Messages

Also, unlike the other prominent cannibals in the news, this guy hasn't been caught yet.  Apparently he is on the loose in France.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153370/Revealed-Victim-Canadian-porn-star-cannibal-Chinese-gay-lover-police-reveal-murderer-run-France--dressed-woman.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/hedge-fund-hedges-its-political-bets-rentech-renaissance-technologies

Just more evidence of the two man con.

I am in a frothing rage.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/30/four-year-old-sings-aint-no-homos-going-to-make-it-to-heaven-receives-standing-ovation-video/

If you get mad about shit like that, you're just gonna get ulcers.

The world is SWIMMING in stupid people.  And they have stupid kids.  Which they make even more stupid.

I mean, shit, where do you think stupid people come from?

Glarg.  They make you take a test to drive a fucking car, I swear, some days I think you should have to take a test to breed.

And who would administer that test and determine which answers were the right ones?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all

More Greece

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18216307

In the interview published on Friday, the International Monetary Fund head said: "As far as Athens is concerned, I also think about all those people who are trying to escape tax all the time. All these people in Greece who are trying to escape tax.

"I think they should also help themselves collectively," Ms Lagarde said.

She added: "I think more of the little kids from a school in a little village in Niger who get teaching two hours a day, sharing one chair for three of them, and who are very keen to get an education. I have them in my mind all the time.

"Because I think they need even more help than the people in Athens."

And when asked if she was saying to the Greeks and other European nations that they had had a nice time and it was now payback time, Ms Lagarde responded: "That's right."

Probably not worth mentioning, but that "little village" probably has similar levels of debt to Greece. That part of the world isn't really known for affluence. Good to know the IMF cares though. I doubt it cares enough to actually do that whole "helping" thing. You have to let people help themselves out of the debt you helped them into.

Greeks helping themselves, collectively.

"Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for reforming the country's drug laws. "The strange thing is that the purchase of and smoking the marijuana while you're there wouldn't be illegal. But this law would make planning the wedding from the U.S. a federal crime."

This quote I found rather funny.  Bill Piper is a dumb-fuck who obviously thinks his followers are dumbfucks.  No, Mr. Dumbass, it wouldn't be the planning of a wedding that would be illegal, it would be the planning of buying the fucking pot that would be illegal.  You can plan weddings all you want asshat. 


I mean, if a wedding really, really hinged on whether or not you smoke pot, I mean, that's, IMO, a little sad.

Champagne consumption certainly seems to be a crucial element of a wedding for many people.

AND this whole thread was a blatant troll. FFS. So is the other one.

But I guess because your personal code of ethics requires us to be mannerly to everyone, regardless of all influencing factors, the angry mob was badwrong to "derail" it.

which other one?

I'm not sure about the effectiveness and cost of chloramine vs chlorine, but I know that both kill pretty much anything in the water and chlorine can be removed by just letting your water sit for a bit while chloramine is really hard to get out.

chlorination with chlorine, sure, keep the cholera out, chloramine though is going too far, at least in my opinion.

This is the endgame of rule 34. This is what happens when you allow every psychotic freak unbridled freedom to indulge their every depraved belief or fantasy. If people can dress up like anthropomorphic chickens and fuck each other in diapers, racism ceases to seem so "weird." That's part of my theory.

Are you saying my chicken suit is the slippery slope to racism?

I'm just saying we all have too much of an attitude where "Hey, if THEY can have their little conventions, I guess we kinda gotta let the neo-nazis have access to the Autumn Room at the Doubletree as well."

The guy in the chicken suit isn't holding anyone at gunpoint for not liking chicken.

It's pretty simple, if you advocate hurting people or property then your ideology needs to be closely examined before it should be considered acceptable.  If it doesn't involve hurting anyone who didn't choose to be hurt or breaking anything that isn't yours then it's none of my business.

I would go so far as to say that reasonable property damage, within the scope of a planned and purposeful revolutionary tactic does not necessarily speak poorly of one's ideology so long as no physical harm or threat of harm comes to its owners and its execution does not leave any innocent, private citizen in a state of necessary destitution and hardship.

What am I saying? I'm saying it might be okay to destroy shit that belongs to a corporation or wealthy entity whose operation and policies are causing profound harm to private citizens within the scope of an act of revolution or protest so long as no innocent human ends up physically harmed or on the street and destitute as a result.

Now and then people need to be harmed too, it's just that if there's harming people or taking or breaking shit it is other people's business.  It's not people harmlessly dressing up in teddy bear suits and having their teddy bear picnic or whatever.  If someone is advocating smashing things up their reasons and methods are something to look into to see if they need to be opposed, or perhaps assisted.

It's a pretty clear line, with people in chicken suits, or diapers, or roleplaying vampires on the "none of my business" side of the line and nazis and people taking justified direct action both on the "I should figure out what these people are doing and why and maybe get involved in one way or the other" side.

ETA: it looks like the neighbors in the OP story were acting on that impulse, they saw what they thought was property damage and interfered.  They didn't do a good enough job of finding out the what and why, but it looks like they learned from the mistake.  If they are being genuine about their apology and aren't just looking to avoid legal consequences then they are the sort of people I'd like to have as neighbors.

So the republicans lately have been doing a lot to restrict the freedoms of women, mostly in the reproductive sphere. There have been severe restrictions on abortion put into place, including Arizona's rather odd law that makes women technically pregnant whenever they aren't menstruating. There have been the laws in Mississippi that have some women in prison for miscarrying, and there is the other Arizona law that allows an employer to terminate a woman for using contraception.

One of the stated reasons for these actions is to cut down on sexual promiscuity, however if this is actually the goal then the way in which it is being carried out is odd. The ideal form of birth control for someone who is sexually promiscuous is condoms. Condoms protect against STD's, something which women's contraception such as the pill and IUD's do not do. Condoms are also something that is used as needed and the promiscuous usually do not know exactly who they will be having sex with or when until fairly close to the actual occurence. For a single encounter condoms are far less expensive and less trouble than any other form of contraception.

Women's birth control is ideal in a monogamous relationship where a certain regularity of sexual activity is expected. A marriage is the most obvious example and many married women use contraception to prevent unexpected pregnancies so that they can ensure that when they have children they are financially prepared for it and that either they or their husbands will have time to raise the child.

What the republicans are attacking is not an aid to sexual promiscuity but an aid to financial and social stability for people involved in long term monogamous relationships, particularly those in the middle class. It is a war not only on women's freedoms but on the ability of men and women in the middle class to have any control of their economic and genetic destinies.
   

Basically, the rule maintains that as long as someone goes ALL THE WAY turncoat, it's cool. Only halfway? You're banned.

There's the quid pro quo rule for admins who ban Discordians for being Discordians.  Seems like that covers overly aggressive actions against trolls too.

This is the endgame of rule 34. This is what happens when you allow every psychotic freak unbridled freedom to indulge their every depraved belief or fantasy. If people can dress up like anthropomorphic chickens and fuck each other in diapers, racism ceases to seem so "weird." That's part of my theory.

Are you saying my chicken suit is the slippery slope to racism?

I'm just saying we all have too much of an attitude where "Hey, if THEY can have their little conventions, I guess we kinda gotta let the neo-nazis have access to the Autumn Room at the Doubletree as well."

The guy in the chicken suit isn't holding anyone at gunpoint for not liking chicken.

It's pretty simple, if you advocate hurting people or property then your ideology needs to be closely examined before it should be considered acceptable.  If it doesn't involve hurting anyone who didn't choose to be hurt or breaking anything that isn't yours then it's none of my business.

1. If all this guy did was talk about what he'd like to do, I don't understand getting this upset about it at all. Does it make him a bit of a sleaze? Sure, maybe, whatever. It also could just make him stupid or naive. There are plenty young men who join the military because they wanted to "blow shit up." The first time "blow shit up" means "people are gonna die, asshole" they seriously rethink their attitudes. There are people who think they'd like to (or could) do certain things and when they get there, realize they really don't have the heart to actually do them. I know people who work in labs who have to destroy lab animals at the conclusion of a test. Many of them go into with a nonchalant attitude and realize after the first one that they really detest snipping an animal's head off with a pair of shears.

The thing is, I didn't join the Army to blow shit up or kill people. All my choices of jobs in the Army were ones that were relatively non-violent, and I've been rather honest about what I did in the Army. That is particularly why I got pissed about murderrapist's personal attack.

Yeah, that attack was completely out of line, especially because everyone knew by then Coyote was mostly an administrater type.

And then he called me a pedophile defender, which I patently am not and everybody knows it, but he wasn't even being facetious about it, and since this was on TSC there were strangers who believed him.

And then, just recently, he said that Khara molests her children.  Her own damn children.

No, I wasn't being facetious,  you were defending the character of a pedophile.

Cain has the archives I believe, nobody else does, so I can't link to the discussion in question, but you absolutely were defending a pedophile, you said he did not strike you as a bad person.

I did not mean to seriously imply that Khara molests her children.  It was stated that she felt people who are accused of molesting children should be lynched.  I accused her, in a way that I assumed nobody could take as a serious accusation, to point out what I saw as moral hypocrisy on her part.  Her response was closer to suggesting that I should be lynched for the accusation than that she should be for being accused.  (Note, she did not literally suggest my lynching, she did say she hoped I died miserable and alone, and that if she found me god would not be able to save me, showing that Khara is also someone who fantasizes about doing things that she knows would be wrong)

Also, I do not know what Khara went through.  I don't know her well, and wherever her history (presumably with child abuse) was posted I have not read it.  I'd prefer not to, stories of child abuse really disturb me and are painful for me to read and I avoid them unless reading them is going to give me some knowledge that will be useful.  As Khara has asked me never to speak to her again and I intend to honor that request I can't see knowledge of what she's been through being of any use to me at all.

If you can find a counter example, of a human being who honestly does not fantasize about things that they know are wrong, then I'll accept your assertion, but I sincerely doubt that you can. 

My attack on Coyote was absolutely a personal attack in a moment of anger, informed by my upbringing.  I was taught, as a child, that soldiers were killers, who either chose to be killers or who were deluded into thinking they were doing something noble, or were victims who had been drafted.  I know that Coyote doesn't get off on killing people, I was just pissed and lashing out.

He does fantasize about killing people, at least I'm fairly certain he does based on his posts (shovel tarp, being the most easily conjured up example, sorry, no link, Coyote is even more prolific than Freeky)

I want to say something while trying to avoid fueling the drama

I do know that Babylon has some deviant sexual stuff going on.

I also know that hes given and taken within a lot of flame threads.

I know people hate anarchy threads.

What i do not know is if hes jacked threads and that has caused other members to anger and jack BH's own threads in retaliation.

If he indeed has jacked threads, i guess its fair punishment to ruin his threads; if he has not jacked threads, i find it unfair to ruin the ones he creates.

I dont mind arguing with people with deviant or opposing ideas or ideology, because i can learn a lot from how they position themselves on a certain issue, i only shun or just stop participating in threads where the OP is being obnoxious or trolling (if you hadnt noticed, i never participate in troll/drama threads).

Depends on how you define jacking threads.  I try not to do so, sometimes my presence in threads causes them to get derailed into discussions of my depravity.  After someone else starts it I generally don't stop it.

I don't feel that I am being treated unfairly, if that makes any difference.

I made this thread to make a point about something Dok said, that he chooses to derail it in response is not unfair. 

That Nigel and Freeky choose to join in is not unfair either.

Navkat was clearly misinformed about me, but her impression has been corrected, by several people.

Everyone fantasizes about things which would be wrong if they actually did them

Don't bring the entire human race down to your level, you sick fuck.

I know you aren't a counter example because you've mentioned fantasizing about setting your asshole ex on fire.

Link or STFU.

I couldn't find the post I was thinking of, Freeky is a prolific poster, but I did find this one fantasizing about harpooning fat people.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32343.msg1169864.html#msg1169864

I'm not trying to pick on Freeky, actually scrolling through her posts and trying to find an example I found way less than I had expected, it took ten pages to find one.  She's either got way less violent thoughts than most people or she expresses them way less.

I call Poe's law on the rapist thing.  Everyone excuses things that they do as part of being human, we all think we are normal, or at least close to normal.