patrick.net

This is why it's impossible to have a productive conversation with you Shrek. First, the fact that you think I'm a part of "the left" shows you have no comprehension of my actual political philosophies. Remember, I posted the list of the 10 reasons that Obama was a bad president. That alone should show I'm not a leftist or a Democrat fanboy.

Second, you always insist that people have to 100% agree with every crazy thing that comes out of your mouth or they must be 100% against everything you say. This is not how real people work. It's not a freaking war between you and everyone else. Try to find some common ground for once.

Third, even when a person partially agrees with something you say, you insist that you must have "trick them" into contradicting themselves. Ugh. This just makes it hard to agree with you on the rare occasions you say something sensible.

Finally, you take any disagreement to be cause for belligerence instead of resolution. This kind of uncompromising behavior is not commendable. It's the kind of childish behavior that Congress has recently demonstrated much to the angst of the entire U.S. population.

leoj707 says

There is ample sociological evidence that the nature of people is to be racist.

I would say that there is ample evolutionary evidence that humans are inherently groupist. Racism is just one arbitrary way of forming groups. However, there was a study that showed even if you randomly assign people into one of two groups, they will come to dislike the other group.

So I'd say it's human nature to form first, second, and even third order coalitions in order to defeat other coalitions. The basis of those coalitions is not so much important as the fact that they are used to steal resources from others.

There is also evidence that chimps and dolphins can form higher order coalitions. Perhaps chimps and humans evolved this ability form a common ancestor, but the fact that dolphins also do this suggests convergent evolution, which in turn, suggests that the formation of such coalitions and the associated groupism is an important strategy for acquiring scarce resources.

As such, even if racism never existed, some other form of groupism would take its place. Perhaps classism, religious sectism, musical preferencism. It doesn't matter. Just as long as a coalition can be form and it is profitable to use that coalition to take resources from others.

Dan8267 says

This is why it's impossible to have a productive conversation with you Shrek.

Remember shrek's goal is to:
Shrek-MarsAttacks! says

[G]et [others] off track of their topic so then he can start having his fun with them.

Not too have a productive conversation.

p.s. Nationalism (or patriotism) is just another form of groupism.

leoj707 says

so then he can start having his fun with them.

Why does that sound perverted?

Dan8267 says

leoj707 says

so then he can start having his fun with them.

Why does that sound perverted?

Hmmmm, I guess this brings the thread full circle...

Dan8267 says

At least we can be consoled that Shrek died doing what he loved best and probably multitasking by posting on patrick.net at the same time.

Maybe posting on Pnet is not so much multitasking for shrek, but in "support" of doing what he loved best. Perhaps on that fateful day he had derailed 42 threads, and "had his fun with them".

Hey patrick

Did you ever think having a policy to let users starts ban polls? If 75% (or whatever number you choose) of the voters vote yes, then the user is banned from the forums. Also, I have seen moderators on other forums doing IP checks to verify if a user has multiple logins (and it is treated as a ban-able offense)

Dan8267 says

I would say that there is ample evolutionary evidence that humans are inherently groupist. Racism is just one arbitrary way of forming groups. However, there was a study that showed even if you randomly assign people into one of two groups, they will come to dislike the other group...
As such, even if racism never existed, some other form of groupism would take its place. Perhaps classism, religious sectism, musical preferencism. It doesn't matter. Just as long as a coalition can be form and it is profitable to use that coalition to take resources from others.

Yes, yes, and yes.

"Race" by appearance is just an easy outward way for people to self-select into groups. When actually trying to define race by DNA the waters get muddy very fast. Ahhh... perhaps one day there will be a future utopia where people ignore outside appearances, and discriminate based on differences in DNA.

immigrant says

Hey patrick

Did you ever think having a policy to let users starts ban polls? If 75% (or whatever number you choose) of the voters vote yes, then the user is banned from the forums. Also, I have seen moderators on other forums doing IP checks to verify if a user has multiple logins (and it is treated as a ban-able offense)

Woohoo, the "hey patrick" thing worked again! I'm never sure that any particular email will really get sent. Email is really flaky compared to the web.

I guess I'm kind of opposed to ban polls. It's often exactly the unpopular opinion that people should really listen to (eg, world is flat, evolution, black people are actually human no matter how much you paid for them). But I know what you mean about a few commenters poisoning the air. So maybe I should make some counter for flag clicks per user, and just ban the people who consistently get flagged for personal insults.

leoj707 says

discriminate based on differences in DNA.

Ever see Gattaca? All that could happen for sure.

leoj707 says

perhaps one day there will be a future utopia where people ignore outside appearances

Nay, that would never happen. Hotties will always be treat much better than uglies. You can't change that. Even babies are subject to that prejudice. Studies have shown that babies look at beautiful faces longer than ugly ones. It's hard-coded in our DNA.

Perhaps I am a hypocrite, because as a hottie, I've always taken advantage of that. It's how I get most of my jobs.

immigrant says

Did you ever think having a policy to let users starts ban polls? If 75% (or whatever number you choose) of the voters vote yes, then the user is banned from the forums.

The problem with banning users is that it promotes the kind of polarization of a community that is at the heart of the problem. I'd suggest just using the ignore feature if someone is too annoying. That way it's an individual decision.

leoj707 says

Remember shrek's goal is to:
Shrek-MarsAttacks! says

[G]et [others] off track of their topic so then he can start having his fun with them.

Not too have a productive conversation.

The irony of this thread is that Shrek has clearly demonstrated the reasons his account was deleted in the first place.

Dan8267 says

Now I don't know what percentage of Republicans are racist. I suspect it's a minority, but the ones that are racist are the most vocal. They are the Tea Party members holding up signs like this:

But it wasn't a Racist Tea Party posting that pic, it was you.
Are you a Racist, Tea Party member or just a Retarded Race baiter, and a Liar and cheat too?

Tenouncetrout says

But it wasn't a Racist Tea Party posting that pic, it was you.

We've all posted pics of people at some point. Doesn't make us racist. If it's a pic of us holding the sign, that's different.

You have an avatar of a dinosaur, doesn't make you a dead sack of bones. And I'm not a dog (nor do I play one on tv). It's just a pic that he used to make his point - and there are a lot of pics of tea partiers with offensive signs.

Tenouncetrout says

Are you a Racist, Tea Party member or just a Retarded Race baiter, and a Liar and cheat too?

You're better than this, trout. really, you are.

Come on Ellie you're better than that too.
If I post a pic it's in context to what I'm saying. And no one else or any other group is implied to own the impetus of my choosing the pic.
The OP posts that race baiting pic, then claims people are marching around holding signs with that pic. Well where's the picture of the tea party rally members holding the sign with that pic?

From what I'm seeing, Tea Party members are not at home making creative Photo Shop pictures to deface anyone. They are far to angry for that. At best they crudely scrawling slogans, typos and all, with a sharpie on poster board.

the sign carrier could be a leftist plant posing for the camera. Right?

More over, I would wager, 99% of graphics artists are Liberals.
Conservatives aren't that creative.

I would bet a small fortune that 90% of the pics posted here, claiming to be made by a tea party member or of a tea party member. Was Photo shopped by a Liberal.

elliemae says

You're better than this, trout. really, you are.

No he's not.

The double standard reached a new low when some anti-conservatives beat a conservative at a ralley, and it went unmentioned by anyone but Fox, or it was just laughed at in a "that's what he gets" sort of way ........ this attack and lack of coverage happened not long after an accusation against all conservatives everywhere for a mystery loogie and a mystery heckler using the all-powerful "N" word, on the faitful day of the ram-rod healthcare buggering of America.

A man gets attacked, media is silent. An unknown (probably a plant - if it even happened at all) may have, or may not have, said N, and THAT runs for days and days and "shows the Tea PArty is racist.

See the difference? Actual behavior is ignored, precieved behavior is trumpeted. With all things liberal, it is all about intent and prception. Since only conservative minded people hold each person accountable to a moral based standard for their personal behavior, there is very little chance a conservative acted at any time in the manner we see self-proclaimed liberals acting. And, since the media is so bias and tainted they remian silent while the moral fabric of this land is being shredded by The Progressive Army ..... the truth will remain unreported by mass media. For real news, go to GBTV.

Tenouncetrout says

Dan8267 says

Now I don't know what percentage of Republicans are racist. I suspect it's a minority, but the ones that are racist are the most vocal. They are the Tea Party members holding up signs like this:

But it wasn't a Racist Tea Party posting that pic, it was you.

Are you a Racist, Tea Party member or just a Retarded Race baiter, and a Liar and cheat too?

Tenouncetrout, are you really that dumb or do you think that the readers of this forum are dumb enough to fall for such an obvious and insincere misdirection? I bring up that the Tea Parties are widely known as racists and show one of their own messages that clearly proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then you try to imply I'm a racist because I pointed out the racism of the Tea Party? WTF? How daft are you?

That's like saying that a Jewish photographer who photographed the mass graves of Jews that were killed by the Nazis in order to make sure history never forgets that atrocity is guilty of the Holocaust himself. That's stupidity on a level I cannot even imagine and it should not be tolerated. I will always call bullshit on someone who uses such a cheap and dishonest tactic.

Tenouncetrout says

The OP posts that race baiting pic, then claims people are marching around holding signs with that pic. Well where's the picture of the tea party rally members holding the sign with that pic?

Really, do I have to freakin' spoon feed you the evidence. All I did, LITERALLY, was to go to Google image search and type in "Obama racist signs". I didn't even have to type in Tea Party and I got a bazillion results talking about the Tea Party's racist signs.

Google returned a motherload of Tea Party rallies showing Obama as a monkey, as a chimp, as a Muslim, in a KKK outfit, as a shoe-shine boy. JFC, it's not that hard. The evidence almost comes to you.

I mean, really, at this point you are just denying the facts.

Bap33 says

the sign carrier could be a leftist plant posing for the camera. Right?

Yes, all 10 thousand of them are leftist plants, which is why they were not ostracized by the other Tea Party members surrounding them. The Tea Party is made up of 93% leftist plants.

Tenouncetrout says

I would bet a small fortune that 90% of the pics posted here, claiming to be made by a tea party member or of a tea party member. Was Photo shopped by a Liberal.

Just like the moon landing.

Bap33 says

Since only conservative minded people hold each person accountable to a moral based standard for their personal behavior

No decent person would condone the act of violence you mentioned. It's not a liberal-conservative issue. People have the right to free speech and anyone who would act violently (say by stamping a women's head) in response to free speech is a scumbag and should be thrown in jail.

I don't know what you would consider "holding another person morally accountable". A person's morality can only govern that person's behavior, not another's. That's why we have law.

If you are implying that conservatives have a higher moral standard than liberals, then I'd say that's empirically false. Liberals have demonstrated time and again that they are more compassionate, particularly to the poor and misfortune, than conservatives. While conservatives cheer when they hear Rick Perry executed more people than any other governor and shout "Yes" to the question "should society let a man w/o insurance die", you really can't make a case that conservatives are highly moral people.

There's an old saying: The Christian Right is neither. Now I'm an atheist, so I don't follow the mythical B.S. in the Bible, but I was raised Catholic and taught by viscous Catholic nuns who would beat you with a ruler if you misbehaved -- and there is nothing scarier than a Catholic nun. So I know as much, if not more, about JFC and his teachings than any fundamentalist.

I can tell you that Jesus was the mother of all socialists. He said that in order to enter heaven you had to give up all of your possessions to the poor, that it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god, that whatever you do to the least of his people (everyone) you do unto him. Jesus believed in redistribution of wealth, turning the other cheek when attacked by enemies, forgiving any person for any wrongdoing, and the only time he ever got pissed off was at the bankers. Jesus was far more left than Ted Kennedy. He would have been appalled at the idea of gun ownership, all of the wars America has fought, and the death penalty (which, I heard, he had a bit of first-hand experience with).

At least east-coast, liberal, Democrat-voting Catholics aren't hypocrites when it comes to following Jesus. They walk the walk whereas right-wing fundamentalists just talk the talk. And despite all the bad things I could say about Christians (including Catholics) -- and it's a hell of a lot -- at least the liberal Christians actually follow the teachings of Jesus instead of perverting them like the right-wing does.

As for me, I have a very high moral standard. And when I put morality before material interests, it's not because I'm afraid some god will punish me for immoral acts or think that I'll be rewarded for moral ones. That would be a cheap morality. No, I do what I believe is morally right for its own sake, not for any reward/punishment system.

Furthermore, my morality is based on principles, evolutionary science, game theory, and social dynamics. As such, I consider moral issues that are far beyond the comprehension of anyone who bases morality on Bronze and Iron Age mythology. I can refine my moral understanding with mathematically precision, literally. Turning morality into a science advances morality as much as physics was advanced when it was turned from a philosophy into a science.

Dan8267 says

I bring up that the Tea Parties are widely known as racists

You mean widely accused, there's a difference.

But that's indicative of the problem, Libs say, there for it is.
Where's the Tea Party members on this board, spouting racist views? To date, every one making those claims, and or speaking for the Tea Party have been Liberals.

Liberals are the only racist I see. They are trying to place that bag of Doo Doo on the Tea Party door step, ringing the door bell then running away giggling.

But the Tea Party never comes out and steps on it, how come?
I bet you guys are the same racists that were so vocal on Craigslist political forum, claiming to be republicans. I'd expect that if THEY weren't Liberal plants there as well, they would be over here all over the Tea Party race thing posting pictures of buckwheat and water melons. And just generally being as ugly here as they are on CL.

Tenouncetrout says

Dan8267 says

I bring up that the Tea Parties are widely known as racists

You mean widely accused, there's a difference.

Yes, there is a difference. No, I don't mean "accused". And the two statements are not contradictory. The Tea Party is widely accused and widely known of being racist. Did you even click on the "Obama racist signs" link? The evidence is overwhelming, as overwhelming as the evidence for evolution.

To deny that the Tea Party members are racist is like denying that the Nazis were anti-semitic. It is a ridiculous claim in light of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Such a claim cannot be taken seriously.

Dan's last post is fiction. No reason to comment about Fictional Dan from Fictionville, Notachanceland.

Danville - home of the whopper.

Dan8267 says

Jesus believed in redistribution of wealth, turning the other cheek when attacked by enemies, forgiving any person for any wrongdoing, and the only time he ever got pissed off was at the bankers. Jesus was far more left than Ted Kennedy. He would have been appalled at the idea of gun ownership, all of the wars America has fought, and the death penalty (which, I heard, he had a bit of first-hand experience with).

I too am probably more familiar with the bible than most fundamentalists. Yes, the bible does support the claims that you mentioned, but the bible is also contradictory, and when justifying any "philosophy" cherry picking is required. I may go so far as to say that any life philosophy, "moral" or not, could be supported by the bible.

Matthew 10
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Luke 14
14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Tenouncetrout says

Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense

Your account is now disabled.

MarsAttacks! says

"If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew" -- Barack Obama speaking before the Congressional Black Caucus over the weekend

At least he didn't flub it by saying "If asking a Jew to pay the same tax rate asa billionaire". Now that would have been bad.

It was a flub, he quickly corrected himself to say "janitor" instead of Jew. Why would you portray this as anything other than a flub?

Holy crap! Heads rolling left and right this afternoon!

Tenouncetrout says

Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense

Your account is now disabled.

goatkick says

You're such a whiny bitch

Your account is now disabled.

Yup, I wish them well, elsewhere.

New rule: golden one. Actually a very old rule.

Please try to maintain a sense of good will and cooperation.

Tenouncetrout says

Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense

Your account is now disabled.

I'm quite certain that is taken out of context, I didn't directly call anyone an ignorant Ahole.

Wasn't there an "other wise, you're" in front of that, and I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, other than closing what ever I was saying?

Nope, the context was pretty full of hate too.

Yup, I wish them well, elsewhere.

New rule: golden one. Actually a very old rule.

Please try to maintain a sense of good will and cooperation.

This is not the one, but I got one of these Dr. Bob paintings at my front door.

Wow, that's an excellent forum policy in a nutshell.

OK, I adopt it as the Patrick.net Forum Motto. Thanks!

MarsAttacks! says

Like when people say things like this?

I don't get what point you are trying to make, so I can't answer your question.

Bap33 says

Dan's last post is fiction. No reason to comment about Fictional Dan from Fictionville, Notachanceland.

Danville - home of the whopper.

With analysis like that, do I even need to make a counter-argument? The posting is simply an assertion with no specifics, no evidence, and no reasoning. Although, I really don't get why Bap33 would think anyone would believe his assertion when I consistently back up everything I say with references. It's like the conservatives on this site have some major blind spots to anything that contradicts their beliefs.

leoj707 says

Yes, the bible does support the claims that you mentioned, but the bible is also contradictory, and when justifying any "philosophy" cherry picking is required. I may go so far as to say that any life philosophy, "moral" or not, could be supported by the bible.

True, the Bible does contradict itself greatly. No surprise since it was written by many different people with many different social, economic, and political agendas. However, I would not go so far as to say that the New Testament, which is the basis of Christianity, could justify any philosophy. Many perhaps, but not any.

The New Testaments and particularly the Gospels, which deal most directly with the life and alleged believes of Jesus, is pretty consistent in philosophical, if not at all historical, content. The philosophy is basically love your neighbor, be compassionate, share everything you have, treat everyone like you would treat Jesus. Pretty much socialist philosophy. And again, this is coming from a hard-core atheist, so I'm pretty objective as I have no religious agenda unless you count promoting rationalism over mysticism.

Tenouncetrout says
Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense

Darn, that message got deleted before I had a chance to read it. So, unfortunately, I cannot reply to it to show exactly why it's wrong, but I'm pretty sure from the quote above, it must have been a really lame argument.

All I can say is that good arguments go: point, counter-point, point, counter-point. Saying something insulting but ultimately vague and hollow like "just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense" is usually a pretty good indication that the speaker is on thin ice and has nothing substantial with which to counter his opponent.

In rebutting an opponent on any subject matter, you should address the specific points your opponent made and explain in concise, clear, and verifiable detail about why those points are wrong. This should be done one by one for each point you wish to counter. Ignoring those points and simply calling your opponent names has never convinced anyone. Debating isn't rocket science. Maybe I should debate myself just to show the conservatives how it's done properly. Naturally, I'd have to play devil's advocate to do so, but if it gets the ultra-cons to behave in a more productive manner, it would be worth the time.

Nope, the context was pretty full of hate too.

Whatever Tenouncetrout (or is it Done! now) said, I'm willing to forgive him in exchange for a small token of rationality. I've given a list of 10 reasons Obama is a really bad president. I could probably give about as many examples of bad decision making for just about every president up to and including Kennedy. (I'm really not enough of a history buff to go further than that.) Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter. They all make mistakes and most, if not all, sell out.

So Tenouncetrout, here's a little exercise you can do to prove to us that you are a rational person and not a wingnut like the Tea Party members. Give me an honest list of ten ways in which George W. Bush majorly fucked up as president. This should be a really easy assignment even for a Republican. I'll even give you a little help. You could use some of the items on my list of Obama no-no's. If you can't come up with a list of ten major Bush screw-ups, then how can we take your arguments seriously?

Dan8267 says

The New Testaments and particularly the Gospels, which deal most directly with the life and alleged believes of Jesus, is pretty consistent in philosophical, if not at all historical, content. The philosophy is basically love your neighbor, be compassionate, share everything you have, treat everyone like you would treat Jesus. Pretty much socialist philosophy.

Just a reminder that the passages I quoted "hate your family" "I bring not peace but a sword" are new testament Jesus quotes. ;)

Dan8267 says

Maybe I should debate myself just to show the conservatives how it's done properly. Naturally, I'd have to play devil's advocate to do so, but if it gets the ultra-cons to behave in a more productive manner, it would be worth the time.

I don't think that it would change the uber-cons behavior. While there are some good arguments from a conservative perspective, with which one could rationally argue, they still would get your alter-ego labeled as a RINO. While the teabagger/neo-con/ditto head types often start with good intentions I have not seen any arguments from them that could be made to realistically fit in your "good argument" model (without just looking like a straw man).

Nope, the context was pretty full of hate too.

The hate is swelling in you now. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment, you make yourself more my servant.