| |
RageCage
|
I'm kinda tired of arguing over this whole thing but if your going to try to win by superior definition, the oxford is by far the most elite and it agrees with me. Anyway, I think I've made my point and I'm done.
Posted on 2004-06-26 05:35:58
|
ThinIce
|
I refuse to continue this feud until Grue finds his kitty...
Posted on 2004-06-26 08:29:22
|
Alex
|
Quote:Originally posted by loretian
Yeah.... sorry man, I didn't purposely mean to ignore you, it just happens sometimes when I'm focusing on those arguing with me, instead of backing me.
Hey, that's Ok, I figured you didn't see. ;)
Rage: Gah! The Oxford agrees with both of you! Anyway, I'm thinking that maybe "name-calling" being a compound word with it's own dictionary entry could have a slightly different meaning to "name calling" (without the hypen) being two seperate words which obviously and undeniably mean "to call something a name"... Anyway, just a thought.
I also hope Gure finds his kitty soon...
Posted on 2004-06-26 09:04:22
|
RageCage
|
Quote:Originally posted by Alex
Quote:Originally posted by loretian
Rage: Gah! The Oxford agrees with both of you!
I didnt say that it didnt agree with lore, I just said it agreed with me, as opposed to the webster which didnt agree with me.
But I hope grue finds his kitty too!
Posted on 2004-06-26 17:40:27 (last edited on 2004-06-26 19:21:43)
|
loretian
|
Quote:Originally posted by RageCage
I'm kinda tired of arguing over this whole thing but if your going to try to win by superior definition, the oxford is by far the most elite and it agrees with me. Anyway, I think I've made my point and I'm done.
I'm not trying to win by superior definition, I was only bringing it up cause you brought up the dictionary.com thing. I think you've made your point too, and as far as I can tell it's "name-calling isn't name-calling by definition" and "I'm not going to read the rest of Hitchen's article because the first few paragraphs were too harsh for me."
Yippee.
Posted on 2004-06-26 18:09:30
|
Alex
|
Quote:Originally posted by RageCage
I didnt say that it didnt agree with lore, I just said it agreed with me, as opposed to the webster which didnt agree with me.
Oh yeah... sorry, my mistake.
Posted on 2004-06-26 19:15:59
|
RageCage
|
Quote:Originally posted by loretian
Quote:Originally posted by RageCage
I'm kinda tired of arguing over this whole thing but if your going to try to win by superior definition, the oxford is by far the most elite and it agrees with me. Anyway, I think I've made my point and I'm done.
I'm not trying to win by superior definition, I was only bringing it up cause you brought up the dictionary.com thing. I think you've made your point too, and as far as I can tell it's "name-calling isn't name-calling by definition" and "I'm not going to read the rest of Hitchen's article because the first few paragraphs were too harsh for me."
Yippee.
Well my reason for not reading the whole thing is because he refrences the movie too much and I want to see it before I read his lengthy article. But only for the purpose of argument. If I had started reading it on my own, I wouldent have finished because it was too harsh. so yeah =p
Posted on 2004-06-26 19:25:47
|
Troupe
|
Just got back from the film. First, I would like to say that I agreed with Lore a while back. So when you said something to the effect of "does anyone back me up on this?" my answer is yeah, I do back you up. I think name-calling involves calling someone a name. I think Rage is sensationalizing the fact that you dont give a lot of credit to dictionary.com. A dictionary is a dictionary. A website certainly isnt the be-all-end-all of grammatical perfection. Anyway, the entire argument is stupid.
Before I read that article I want to just give my impressions of the film. Then I will go ahead and discuss the article in relation to the film. The first thing I say about the movie is GO SEE IT. It is filled with stuff, and difficult to discuss without seeing it first. Mostly, the movie is just good. Very well presented, very emotional, very powerful. Honestly, if you can see the Iraqi woman talk about the 5 funerals she has had because of all the bombs dropped and still be glad we went to war, you are a fucking idiot. If you can watch that movie and still support the absolutely stupid shit that we have done, you are a fucking idiot. There is NO justification for how many people have died. Maybe all the "connections" between the Taliban and Bush etc. are, well, grabbing at straws. Maybe the whole thing wasn't about oil. To be honest I don't really care. The fact is that a lot of people died for this shit. Its sad. You see some pretty terrible stuff. If there was any way to avoid the stuff you see in the film, it should have been done. If Bush is going into foreign policy with "war on the brain", he's not doing the right thing. You can support war all you want, you can say I have moral issues becuase I don't, but at the end of the day, you are killing people. Saddam Hussein didn't pose a threat to anyone. His people were better off before we came in a bombed the fucking country. The entire thing was manipulative bullshit, and I hate it. I can't imagine that anyone would vote for Bush again. If you do, you had better come up with some damn, damn good reasons.
Now let me read the article.
Posted on 2004-06-27 04:26:53
|
Zip
|
Well said Troupe.
Zip
Posted on 2004-06-27 04:58:06
|
Troupe
|
OK, done. Yes, Moore does make all the points listed. Yes, many of them conflict, or are irrelevant. But, like a typical Conservative hypocrite, he doesn't argue anything he would have trouble with. He doesn't acknowledge ANY of Moore's good points. Honestly, I think its a great idea to read this article after seeing the film, so you can get some perspective. But if you discredit everything Moore has to say you are being entirely blind. I mean honestly, the man constantly insults Moore's indecision (getting dangerously close to real name-calling towards the end), but, so what? That seems to be a favorite conservative tactic. "LOL THAT DOOD CHANGED HIS MIND LOLZ HES SO DUMB". Yeah, at least we change our minds. If you are content with your 2000 year old religious bullshit, so be it. But let us evolve our thought process. The technology we are using to type these messages and make these movies didnt come to us from thinking the same thing for hundreds of years, from living the same lifestyle that was acceptable in 2000 BC. It came to us becuase we change our minds about what was possible, we tried to find new answers, instead of relying on old ones. I am proud of Moore for making these films. I DO find them courageous and inspiring. The messages that don't contradict themselves (Hutchins exagerates many, many times by the way. Moore is often referring to two entirely seperate things when his messages "contradict") are very powerful. There is some amazingly powerful footage. I don't care if the film has some bullshit, the message is clear. A lot of people died that didn't have to.
Posted on 2004-06-27 05:04:53
|
vecna
|
Troupe, you're like cool and stuff, but if you continue to necessarily equate conservatism with being a religious right fuckjob then I will have to hurt you. There are non-religious conservative/libertarian types.
Start by changing your mind about that ;D
The entire concept of grouping everyone into one of two ideological camps is so wrong anyway. Anyway, the republicans that are in power right now, they aren't really conservatives. They're just politicians in washington. Political affiliation doesn't matter.... "both" parties have the same goal, which is only to increase the scope of government.
Personally I'm in the process of emuling bowling for columbine so that I can at least say I've watched one of his movies before I criticize him, without actually accidentally supporting him in the process.
Posted on 2004-06-27 06:16:05
|
Troupe
|
Yeah, I almost put a [/endoffensivestatement] in there. I know that was incredibly extreme, I was just so mad at the damn article, and at hearing the endless stream of bullshit I hear from conservatives. A lot of it is my frustration with people from other boards. Pretty much everyone on the VERGE boards is extremely well spoken as far as politics (if they care to talk about them), so I apologize for making those kind of statements here. They are certainly not directed at anyone of you guys, and I didn't mean to offend you.
I am well aware that there are many non-religious conservatives, but in general, they aren't the kind of assholes that write such articles. Its kind of hard to put into words... Honestly I don't understand where you got the impression where I believe that. I never made any generalization like that, I was mostly referring to Hutchins. Mainly I am just used to an incredibly right-wing asshole to deal with. I'll have to remember that there are none here ;)
Also, about parties. Thats something everyone says quite often. A lot of people also say "I'm not affiliated with either party, becuase of X Y and Z". In all honesty, that is complete bullshit. I can always identify those people as a lefty or a righty. I mean... It fucking goes without saying. You act as though its something people may not realize. Everyone realizes that. I never said "every conservative person does this" or "all liberals do this". When I refer to conservatives or Republicans I'm not talking about everyone, I am talking about the party in general. Of course there is variation among them, that is perfectly normal for any group. But it is impossible to talk about anything relating to politics if you are constantly censoring everything you say to make sure that you don't offend anyone or label someone as something they are not.
In addition, I MADE VECNA TALK ABOUT POLITICS HAHAHAHAHAHAhaha.asdfjkzjxfljc.wef..... ... ...
...
Give us a review of Bowling for Columbine.
Posted on 2004-06-27 08:15:08 (last edited on 2004-06-27 08:15:09)
|
Toen
|
I saw Bowling and I thought it was very interesting, until Moore started trying to ambush people, and he had that little cartoon that equated the NRA with the KKK, and then it was pointed out to me how much splicing and cutting and pasting he did to the Chuck Heston speeches to cast him in a bad light.
For example, allow me to give Troupe an exaggerated BFC treatment:
Quote:Originally posted by Troupe
Yeah, I (edit) am (edit) a (edit) conservative person (edit) and (edit) I (edit) write (edit) endless stream (edit) s (edit) of bullshit
For every edit, I cut to stock footage of something else so that nobody will notice that the clock in the background is spasming.
Posted on 2004-06-27 09:04:00
|
Troupe
|
Quote:Originally posted by Toen
I (edit) started (edit ) the KKK (edit)...
Posted on 2004-06-27 09:14:09
|
Toen
|
Quote:Originally posted by Troupe
Quote:Originally posted by Toen
I (edit) started (edit ) the KKK (edit)...
Well played, my friend.
Posted on 2004-06-27 09:15:05
|
Troupe
|
Quote:Originally posted by Toen
We* (edit) lay (edit) m(edit)en (edit)....
*"We" refers to Toen and a certain influential KKK leader. Toen cements his involvement with the organization in this statement.
Posted on 2004-06-27 09:23:51
|
Toen
|
Quote:Originally posted by Troupe
Quote:Originally posted by Toen
We* (edit) lay (edit) m(edit)en (edit)....
*"We" refers to Toen and a certain influential KKK leader. Toen cements his involvement with the organization in this statement.
This is supported by a quickly shown newspaper clipping about something totally unrelated with the phrase "homosexual love triangle" highlighted
Posted on 2004-06-27 09:25:30
|
Troupe
|
Then hastily edited footage of Toen repeatedly saying the words "homosexual" and "KKK", although the context in which these words were said is entirely ambigious.
Posted on 2004-06-27 09:30:18
|
vecna
|
Quote:Originally posted by Troupe
Also, about parties. Thats something everyone says quite often. A lot of people also say "I'm not affiliated with either party, becuase of X Y and Z". In all honesty, that is complete bullshit. I can always identify those people as a lefty or a righty. I mean... It fucking goes without saying. You act as though its something people may not realize. Everyone realizes that. I never said "every conservative person does this" or "all liberals do this". When I refer to conservatives or Republicans I'm not talking about everyone, I am talking about the party in general. Of course there is variation among them, that is perfectly normal for any group. But it is impossible to talk about anything relating to politics if you are constantly censoring everything you say to make sure that you don't offend anyone or label someone as something they are not.
Well, I basically agree with you that you can generally eyeball someone and throw them in as either a righty or a lefty. But the question I would ask is, what do you really gain by doing that? What issues can you then assume that I follow x stance on? You might assume that I'm pro-life, or anti gay marriage. You might presume that I care about like prayer in schools or In God We Trust or think pornography is bad (hah!). You might think I believe we need to crack down hard on drugs, etc, etc. You might think I'm going to vote for Bush in the coming election. You'd be wrong in all of the above cases (but I sure as shit aint voting for Kerry either).
But I'm still a conservative. I believe the government should be MUCH smaller, something that almost no liberals tend to agree with. I believe in individual liberties and that 90% of victimless crimes should be decriminalized. I'm an old-school capitalist, but most of the evils that liberals tend to associate with capitalism are not really the result of capitalism at all, they're the result of the governments unwillingness or inability to enforce the rules - capitalism still recognizes that fraud is fraud - and in fact due to much pandering and encouraging of exactly several anticompetitive practices by the government. Capitalism isn't anarchy, and capitalism isn't the government being on the side of the corporation, which is what we have now. But it's also not excessive regulation and selective tax persecution.
I could go on about my particular views, but the point that I am trying to make is that I can define someone else that would also be considered a 'righty' that would have almost completely opposite views than I do. Someone thats happy with big government, that thinks we should do more of this faith-based shit, that thinks video games are violent influences and unchristian influences, pro-life, doesnt think alcohol should be sold on sunday... They would also be considered conservative. The range of views represented in these two labels are so broad that they are almost completely meaningless. Moreover, the actual effective differences between the two political parties are almost nonexistant.
There is an episode of Babylon 5 where Ivanova has to settle a dispute between "Green Drazi" and "Purple Drazi". When she asked what the nature of their conflict was, the proceed to explain that every x number of years, all the Drazi would put green and purple sashes into a big box or whatever and mix them up, and then you would go in and draw one out, and that's what decided whether you were green drazi or purple drazi. Then the two sides would fight and kill each other until one side surrendered, and the side that won would lead until next time the cycle started again. It was obviously a pretty allegorical episode, including a moment where, just to see what happens, she steals the sashes from a green and purple drazi and switches them, and the people who where their comrades moments ago proceed to beat the crap out of them. "Ok, I understand that there's some tensions between the two sides, but what are the issues that are in dispute? What is the conflict about?" ".... Green." "Purple!!"
Thats pretty much the extent of the rediculousness. Because the terminologies have very little ideological meaning, the only purpose they serve is to be adversarial.
Obviously, the number of things that people can have views about is far too great to be able to have a meaningful converation without applying some labels. But two is just too few. The world is not, as they say, black and white. Moreover, as long as there are only two viable political parties, and we are always a 51/49 nation, there will never be much difference in the two parties at all, because neither can afford to move very far from the 'center', or the status quo, and risk losing even 1%, because thats the difference between victory and defeat. There are other systems, and they work fairly well for a number of other nations.
Bowling hasnt finished downloading yet, but I am getting 130k/s down from emule! :o
Posted on 2004-06-27 16:25:10 (last edited on 2004-06-27 16:27:23)
|
Troupe
|
Well said. I guess I can say that I am not used to dealing with intellegent conservatives. I am used to dealing with, essentially, "you are a brainwashed liberal. I vote for Bush because he cares about nothing but defense. You have moral issues because you are not religious. I want to kill all terrorists because they are souless." I guess I never really saw how much variation there is in the group until you and Lore. Both of you are infintely more reasonable than most people. I still don't really see how you can avoid seperating people into groups. Thats something a lot of people bring up quite often (we would be better off without parties for such and such reasons), but I don't see how that would make a difference really. It is impossible not to make generalizations.
I want to finish this but I haven't looked at this page in an hour or something and have totally lost my momentum (what little of it I had). In general, I see your point, I just don't exactly agree.
Posted on 2004-06-27 23:42:52
|
|
|
