- Time
- Post link
Star Trek
Superman
- Time
- Post link
HARMY RULES
morals — Page 2
- Time
- Post link
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
Star Trek
Superman
- Time
- Post link
Yes, how unfortunate it would be if a people were forced to take responsibility for their own actions. How unfortunate it would be if they had to stop having sex when it wasn't wise for them to do so. How unfortunate it would be if people were required to raise their worthless, bastard children on their own without government assistance. People can afford their own damn condoms.
- Time
- Post link
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Judge not, lest you be judged yourself.
Give to the poor and you shall have treasures in heaven.
Etc.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Let you who is without sin cast the first stone.
Go and sin no more.
I don't believe government should steal for the direct pupose of someone's purely private benefit. Not my own or anyone else's. If I'm behaving in a hypocritical manner here, then so be it, I'll be judged.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Give to the poor and you shall have treasures in heaven.
Let you who is without sin cast the first stone.
Go and sin no more.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Judge not, lest you be judged yourself.
Judge not, lest you be judged yourself.
I don't believe government should steal for the direct pupose of someone's purely private benefit. Not my own or anyone else's. If I'm behaving in a hypocritical manner here, then so be it, I'll be judged.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Give to the poor and you shall have treasures in heaven.
Give to the poor with money you have stolen through the force of government? Hah.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
For all the morality that gets claimed by the religious right in this country, the very morals Christ tried to impart are frighteningly absent in their politics.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
For all the morality that gets claimed by the religious right in this country, the very morals Christ tried to impart are frighteningly absent in their politics.
For all the morality that gets claimed by the religious right in this country, the very morals Christ tried to impart are frighteningly absent in their politics.
That is the most truest(is that a word?) statement I have seen on these boards.....but I would add that its also the Christ like ethics that are lacking as well....Pres. Bush is a very moral person, but he is far from ethical in my opinion.....
I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
You keep saying that the government is stealing. Please explain how the government is "stealing" by enacting programs that you disagree with. The tax base is no one person's private piggy bank. Not every citizen supports every bill that the government enacts. That's what it means to live in a Republican Democracy: Representatives are chosen by the people to decide and approve what gets spent on their behalf. This is not theivery. This is called government.
Oh, so if we voted to create a federal pillaging force to invade your neighborhood, murder/rape your friends and family, and steal every possession you own, that would be legitimate because our government gave everything its approval?
Stealing is the unethical seizure of private property, whether individuals or democratic governments do it. Sorry.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
For all the morality that gets claimed by the religious right in this country, the very morals Christ tried to impart are frighteningly absent in their politics.
You keep saying that the government is stealing. Please explain how the government is "stealing" by enacting programs that you disagree with. The tax base is no one person's private piggy bank. Not every citizen supports every bill that the government enacts. That's what it means to live in a Republican Democracy: Representatives are chosen by the people to decide and approve what gets spent on their behalf. This is not theivery. This is called government.
Oh, so if we voted to create a federal pillaging force to invade your neighborhood, murder/rape your friends and family, and steal every possession you own, that would be legitimate because our government gave everything its approval?
Stealing is the unethical seizure of private property, whether individuals or democratic governments do it. Sorry.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
For all the morality that gets claimed by the religious right in this country, the very morals Christ tried to impart are frighteningly absent in their politics.
Ahh, what an interesting statement. Which morals in particular would you like to discuss?
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Oh, so if we voted to create a federal pillaging force to invade your neighborhood, murder/rape your friends and family, and steal every possession you own, that would be legitimate because our government gave everything its approval?
Stealing is the unethical seizure of private property, whether individuals or democratic governments do it. Sorry.
If. Condition contrary to fact. You're confusing an event that hasn't come to pass with something you say has already happened simply because a government program you don't support is nonetheless in effect. Go take a logic course and get back to us when you know the actual tools of debate.
Which morals in particular would you like to discuss?
Oh, so if we voted to create a federal pillaging force to invade your neighborhood, murder/rape your friends and family, and steal every possession you own, that would be legitimate because our government gave everything its approval?
Stealing is the unethical seizure of private property, whether individuals or democratic governments do it. Sorry.
If. Condition contrary to fact. You're confusing an event that hasn't come to pass with something you say has already happened simply because a government program you don't support is nonetheless in effect. Go take a logic course and get back to us when you know the actual tools of debate.
Which morals in particular would you like to discuss?
We've already been discussing them. You were quick to piss on the words of Christ that I quoted earlier.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
We've already been discussing them. You were quick to piss on the words of Christ that I quoted earlier.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Oh, so if we voted to create a federal pillaging force to invade your neighborhood, murder/rape your friends and family, and steal every possession you own, that would be legitimate because our government gave everything its approval?
Stealing is the unethical seizure of private property, whether individuals or democratic governments do it. Sorry.
If. Condition contrary to fact. You're confusing an event that hasn't come to pass with something you say has already happened simply because a government program you don't support is nonetheless in effect. Go take a logic course and get back to us when you know the actual tools of debate.
Wow, I’m amazed by your logic once more, ADigitalMan.
I think you are missing a detail that should have been obvious to you, but I’ll now point it out for your benefit. I wasn’t arguing for any equivalence between the hypothetical government program which I described and the one that I do not support in reality. There was no connection there whatsoever in my post (that should have been obvious to anyone who isn’t an ignorant boob). It was this statement of yours is what I was responding to:
First, you assumed that I judged the government to be a stealing entity because a program was enacted that I happened to disagree with as an individual. (This is stupid because I never said anything of the kind, so for you to get that impression and then accuse me of it without at least asking for confirmation was childish at best. In addition, your logical connection implying that disagreement on my part automatically equals stealing from my perspective is completely facile. I was expecting more from you in this debate, ADM.)
Second, it is fairly clear that you then went on to at least try knocking down your obvious straw man by appealing to a supposed logical principle: You tell me that government-gathered resources are not private and that government-decreed actions are not private, and then, on that basis, you argued that a non-private status automatically neutralized my disagreement. (A non-private status neutralizing my disagreement should be an obviously stupid argument to just about anyone, but I’m beginning to find that you aren’t just “anyone,” ADM.)
Thirdly, you then made your final and most stupid connection. You say that because my disagreement is neutralized by the public nature of democratic government (and perhaps other forms of government?), any reasoning or ethical judgment of policy on my part, behind my disagreement, should then be completely thrown out of the window (to use a colorful phrase). Therefore, you illogically conclude that whatever action I was criticizing (wow, you still don’t even know what I am criticizing yet!), it absolutely could not have been thievery because such judgment on my part is not allowed. (Brilliant!)
Heh. Now, to challenge your supposed principles and completely unconnected logic, I then presented a situation in my previous post that I felt would be a good challenge for your principles. (My federally-funded pillaging force was this very example.) I never once said that the example was in existence anywhere, nor that I was concretely criticizing anything of the sort in terms of reality. Therefore, when you concluded in your most recent post that I was making that particular, logical mistake, you were simply demonstrating more of your illogic, I’m afraid. (It’s okay, we all make mistakes, ADM.)
I hope all of this clarification helps you, ADM. If not, then at least I would hope that I have exposed your foolishness to any other people who might witness this messy conversation you created.
Hmm, perhaps we should make this a formal debate, ADM? Perhaps that way everything could be made clearer for you and thus you wouldn’t get so easily confused? If you know all of the “actual” tools of debate, then a formal, logical debate should be easy for you to engage in. I’d like to see you demonstrate your skill in actually valid ways.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Which morals in particular would you like to discuss?
Oh, so if we voted to create a federal pillaging force to invade your neighborhood, murder/rape your friends and family, and steal every possession you own, that would be legitimate because our government gave everything its approval?
Stealing is the unethical seizure of private property, whether individuals or democratic governments do it. Sorry.
If. Condition contrary to fact. You're confusing an event that hasn't come to pass with something you say has already happened simply because a government program you don't support is nonetheless in effect. Go take a logic course and get back to us when you know the actual tools of debate.
Wow, I’m amazed by your logic once more, ADigitalMan.
I think you are missing a detail that should have been obvious to you, but I’ll now point it out for your benefit. I wasn’t arguing for any equivalence between the hypothetical government program which I described and the one that I do not support in reality. There was no connection there whatsoever in my post (that should have been obvious to anyone who isn’t an ignorant boob). It was this statement of yours is what I was responding to:
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
You keep saying that the government is stealing. Please explain how the government is "stealing" by enacting programs that you disagree with. The tax base is no one person's private piggy bank. Not every citizen supports every bill that the government enacts. That's what it means to live in a Republican Democracy: Representatives are chosen by the people to decide and approve what gets spent on their behalf. This is not theivery. This is called government.
You keep saying that the government is stealing. Please explain how the government is "stealing" by enacting programs that you disagree with. The tax base is no one person's private piggy bank. Not every citizen supports every bill that the government enacts. That's what it means to live in a Republican Democracy: Representatives are chosen by the people to decide and approve what gets spent on their behalf. This is not theivery. This is called government.
First, you assumed that I judged the government to be a stealing entity because a program was enacted that I happened to disagree with as an individual. (This is stupid because I never said anything of the kind, so for you to get that impression and then accuse me of it without at least asking for confirmation was childish at best. In addition, your logical connection implying that disagreement on my part automatically equals stealing from my perspective is completely facile. I was expecting more from you in this debate, ADM.)
Second, it is fairly clear that you then went on to at least try knocking down your obvious straw man by appealing to a supposed logical principle: You tell me that government-gathered resources are not private and that government-decreed actions are not private, and then, on that basis, you argued that a non-private status automatically neutralized my disagreement. (A non-private status neutralizing my disagreement should be an obviously stupid argument to just about anyone, but I’m beginning to find that you aren’t just “anyone,” ADM.)
Thirdly, you then made your final and most stupid connection. You say that because my disagreement is neutralized by the public nature of democratic government (and perhaps other forms of government?), any reasoning or ethical judgment of policy on my part, behind my disagreement, should then be completely thrown out of the window (to use a colorful phrase). Therefore, you illogically conclude that whatever action I was criticizing (wow, you still don’t even know what I am criticizing yet!), it absolutely could not have been thievery because such judgment on my part is not allowed. (Brilliant!)
Heh. Now, to challenge your supposed principles and completely unconnected logic, I then presented a situation in my previous post that I felt would be a good challenge for your principles. (My federally-funded pillaging force was this very example.) I never once said that the example was in existence anywhere, nor that I was concretely criticizing anything of the sort in terms of reality. Therefore, when you concluded in your most recent post that I was making that particular, logical mistake, you were simply demonstrating more of your illogic, I’m afraid. (It’s okay, we all make mistakes, ADM.)
I hope all of this clarification helps you, ADM. If not, then at least I would hope that I have exposed your foolishness to any other people who might witness this messy conversation you created.
Hmm, perhaps we should make this a formal debate, ADM? Perhaps that way everything could be made clearer for you and thus you wouldn’t get so easily confused? If you know all of the “actual” tools of debate, then a formal, logical debate should be easy for you to engage in. I’d like to see you demonstrate your skill in actually valid ways.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Which morals in particular would you like to discuss?
We've already been discussing them. You were quick to piss on the words of Christ that I quoted earlier.
Ahh, unfortunately, I wasn’t pissing on anything in that response of mine. I was providing arguments against what I believed you were trying to argue. Specifically I was proving that your quotes from the bible were out of context and/or misapplied by you (assuming I was correct in my assumption of what you were trying to imply).
Anyways, I’m sorry you didn’t understand what I was saying in that reply. But, either way, I’m not going to bother clarifying any further at this moment and I’m simply going to say that it is now your impetus to respond to what I said and explain to me why your quotes are still valid.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
For all the morality that gets claimed by the religious right in this country, the very morals Christ tried to impart are frighteningly absent in their politics.
For all the morality that gets claimed by the religious right in this country, the very morals Christ tried to impart are frighteningly absent in their politics.
BLASPHEMER!!! Just kidding. Right on the target. I find it humorous how awful people still act in the name of Christ. I suppose if they were really followers of Christ's teachings, then there would be a lot less massive Church buildings with basketball gyms on every street corner, and a whole lot less starving children in the world. Think what that money could do if it was focused in the right areas. Instead they just throw it back into themselves. Funny stuff. If you read the gospels, Jesus taught selflessness, but I don't see too many Christians being any less selfish than anyone else, and at time more so. Can you really be called a "Christian" if you don't even follow the teachings of Christ? Just a thought.
Also tiptup, ever hear "give to Caesar what is Caesar's"? Stop complaining about paying taxes. It isn't stealing, they have the right. If you live in America you live a very comfortable and secure life. That might not be as common of a situation as you believe it is. You've no right to complain, and the government has a right to piss on that money as much as they like, being as it belongs to them and all. Also the things you said about what if the government started a program to pillage and rape, that is so retarded. I am sure if that happened ADM would happily agree with you that they would be wrong. Don't come up with over the top analogies, it makes you sound like a freak. If you want to give a good name to the conservatives think about things before you say them.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
I suppose if they were really followers of Christ's teachings, then there would be a lot less massive Church buildings with basketball gyms on every street corner, and a whole lot less starving children in the world. Think what that money could do if it was focused in the right areas. Instead they just throw it back into themselves.
To a degree this is true, but, for the moment, the Christian portion of humanity is still the most giving portion on the planet. It isn’t true to say that Christians give to charity just as much as everybody else. That doesn’t match actual the actual data or statistics.
Otherwise, starving children starve in the world because of war and man-made famines more than anything else. There’s only so much that altruistic individuals can do in light of that kind of disaster without spending more than they should. You see, you believe that spending money on yourself is some crime, but then I would have to conclude that you clearly do not understand how an economy works. When people pay money for wisely invested work, our economy grows. If we give too much to charity, then our economy shrinks. If our economy shrinks, we help less people with charity overall.
Then, in terms of church buildings and Christian ethics, there’s nothing wrong with honoring God by making them beautiful. So long as they don’t spend too much money on that sort of thing, then it’s actually a Christian virtue to worship God with beauty. Balancing the needs of people with the creation of art is difficult, and all people screw it up all of the time, but it’s hardly as if one is always evil in light of the other (that would be ridiculous).
And, as for Jesus, he did teach selflessness to be sure, but do you even know what that means, C3PX? In your mind is it simply giving away all of your money until you are bankrupt? Or, must we all emulate Jesus by walking around like poor preachers as he did? Would humanity even be able to eat if we were all full-time preachers?
Yes, money taxed by the government belongs to it, but that doesn’t mean I can’t call it stealing under the correct circumstances. Though perhaps if we analyzed different policies to that degree then your view of government would become too complicated for you. If you prefer broad generalizations and simplistic answers, then you are certainly free to do so.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Also the things you said about what if the government started a program to pillage and rape, that is so retarded. I am sure if that happened ADM would happily agree with you that they would be wrong. Don't come up with over the top analogies, it makes you sound like a freak. If you want to give a good name to the conservatives think about things before you say them.
I suppose if they were really followers of Christ's teachings, then there would be a lot less massive Church buildings with basketball gyms on every street corner, and a whole lot less starving children in the world. Think what that money could do if it was focused in the right areas. Instead they just throw it back into themselves.
To a degree this is true, but, for the moment, the Christian portion of humanity is still the most giving portion on the planet. It isn’t true to say that Christians give to charity just as much as everybody else. That doesn’t match actual the actual data or statistics.
Otherwise, starving children starve in the world because of war and man-made famines more than anything else. There’s only so much that altruistic individuals can do in light of that kind of disaster without spending more than they should. You see, you believe that spending money on yourself is some crime, but then I would have to conclude that you clearly do not understand how an economy works. When people pay money for wisely invested work, our economy grows. If we give too much to charity, then our economy shrinks. If our economy shrinks, we help less people with charity overall.
Then, in terms of church buildings and Christian ethics, there’s nothing wrong with honoring God by making them beautiful. So long as they don’t spend too much money on that sort of thing, then it’s actually a Christian virtue to worship God with beauty. Balancing the needs of people with the creation of art is difficult, and all people screw it up all of the time, but it’s hardly as if one is always evil in light of the other (that would be ridiculous).
And, as for Jesus, he did teach selflessness to be sure, but do you even know what that means, C3PX? In your mind is it simply giving away all of your money until you are bankrupt? Or, must we all emulate Jesus by walking around like poor preachers as he did? Would humanity even be able to eat if we were all full-time preachers?
Originally posted by: C3PX
Also tiptup, ever hear "give to Caesar what is Caesar's"? Stop complaining about paying taxes.
I never once complained about paying taxes. Nor did I say that government does not have the legitimate authority to tax me. Don’t put your stupid words in my mouth, please.
ADM claimed that government should steal money to supposedly help the poor. I simply clarified that fact (in terms of how I see things of course). If you want to disagree with my evaluation that government is stealing under certain circumstances, then I’m perfectly willing to discuss that unless you’re afraid.
Originally posted by: C3PX
It isn't stealing, they have the right. If you live in America you live a very comfortable and secure life. That might not be as common of a situation as you believe it is. You've no right to complain, and the government has a right to piss on that money as much as they like, being as it belongs to them and all.
Also tiptup, ever hear "give to Caesar what is Caesar's"? Stop complaining about paying taxes.
I never once complained about paying taxes. Nor did I say that government does not have the legitimate authority to tax me. Don’t put your stupid words in my mouth, please.
ADM claimed that government should steal money to supposedly help the poor. I simply clarified that fact (in terms of how I see things of course). If you want to disagree with my evaluation that government is stealing under certain circumstances, then I’m perfectly willing to discuss that unless you’re afraid.
Originally posted by: C3PX
It isn't stealing, they have the right. If you live in America you live a very comfortable and secure life. That might not be as common of a situation as you believe it is. You've no right to complain, and the government has a right to piss on that money as much as they like, being as it belongs to them and all.
Yes, money taxed by the government belongs to it, but that doesn’t mean I can’t call it stealing under the correct circumstances. Though perhaps if we analyzed different policies to that degree then your view of government would become too complicated for you. If you prefer broad generalizations and simplistic answers, then you are certainly free to do so.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Also the things you said about what if the government started a program to pillage and rape, that is so retarded. I am sure if that happened ADM would happily agree with you that they would be wrong. Don't come up with over the top analogies, it makes you sound like a freak. If you want to give a good name to the conservatives think about things before you say them.
Who said I was a conservative?
Second, what’s wrong with strong analogies? Thinking about extreme examples is a technique that has helped the greatest thinkers in history simplify the problems they sought to solve. If you want to dismiss such a valuable tool by calling the people who use it “freaks,” then go right ahead.
Heh, the funniest thing about this conversation is that you two geniuses don’t even know why my pillaging force was a valid example. Even though it is admittedly extreme, when compared to government being an engine for certain forms of charity, there are common principles involved. You’re so quick to make unthinking replies that you don’t even stop to consider what it is that I am actually saying. Who knows, I might even bother explaining myself eventually.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
You were quick to piss on the words of Christ that I quoted earlier.
You were quick to piss on the words of Christ that I quoted earlier.
I'm glad ADM isn't a horrible person like me who seeks to aim insulting and baiting comments at other people.
I'm glad ADM isn't someone who purposely seeks out the posts of a person he knows nothing about simply so he can harass them with his misguided interpretations of what they said in other unrelated threads.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
You can put that insult up your ass and light a match. If it blows you to kingdom come, good riddance to bad trash.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
I stand by everything I've ever said to you. You are a vile, venom-filled snake who has no sense of compassion for your fellow man.
You can put that insult up your ass and light a match. If it blows you to kingdom come, good riddance to bad trash.
I stand by everything I've ever said to you. You are a vile, venom-filled snake who has no sense of compassion for your fellow man.
You can put that insult up your ass and light a match. If it blows you to kingdom come, good riddance to bad trash.
Why do I feel like a parent going down the road with ADM and Tiptup in the back seat.
- Time
- Post link
My mother and Luke Skywalker.
<span style=“font-size:14pt;line-height:100%”></span>
http://www.bigbaddaddyvader.com
Original Star Wars Props and Production Material
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
I stand by everything I've ever said to you. You are a vile, venom-filled snake who has no sense of compassion for your fellow man.
You can put that insult up your ass and light a match. If it blows you to kingdom come, good riddance to bad trash.
Hmm, the irony of this conflict is certainly not subtle anymore.
I myself believe that how a man treats the actual people he personally comes into contact with is what determines his supposed "compassion" for others. Along those lines, a man who is charitable with his own wealth is far more virtuous than a man who would pretend to be charitable with wealth that does not belong to him. Perhaps these views make me a "vile, venom-filled snake" but I'm having quite a bit of trouble seeing how.
I don't believe that jumping to conclusions about strangers is ever a good thing. While it is certainly virtuous to stand against that which we understand as wrong (and I truly do commend ADM at this point), it is far more virtuous to first act with humility and treat others with respect until you can be more sure of their faults.
How ADM found it so easy to pass such extreme judgment on my morals in this thread (and the politics thread) is very confusing, I must admit. How he could then go on to whine about how I'm the one who supposedly targeted him for "character assassination" (on this forum) is completely beyond my comprehension however.
Maybe ADM is far more perceptive of bad behavior than I am and perhaps he was perfectly right to harass me from the very start like this, but I am forced to doubt that after the last few months of observing him. As I see things, I'm the kind of person who spends my life asking questions, challenging beliefs, and trying to be passionate (while not taking life too seriously). ADM on the other hand has shown himself to be the kind of person who prefers telling others how things are/should be and then either hates or fears having those statements be questioned. Even now that I know the type of person that ADM is (and I now see why he continually reacts so negatively toward me) I still don't see how the actual origin of my bad relationship with him could be anyone's fault but his. Sure, I've added plenty of wood to this fire myself (hehe), and I certainly don't claim I should be excused for that (as ADM surely would), but when it all comes down to it, I didn't start this, he did.
In the end now, I suppose that I should only feel sorry for ADM. He has a very negative view of the world in general and of the people he has disagreements with. The fact that he clearly doesn't see me as a fellow human being is perfectly illustrated in the way he expresses his paranoia about me:
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Funny how I never talk that way to anybody else, and I defy anybody outside of the NeoCons who hang out in this room and offer virtually nothing else to this community to say this is "in character" for me. Liberals have a reputation for rolling over and taking the punches and until recently I've fought to maintain decorum in this room.
But I will defend my good name against flaming insults about deep character issues. In this room I've been called Communist, Hypocrite, Gay and Pedo by Tiptup. All of which deliberately inflammatory lies attempting character assassination. Now Tiptup admits he himself is into teenage girls. I'll give no quarter to any self-admitting pedo who tries to project his own issues onto me. Consider my tirade a lesson in "you reap what you sow."
I stand by everything I've ever said to you. You are a vile, venom-filled snake who has no sense of compassion for your fellow man.
You can put that insult up your ass and light a match. If it blows you to kingdom come, good riddance to bad trash.
Hmm, the irony of this conflict is certainly not subtle anymore.
I myself believe that how a man treats the actual people he personally comes into contact with is what determines his supposed "compassion" for others. Along those lines, a man who is charitable with his own wealth is far more virtuous than a man who would pretend to be charitable with wealth that does not belong to him. Perhaps these views make me a "vile, venom-filled snake" but I'm having quite a bit of trouble seeing how.
I don't believe that jumping to conclusions about strangers is ever a good thing. While it is certainly virtuous to stand against that which we understand as wrong (and I truly do commend ADM at this point), it is far more virtuous to first act with humility and treat others with respect until you can be more sure of their faults.
How ADM found it so easy to pass such extreme judgment on my morals in this thread (and the politics thread) is very confusing, I must admit. How he could then go on to whine about how I'm the one who supposedly targeted him for "character assassination" (on this forum) is completely beyond my comprehension however.
Maybe ADM is far more perceptive of bad behavior than I am and perhaps he was perfectly right to harass me from the very start like this, but I am forced to doubt that after the last few months of observing him. As I see things, I'm the kind of person who spends my life asking questions, challenging beliefs, and trying to be passionate (while not taking life too seriously). ADM on the other hand has shown himself to be the kind of person who prefers telling others how things are/should be and then either hates or fears having those statements be questioned. Even now that I know the type of person that ADM is (and I now see why he continually reacts so negatively toward me) I still don't see how the actual origin of my bad relationship with him could be anyone's fault but his. Sure, I've added plenty of wood to this fire myself (hehe), and I certainly don't claim I should be excused for that (as ADM surely would), but when it all comes down to it, I didn't start this, he did.
In the end now, I suppose that I should only feel sorry for ADM. He has a very negative view of the world in general and of the people he has disagreements with. The fact that he clearly doesn't see me as a fellow human being is perfectly illustrated in the way he expresses his paranoia about me:
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Funny how I never talk that way to anybody else, and I defy anybody outside of the NeoCons who hang out in this room and offer virtually nothing else to this community to say this is "in character" for me. Liberals have a reputation for rolling over and taking the punches and until recently I've fought to maintain decorum in this room.
But I will defend my good name against flaming insults about deep character issues. In this room I've been called Communist, Hypocrite, Gay and Pedo by Tiptup. All of which deliberately inflammatory lies attempting character assassination. Now Tiptup admits he himself is into teenage girls. I'll give no quarter to any self-admitting pedo who tries to project his own issues onto me. Consider my tirade a lesson in "you reap what you sow."
First, notice how he talks about the "neocons" as if there were some collective conspiracy on this forum that he's been forced to fight (as apposed to the far more accurate view of general people simply sharing their general viewpoints on given issues). Then he talks about how "liberals" have been "taking the punches" as if that dark conspiracy (that all of us "neocons" are involved in) has been successful in persecuting people like himself.
Now, should I take it that he considers me to be some sort of a "fascist" out to purposely silence and suppress supposed "liberals" like himself? (I've always defined myself as a liberal.) This is strange since, as far as I can tell, I've always gone out of my way to emphasize ADM's point of view and to answer his different arguments point for point. Heck, I've always even taken his silliest and most personally-offensive arguments seriously by even giving them their due responses.
I guess just really don't understand what this is all about. I ask him a silly little question as a complete joke about Foley's attraction to teenage boys and suddenly I'm casting "deliberately inflammatory lies" at ADM in an effort to personally destroy him?!! What the hell?
Part of me wants to believe that this is all just a joke and that ADM doesn't seriously believe this nonsense, but I've yet to see any evidence backing that hope up. So, for now, I'm going to avoid him and hope that someday he learns to lighten up and be more optimistic about the world. I honestly hope his life goes well. :\
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link