion among spics; Spanish-speaking Indians are no more "Hispanic" than English-speaking African-Americans are "Anglos." They're Indians, and their ancestry can't be diluted by spic impositions.
Only if you consider ILLEGAL Aliens US citizens or should I say Americans!!!!! La Raza is made up of a shit load of illegals you should know that...... Your just like them aren't you!!!! I mean aren't all you beaners inbred and have huge families for scoping out your next wife at the family picnic that includes 400 hundred cousins all named Juan or Jose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 05:22 PM

Again, no one but you considers people from Mexico, Peru, Honderus ad nauseum, Americans. So your argument is imbecilic.

Actually, plenty of them do. That's the reason for the usage of the word "gringo" in Mexico; the word "American" will not be used because Mexicans consider themselves Americans also. And there's a perfectly sound basis for that.

Again YOU ARE THE ONE WHO KEEPS TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL DIVISIONS. I am the one who keeps saying there are physical differences between tribes.

So am I. You're the idiot who thinks that "Central and South American Indians" are a breed apart from "American Indians." However, there's more genetic variation between U.S. Indian tribes than between some U.S. Indian tribes and Mexican Indian tribes or Canadian Indian tribes. And there's certainly far more variation between "Central and South American Indians."

I have better things to do now, enjoy your sad little life and say hi to the folks when they come in from the fields. I'm sure they worked hard for your education so keep studying.

I don't know anyone who works in fields, one-drop. But maybe if you weren't a fake Indian, you'd know a bit more about your own "history." :lol:

Only if you consider ILLEGAL Aliens US citizens or should I say Americans!!!!! La Raza is made up of a shit load of illegals you should know that...... Your just like them aren't you!!!! I mean aren't all you beaners inbred and have huge families for scoping out your next wife at the family picnic that includes 400 hundred cousins all named Juan or Jose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Juan" and "Jose" are spic names; the people you refer to as "illegals" are Native Americans, Cletus. Spaniards, by contrast, are European whites. Of course, the only illegals around are dumbshit hillbillies like you and Pigg here, since your whole race emigrated from across the Atlantic Ocean, bringing infectious disease and violence against non-combatants as they came.

Nukeman

01-06-2010, 05:31 PM

"Juan" and "Jose" are spic names; the people you refer to as "illegals" are Native Americans, Cletus. Spaniards, by contrast, are European whites. Of course, the only illegals around are dumbshit hillbillies like you and Pigg here, since your whole race emigrated from across the Atlantic Ocean, bringing infectious disease and violence against non-combatants as they came.

And all those spics or beaners are appropriately named wet backs due to the fact that their whole race emigrated across the Bering sea.

By your reasoning NO ONE is native to this land so NO ONE has a claim to it.

You can't decide that if I go back far enough to when "my ancestor" got here that would be enough but anyone else just hasn't been here long enough..

Ahh just "dumbshit hillbillies" like Trigg and I, well she probably has a greater claim to US property than most around here including you, since she actually can follow her family from the trail of tears to modern day Oklahoma.. ...

Noir

01-06-2010, 05:33 PM

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 05:37 PM

And all those spics or beaners are appropriately named wet backs due to the fact that their whole race emigrated across the Bering sea.

Idiot. Spics are the white Spaniards of Europe. They emigrated across the Atlantic. "Beaners" are simply Mexicans of any race or ethnicity (plenty of Indians and mestizos from other Latin American countries use the word). And they walked across the Bering Strait. There was no expansive sea to speak of thousands and thousands of years ago.

By your reasoning NO ONE is native to this land so NO ONE has a claim to it.

You can't decide that if I go back far enough to when "my ancestor" got here that would be enough but anyone else just hasn't been here long enough..

If that was the case, everyone would belong in Africa, since humanity originated there and emigrated from there. I've based my claims on the establishment of civilization. Who first established settlements in America? :poke:

Ahh just "dumbshit hillbillies" like Trigg and I, well she probably has a greater claim to US property than most around here including you, since she actually can follow her family from the trail of tears to modern day Oklahoma.. ...

Let me guess, Pukecan...maybe you're a one-drop Cherokee too? Collectively, you two can form a whole vial of Cherokee blood, so you can establish a tribe right in the middle of your little trailer park? :lol:

Nukeman

01-06-2010, 05:48 PM

Idiot. Spics are the white Spaniards of Europe. They emigrated across the Atlantic. "Beaners" are simply Mexicans of any race or ethnicity (plenty of Indians and mestizos from other Latin American countries use the word). And they walked across the Bering Strait. There was no expansive sea to speak of thousands and thousands of years ago. : Well no shit Sherlock!!!!!! Split how ever you want they weren't born here the emigrated!!! So by your reasoning they are not entitled to ANYTHING!!

If that was the case, everyone would belong in Africa, since humanity originated there and emigrated from there. I've based my claims on the establishment of civilization. Who first established settlements in America? :poke:And just exactly where are those civilizations today??? Oh that's right they were either destroyed or died out.... So sorry for your loss but that doesn't mean they have any more claim than anyone else!!!

Let me guess, Pukecan...maybe you're a one-drop Cherokee too? Collectively, you two can form a whole vial of Cherokee blood, so you can establish a tribe right in the middle of your little trailer park? :lol:
Let me tell you "Anus prostate", Nope not me not a freaking drop of Indian blood, just good old Irish and English with a smattering of Norse.....

And we haven't been in the trailer park for a coons age, you sweaty little beaner!!!! Got myself a nice big old house to pack full of little chillins

Hows that mud hut doing for you, must be nice since you can just punch a hole in the side for your cable hook up!!!!!

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 05:54 PM

Well no shit Sherlock!!!!!! Split how ever you want they weren't born here the emigrated!!! So by your reasoning they are not entitled to ANYTHING!!

Are you too fucking stupid to pay attention? I said that I based rights of possession on the establishment of civilized settlements. Who were the first people to establish societal organization in America?

And just exactly where are those civilizations today??? Oh that's right they were either destroyed or died out.... So sorry for your loss but that doesn't mean they have any more claim than anyone else!!!

That's the point, you idiot. The greatest genocide in history was imposed on American Indians in order to facilitate their unjust dispossession.

Let me tell you "Anus prostate", Nope not me not a freaking drop of Indian blood, just good old Irish and English with a smattering of Norse.....

And we haven't been in the trailer park for a coons age, you sweaty little beaner!!!! Got myself a nice big old house to pack full of little chillins

Hows that mud hut doing for you, must be nice since you can just punch a hole in the side for your cable hook up!!!!!

I was wondering why you were too retarded to realize that beaners are Mexicans, and not any specific race or ethnicity, but now I understand it: You're part mick, and evidently, the part of you that's mick is your head. Hell, they talk about redskins and firewater, but I bet you're loaded on O'Flanagan's Whiskey with every post you spew onto this forum, eh, Seamus? :lol:

Nukeman

01-06-2010, 06:07 PM

I was wondering why you were too retarded to realize that beaners are Mexicans, and not any specific race or ethnicity, but now I understand it: You're part mick, and evidently, the part of you that's mick is your head. Hell, they talk about redskins and firewater, but I bet you're loaded on O'Flanagan's Whiskey with every post you spew onto this forum, eh, Seamus? :lol:

Nah "Smithwicks" for me a good old Irish beer!!!! Or how about a good old "Jameson's" for later. as for good old USofA whiskey you cant go wrong with a good bottle of Elijah Craig Kentucky bourbon

How about yourself need some more agave plants for your tequila there "beaner boy"

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 06:09 PM

Nah "Smithwicks" for me a good old Irish beer!!!! Or how about a good old "Jameson's" for later. as for good old USofA whiskey you cant go wrong with a good bottle of Elijah Craig Kentucky bourbon

How about yourself need some more agave plants for your tequila there "beaner boy"

Fine as an exotic thing since I'm not Mexican, you degenerate imbecile. :laugh:

Nukeman

01-06-2010, 06:13 PM

Fine as an exotic thing since I'm not Mexican, you degenerate imbecile. :laugh:
keep saying that and maybe you will someday convince someone other than yourself "beaner boy"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aka ANUS PROSTATE

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 06:16 PM

keep saying that and maybe you will someday convince someone other than yourself "beaner boy"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aka ANUS PROSTATE

Uh, yeah, Pukecan, if you're stupid enough to think that Los Angeles, my city of birth, is in Mexico, I guess we can get off our burros and not even bother with the reconquista. :dance:

Nukeman

01-06-2010, 06:19 PM

Uh, yeah, Pukecan, if you're stupid enough to think that Los Angeles, my city of birth, is in Mexico, I guess we can get off our burros and not even bother with the reconquista. :dance:
Just cause you were worn somewhere doesn't give you the right to call it home now does it!?!?!!? Isn't that what you have been preaching on this post all freaking day!!!!!!!!??????

So just because you were born in LA your still a freaking beaner, I mean after all you brownies don't have borders right??????

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 06:24 PM

Just cause you were worn somewhere doesn't give you the right to call it home now does it!?!?!!? Isn't that what you have been preaching on this post all freaking day!!!!!!!!??????

So just because you were born in LA your still a freaking beaner, I mean after all you brownies don't have borders right??????

Of course beaners have borders, you mick idiot. Since beaners are Mexicans, their country is Mexico. Amerindians, however, have all of America to look to. You shouldn't have left the Emerald Isle, paddy. :salute:

Nukeman

01-06-2010, 06:26 PM

Of course beaners have borders, you mick idiot. Since beaners are Mexicans, their country is Mexico. Amerindians, however, have all of America to look to. You shouldn't have left the Emerald Isle, paddy. :salute:you know your right if I could go back in time I would slap the shit out of my ancestors. Ireland has got to be the most beautiful country in the world.. Oh and NO BEANERS!!!!!

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 06:28 PM

you know your right if I could go back in time I would slap the shit out of my ancestors. Ireland has got to be the most beautiful country in the world.. Oh and NO BEANERS!!!!!

Are you joking? Those retarded leprechauns can't even keep their potato farms in order. And incidentally, what does the girl on the left look like to you? Iraqi? :lol:

http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/mexican_girls.jpg

Nukeman

01-06-2010, 06:31 PM

Are you joking? Those retarded leprechauns can't even keep their potato farms in order. And incidentally, what does the girl on the left look like to you? Iraqi? :lol:

http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/mexican_girls.jpglooks like all of them are on vacation on Cinco de Mayo to me. Care to prove otherwise.....

Besides I she is probably not supposed to be there by your standards!!! am I right?????

I think yo keep putting up this pic in hopes that someday with enough bleaching YOU to can become a white person and loose the beaner demeanor.... ha look it rhymes

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 06:45 PM

looks like all of them are on vacation on Cinco de Mayo to me. Care to prove otherwise.....

They would be in Jalisco, a state deep in the heart of Mexico. You're too stupid to realize it, but the ruling class of Mexico is predominantly white. *gasp* Beaners are white!

Besides I she is probably not supposed to be there by your standards!!! am I right?????

I think yo keep putting up this pic in hopes that someday with enough bleaching YOU to can become a white person and loose the beaner demeanor.... ha look it rhymes

Why the fuck would I want to be one of the spics of Spain, the micks of Leprechaun Land, the wops of Italia, or the Pollacks? Why? I'm an Indian in our ancestral homeland; we have rights to the entire Western hemisphere. You're lucky if you can hold on to Europe.

Nukeman

01-06-2010, 06:53 PM

Why the fuck would I want to be one of the spics of Spain, the micks of Leprechaun Land, the wops of Italia, or the Pollacks? Why? I'm an Indian in our ancestral homeland; we have rights to the entire Western hemisphere. You're lucky if you can hold on to Europe.YOU have NO more right to this land than ANYONE else. Why is your claim better than another??? Why do you get to choose how far back we go to determine ownership???? What makes you so special???

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 06:56 PM

YOU have NO more right to this land than ANYONE else. Why is your claim better than another??? Why do you get to choose how far back we go to determine ownership???? What makes you so special???

The first establishment of civilized settlement in the Western hemisphere, and ownership of land and productive resources that was not legitimately surrendered, but was instead unjustly acquired through force and fraud. Offends my libertarian sensibilities, don't ya know? :beer:

glockmail

01-06-2010, 07:48 PM

The first establishment of civilized settlement in the Western hemisphere, and ownership of land and productive resources that was not legitimately surrendered, but was instead unjustly acquired through force and fraud. Offends my libertarian sensibilities, don't ya know? :beer: We took it the old fashioned way, through conquest. While y'all were sharpening sticks and running around in sandals we were making pistols and breeding horses. :lol:

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 08:38 PM

We took it the old fashioned way, through conquest. While y'all were sharpening sticks and running around in sandals we were making pistols and breeding horses. :lol:

"We"? You did nothing, and weren't present; your existence has absolutely no effect one way or the other on the consequences. More importantly, however, your comment is simply inaccurate. The majority of Amerindian deaths occurred due to Europeans' importations of infectious disease that they had not previously encountered. The ability to transmit infectious disease is not an indication of bravery or battle prowess, but instead of possession of an ability shared by rats and various insects. In addition to that, there was a trend of European invaders parasitically leeching off the deeds of others. When Cortes and his spic army entered Mexico, for example, they would have been utterly obliterated by the Aztecs during and after the Night of the Long Knives, but were protected by the Tlaxcalteca.

glockmail

01-06-2010, 09:02 PM

"You" weren't present either. So along with being technologically ignorant, your ancestors weren't as hardy as mine. Probably due to inbreeding.

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 09:20 PM

"You" weren't present either. So along with being technologically ignorant, your ancestors weren't as hardy as mine. Probably due to inbreeding.

Not really. You haven't stated your own ethnicity, but regardless, how many people did the black plague obliterate in Europe? "Technologically ignorant"? As I stated the other day, the Mayans probably had functioning toilets (http://www.livescience.com/history/091223-mayan-water-pressure.html). European life was characterized by the habit of emptying the contents of chamberpots into streets where pedestrians walked, which was probably a reason for the spread of infectious disease bred by poor hygiene.

I'm not even sure why you care one way or the other, of course. Since membership in a specific race or ethnicity isn't a conscious choice or accomplishment, your focus on ancestors seems pretty ignorant.

Gaffer

01-06-2010, 09:26 PM

glockmail

01-06-2010, 09:30 PM

... your focus on ancestors seems pretty ignorant. How ironic, "my" focus on ancestors.

It appears that your knowledge of European sanitation is gleaned from watching old Monty Python movies.

While the Mayans were sacrificing virgins in pagan rituals, my ancestors were perfecting the art and tools of war.

Agnapostate

01-06-2010, 09:52 PM

Mr. Prostate, you still have the mind set of the old Indian ways. The Indians lost there wars because they couldn't adapt to technology and they fought as individuals, not as a cohesive unit. The war chiefs led their warriors, but didn't direct them. Counting cue was more important than killing the enemy.

Actually, the Indians "lost" their wars because of infectious disease imported by European invaders and because they did not create a united alliance even against invaders of the same nationality. The Aztecs, for example, effectively lost to the Tlaxcalteca, not the Spanish.

They didn't invent or create any technology, they just used what they could get from the white man. You have the same mind set with your anarchy. You are getting an education because of the white man. Your using technology and have all the benefits of modern man because of the white man.

Naked fallacy. Since we're on the topic of the Mayans, you are indeed ignorant if you're unaware that they were one of the most technologically advanced societies in human history, making unprecedented innovations in agriculture, architecture, astronomy, etc. You of course suffer from the usual misconception that all Indian cultures were hunter-gatherer ones, I'd imagine. As for the recent white dominance over technological innovation, that is the only reasonable consequence when productive resources were controlled by whites for so long, which also provides a reason for the scarcity of technological innovation in industrialized society among groups not thought of as truly "white" for a long period, such as Italians.

If you really hate whites that much I suggest you move to a reservation and experience the real Indian culture. Most of the Indians of Mexico and south were enslaved by the Spanish

That's quite right.

by the French in the case of Mexico.

Is that right? The only two countries that designate French as an official language are Haiti and Canada.

How ironic, "my" focus on ancestors.

As far as I can tell, yes. Why bother taking pride in their accomplishments when you had no impact on them?

It appears that your knowledge of European sanitation is gleaned from watching old Monty Python movies.

Please elaborate on the nature of the running water system implemented in European society.

While the Mayans were sacrificing virgins in pagan rituals,

I am not familiar with any evidence that indicates that the Mayans practiced any large-scale sacrifice of virgins in pagan rituals. Please provide it for me, preferably something within a peer-reviewed empirical journal. That, or you could just immediately admit that you've confused the Mayans with the Aztecs.

my ancestors were perfecting the art and tools of war.

I have no idea who your ancestors are, so I can offer no comment on that. I'll presume you're not Irish, since you would have undoubtedly taken exception to the cannibalism of the Celts. I'll also presume you're not English or Spanish, since those settlers did not engage in much direct combat with Amerindians so much as importing infectious disease and leeching off the accomplishments of other tribes/societies.

Gaffer

01-07-2010, 11:35 AM

Agnapostate

01-07-2010, 04:59 PM

The infectious disease you like to harp about was done by the British in the early 1700. And was centered on a few tribes near the coast. Blankets used by smallpox victims was the means of delivery. How many actually died from it is pure speculation anywhere from a few thousand to millions.

You're referring to the deliberate transmission of smallpox. While that probably did occur, far more prevalent was the unintentional transmission of the disease. And it certainly occurred long before 1700; Aztec and Inca cities were ravaged by the disease shortly after Hispanic settlement.

The Mayan's have been gone for a thousand years or more. No one knows what happened to them, but the whole civilization disappeared.

That is not true. While much of Mayan civilization was abandoned before European invasion, the Maya survived and continue to survive to this day. If you've not heard of the troubles that the Tzotzil have given the Mexican government, I'd recommend that you study up.

Most of the Indian societies were hunter gatherers. A few like the Cherokee had established towns.

That is also not true. Amerindian civilization, as with European or African society, was greatly heterogenous. Some societies were hunter-gatherer societies, some profited from massive agricultural projects, some built large cities that rival or exceed any of the historical cities of any other civilization.

The Indians were far to primitive to develop anything. And they refused to give up their primitive ways, so they were pushed aside, lied too and killed. It has happened throughout history, the strong over come the weak. Productive resources were used by the whites because the Indians didn't have the means or technologies to exploit the resources.

I have neither the time nor the patience to explain your idiotic errors in your Eurocentric fallacies to you again and again. You seem to know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about, so I'll again attempt to educate you this last time. As mentioned, the spread of infectious disease crippled Native American civilization, often before European invaders had even come in direct contact with some of them. And more than that, factionalism prevented them from allying in a united front against English or Spanish invasion, which means that European settlers often only leeched off the prior accomplishments of Amerindians in defeating each other. Your claims about "primitive" society have already been rebutted, with no response from you other than an assertion without an argument, so I'll not repeat it again. To rectify your extensive ignorance of the topic, I'd recommend consulting Restall's Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Myths_of_the_Spanish_Conquest) as well as Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Colum bus).

Gaffer

01-07-2010, 07:00 PM

You're referring to the deliberate transmission of smallpox. While that probably did occur, far more prevalent was the unintentional transmission of the disease. And it certainly occurred long before 1700; Aztec and Inca cities were ravaged by the disease shortly after Hispanic settlement.

So you condemn the white man for an unintentional transmission of small pox when people of the time didn't even know what a germ was? It could be expected that the same could have happened in reverse. And the whites were no safer from the smallpox themselves.

That is not true. While much of Mayan civilization was abandoned before European invasion, the Maya survived and continue to survive to this day. If you've not heard of the troubles that the Tzotzil have given the Mexican government, I'd recommend that you study up.

The Mayan civilization vanished. There are lots of theories and speculation but no concrete eveidence as to why or what happened. Perhaps disease. Perhaps the, so called, Mayan survivors were not Mayan at all. I don't really feel like studying up. Granted I did most of my reading on these bits of history a number of years ago. So I may occasionally be off on a few facts and not up to date on the latest opinion.

The Spanish literally conquered South America and Mexico with a handful of soldiers. While the British and french were colonizing North America the Spanish were only interested in gold. It was high tech verses low tech and low tech lost. If your outraged by what happened in the past I suggest you build a time machine and go back and change it.

Agnapostate

01-07-2010, 07:21 PM

So you condemn the white man for an unintentional transmission of small pox when people of the time didn't even know what a germ was? It could be expected that the same could have happened in reverse. And the whites were no safer from the smallpox themselves.

No. I condemned those who deliberately transmitted smallpox for the unethical nature of such an act, and stated that the unintentional transmission of smallpox and other infectious disease was the primary factor behind the "defeat" of Native American societies.

The Mayan civilization vanished. There are lots of theories and speculation but no concrete eveidence as to why or what happened. Perhaps disease. Perhaps the, so called, Mayan survivors were not Mayan at all. I don't really feel like studying up. Granted I did most of my reading on these bits of history a number of years ago. So I may occasionally be off on a few facts and not up to date on the latest opinion.

The Maya did not "disappear." There was a collapse and abandonment of settlements that was likely the result of drought. There are still a high number of Mayan Indians in southern Mexico and Central American.

The Spanish literally conquered South America and Mexico with a handful of soldiers. While the British and french were colonizing North America the Spanish were only interested in gold. It was high tech verses low tech and low tech lost. If your outraged by what happened in the past I suggest you build a time machine and go back and change it.

That your perspective is riddled with misconceptions is evidenced by your reference to "South America and Mexico." Has Central America (which is within North America) ceased to exist? It's a common error to mistakenly believe that Mexico is in Central America, and that both are separate from North America, but Mexico and Central America are both in North America, with the former north of the latter. The reason I bring it up is because it challenges your belief that you know something about the topic. This specific claim was already rebutted by my earlier comment, and is also specifically addressed in my link:

Chapter 3 deals with what Restall calls "the Myth of the White Conquistador" — the belief that the Spanish conquest was accomplished by a small number of white Spaniards. Restall claims that much of the actual military operations was undertaken by the indigenous allies of the Conquistadors, outnumbering the actual Spanish forces by many hundreds to one. He also shows that there were several conquistadors of African and Moorish descent — dispelling the idea of the conquest as a victory of the "white Europeans" over the "red Indians".

The Aztecs, for example, were not defeated by the Spanish, but by the Tlaxcalteca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaxcalteca), who were the chief forces behind the conquest.

glockmail

01-07-2010, 08:55 PM

....
As far as I can tell, yes. Why bother taking pride in their accomplishments when you had no impact on them?.... Again, the irony. With regards to the remainder, try Google.

Agnapostate

01-08-2010, 12:22 AM

Again, the irony.

There's no irony. I've taken a consistent stance in regard to unearned pride. Remember my national pride thread?

With regards to the remainder, try Google.

I'm sure you used Google yourself, but try entering accurate search terms this time.

SassyLady

01-08-2010, 01:08 AM

SassyLady

01-08-2010, 01:13 AM

Aggie.............please tell me again why you think you are a victim?

Agnapostate

01-08-2010, 01:37 AM

Aggie.............please tell me again why you think you are a victim?

Didn't mention it. I said that Native Americans as a whole endured unjust dispossession and genocide, with repercussions still affecting their descendants today to some extent. I personally have no cultural connection to Indian life and haven't been affected myself. I simply don't think that my anecdotal experiences are any kind of basis for the formation of sound conclusions.

SassyLady

01-08-2010, 01:54 AM

Didn't mention it. I said that Native Americans as a whole endured unjust dispossession and genocide, with repercussions still affecting their descendants today to some extent. I personally have no cultural connection to Indian life and haven't been affected myself. I simply don't think that my anecdotal experiences are any kind of basis for the formation of sound conclusions.

OK - got it............unjust dispossession and genocide. Do you know of any other group of people with similar experiences? Can you argue their case as eloquently even though you have "no cultural connection"?

Truthfully, I am even more confused about what you've been trying to tell us regarding this topic.......especially now when you say you have no cultural connection and that your experiences are not a basis for sound conclusions. If not, then what are you basing your conclusions on?

Most people on this site are able to formulate their opinions based upon personal life experiences. Perhaps we cannot "argue" them as eloquently as you do, however, at least our arguments are ours personally and not those from a textbook or some professor's opinion.

Agnapostate

01-08-2010, 03:00 AM

OK - got it............unjust dispossession and genocide. Do you know of any other group of people with similar experiences? Can you argue their case as eloquently even though you have "no cultural connection"?

There are various racial, ethnic, and national groups that have been subjected to varying degrees of oppression, massacre, and outright genocide. Native Americans simply endured the longest-lasting genocide in history, the one with the highest death toll, and the one that resulted in the seizure of an entire hemisphere through unjust acquisition. You might want to consult American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World (http://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-Conquest-New-World/dp/0195085574/), for example.

Truthfully, I am even more confused about what you've been trying to tell us regarding this topic.......especially now when you say you have no cultural connection and that your experiences are not a basis for sound conclusions. If not, then what are you basing your conclusions on?

Empirical evidence. Logic. Moral reasoning.

Most people on this site are able to formulate their opinions based upon personal life experiences. Perhaps we cannot "argue" them as eloquently as you do, however, at least our arguments are ours personally and not those from a textbook or some professor's opinion.

Are they? For one thing, I have the most unique perspective on the site simply by virtue of having the most extreme political outlook. Most of the people on the forum, conversely, simply regurgitate rightist talking points that could be found on many other Internet sites. But beyond that, I've been pretty clear on why I'll be dubious of anecdotal experiences. The spectrum of human experiences is so expansive in its range and nature that cherrypicking individual anecdotes does very little. When you have two people that profess to have undergone the same experience but came away from it with utterly opposite impressions, who "wins"? This heterogeneity is the reason that we must consider full-scale empirical analysis of large data sets, and make sure that we're dealing with rules rather than exceptions to them.

SassyLady

01-08-2010, 03:46 AM

There are various racial, ethnic, and national groups that have been subjected to varying degrees of oppression, massacre, and outright genocide. Native Americans simply endured the longest-lasting genocide in history, the one with the highest death toll, and the one that resulted in the seizure of an entire hemisphere through unjust acquisition. You might want to consult American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World (http://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-Conquest-New-World/dp/0195085574/), for example.

What would be a "just" acquisition Aggie?

Empirical evidence. Logic. Moral reasoning.

And how does any of this trump personal experience? This type of basis sounds elist to me......sitting in an ivory tower reading what has been written, analyzing it and then subjecting it to philosophical thought. People like that will continue to argue a point in the face of reality because they have no visceral experience of the subject. They have no passion for the subject other than the passion conveyed in the passage they've read, which is second-hand.

Are they? For one thing, I have the most unique perspective on the site simply by virtue of having the most extreme political outlook. Most of the people on the forum, conversely, simply regurgitate rightist talking points that could be found on many other Internet sites.

Good thing I'm not one of those! I didn't think you would waste your time reading what is found on those sites, however, I guess you would have to read them in order to be able to make a statement like that with any integrity. Could you please point me to one of those sites so I can tell the difference between the rightist talking points and points that are just common sense?

But beyond that, I've been pretty clear on why I'll be dubious of anecdotal experiences. The spectrum of human experiences is so expansive in its range and nature that cherrypicking individual anecdotes does very little. When you have two people that profess to have undergone the same experience but came away from it with utterly opposite impressions, who "wins"?

They are both right. Surely an educated individual such as yourself should know this. Quantum physics (observing something actually influences the physical processes taking place - observable reality). I know that you want to view the world in absolutes, however, science is beginning to prove that nothing is really absolute.

This heterogeneity is the reason that we must consider full-scale empirical analysis of large data sets, and make sure that we're dealing with rules rather than exceptions to them.

Not so. Most "empirical analysis" can be redefined if looked at with different parameters. Anyone who does not "deal" with exceptions to rules has narrowed their ability to see the truth.

Agnapostate

01-08-2010, 04:02 AM

What would be a "just" acquisition Aggie?

One gained through voluntary, consensual exchange, one free of force, coercion, fraud, or some other means of manipulative persuasion.

And how does any of this trump personal experience? This type of basis sounds elist to me......sitting in an ivory tower reading what has been written, analyzing it and then subjecting it to philosophical thought. People like that will continue to argue a point in the face of reality because they have no visceral experience of the subject. They have no passion for the subject other than the passion conveyed in the passage they've read, which is second-hand.

If our knowledge came only from our own personal experiences, we would be rather ignorant indeed. The only reason that personal experience is even a trump card in your book is because those with it possess the ability to transmit knowledge of it to others, which means that those who receive this knowledge will also be issuing "second-hand" knowledge if they convey it to anyone else. An aggregate is merely a collection of individuals; empirical analysis is only consideration of the experiences of an amalgamation of individuals rather than an anecdotal report.

Good thing I'm not one of those! I didn't think you would waste your time reading what is found on those sites, however, I guess you would have to read them in order to be able to make a statement like that with any integrity. Could you please point me to one of those sites so I can tell the difference between the rightist talking points and points that are just common sense?

Here are a few examples of rightist websites that effectively generate a legion of spambots that regurgitate their talking points. The first is an example of a socially rightist website, the second is an example of an economically rightist website, and the third is an example of a socially and economically rightist website, with their party line being plastered on many rightist sections of the Internet, this forum being one of them:

http://www.wnd.com/
http://mises.org/
http://www.heritage.org/

They are both right. Surely an educated individual such as yourself should know this. Quantum physics (observing something actually influences the physical processes taking place - observable reality). I know that you want to view the world in absolutes, however, science is beginning to prove that nothing is really absolute.

There are plenty of situations where utterly opposing perceptions are literally incompatible. If I spoke to a person from Cuba who claimed that the country was a democratic country of proletarian empowerment and another who claimed that it was an authoritarian country of political oppression, we must acknowledge that one of these people has been unduly biased by his or her own subjective perceptions. That's the basis for analysis of large data sets.

Not so. Most "empirical analysis" can be redefined if looked at with different parameters. Anyone who does not "deal" with exceptions to rules has narrowed their ability to see the truth.

Can you give me an example? That sounds like a somewhat more complex way of saying, "A study can be twisted to say anything researchers want," a tired cliche that has become a basis for the intellectually lazy to reject the entire empirical process if it yields conclusions that they dislike.

SassyLady

01-08-2010, 05:01 AM

tired cliche [/B]that has become a basis for the intellectually lazy to reject the entire empirical process if it yields conclusions that they dislike.

Well, that is one way to look at it. And I am very tired right now...........been camping for the last week and drove 8 hrs to get home and now I've been here catching up for the last few hours.

Let's say I asked you to study the frogs in my pond and record all information you observe. You wrote down everything.......you even recorded the decibels of their croaks. And you gave that information to a stranger and asked them to determine if the frogs were loud based upon the empircal evidence you provided. The parameter of determining what is "loud" may be different for that person than you or me.

I will try to get back in here tomorrow night and address the rest of your post, but I didn't want to seem intellectually lazy. :beer:

Nite.

Agnapostate

01-08-2010, 05:49 AM

Let's say I asked you to study the frogs in my pond and record all information you observe. You wrote down everything.......you even recorded the decibels of their croaks. And you gave that information to a stranger and asked them to determine if the frogs were loud based upon the empircal evidence you provided. The parameter of determining what is "loud" may be different for that person than you or me.

Yes, but contrary to belief among some, empirical analysis is not ruled by subjective perceptions. Since the desire for objectivity is itself a subjective one, subjective perception will always play a role in even the most "objective" analysis, but sometimes there really is a sharp difference between the cold, hard facts and an easily disputable opinion.

SassyLady

01-08-2010, 07:17 PM

Yes, but contrary to belief among some, empirical analysis is not ruled by subjective perceptions. Since the desire for objectivity is itself a subjective one, subjective perception will always play a role in even the most "objective" analysis, but sometimes there really is a sharp difference between the cold, hard facts and an easily disputable opinion.

Exactly - sometimes. You might have an opinion about what decibel level is loud that is 100 times less than what I think is loud............where are the cold, hard facts in regard to something like this...........or does it just come down to your opinion of loud vs. mine? After all, the decibel level (empirical evidence) has not changed.....just the parameters defining loud. If I get 20 people to agree with my assessment of loud and only one agrees with you.........does that mean you are right or I am?

In my humble opinion..........we are both right. What you determine to be loud is your subjective observation as is mine.