Display posts from previous
Sort by

Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair

144 by thunderingbackside_Archive
big_dave, I wouldn't even give chowduh a second thought considering a majority of his ramblings involve one of the following subjects:
Rick Reuben/clocker bob/stoned guy who sees shit in money wrote:
    JFK was the victim of a scanner and not a bullet.

    The CIA killed Bambi.

    Ice cream headaches are how the government reads our minds.

    So the astronaut says he drives a Saturn" and the pimp says he drives a cheap Escort and the proctologist says he drives a brown Probe.


In essence, dude's a fucking moron.

Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair

145 by numberthirty_Archive
big_dave wrote:
jlamour wrote:I'm saying human life itself depends on property rights.


Ouch.


I actually think you may be confused. The way I heard it, human life actually depends on these extra organs women have that are geared towards growing the babies of the species to the point where they can make a daring escape from said organs and begin to grow into people.

I'm pretty sure human life could get by without property rights. However, I'm pretty sure we'd all be fresh outta luck without those extra people growing organs.

Also, wasn't there human life before humans could actually grasp the concept of the right to personal property? Just a thought.

Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair

146 by skinny honkie_Archive
numberthirty wrote:
I actually think you may be confused. The way I heard it, human life actually depends on these extra organs women have that are geared towards growing the babies of the species to the point where they can make a daring escape from said organs and begin to grow into people.

I'm pretty sure human life could get by without property rights. However, I'm pretty sure we'd all be fresh outta luck without those extra people growing organs.

Also, wasn't there human life before humans could actually grasp the concept of the right to personal property? Just a thought.


^ Hmmm, you might have something there, numberthirty. Call me an idiot, but I too recall something to the effect that there are a few specific necessities required to sustain human life:
- Air
- Water
- Shelter
- Food

These look environmental to me. And looking at this list, I can't see "property rights". Maybe it's in the fine print with "cool shoes".

Obviously, a few things are anathema to human life:
- Ebola
- Licking Curare Frogs
- Environmentalists wanting a more responsible use of non-renewable resources

I may be wrong.

Jlamour, you've been admirably restrained in the face of personal insults, and I respect you for that, and also, you've used words with more than ten letters, so you're clearly smart enough to use a search engine. But some of the things you have communicated using language has made me think that you are hiding behind internet facelessness to deliver massless semantics in an attempt to convey a knee-jerk misconception of environmentalists without risking anything of personal substance, at least in my metareality. I'm not going to engage you in a pointless to-and-fro of long words and -isms, you'd win, like the porcupine fish that chokes the great white shark endangered by ecological upheaval driven by man-made climate change that eats it. I'd like to see some decent references in your posts if you're gonna ivory-tower it up, you're mimicing an academic poorly without a good bibliography to accompany your wisdom. More links dammit! Might I recommend http://scholar.google.com/ as a good starting point? I'd really like it if you could send me that link where it shows that property rights are a greater necessity to human life than the environment. Look foward to that one!

So I'm torn between pointing and laughing at you for being relatively ignorant of ecological mechanics whilst playing forum professor of sociology and semiotics on the internets to attack environmentalists, and being actively revolted by the attitude you reflect. You disgust me. I honestly feel that your expressed belief borders on malicious ignorance. Still, maybe I've mis-read one of your posts, please correct me if you didn't say that "property rights", in the vernacular sense, are of greater significance than the environment in long-term human survival. But lets not forget that you make me laugh, so there's a positive.

Here http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11088-blame-for-global-warming-placed-firmly-on-humankind.html you'll find some info you probably won't give a shit to read because it conflicts with your worldview, but if you do you'll find the first part of a report compiled for the UN by hundreds of environmental scientists, in 113 different countries, peer reviewed by hundreds of other environmental scientists, stating unequivocably, that "Jlamour's a troll". Of course, given that they worked together, they might be some form of "collective", or exhibiting some other form of treacherous selflessness.

They may be wrong. You'll put them right tho, eh? Go and post on their forum.

Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair

147 by simmo_Archive
skinny honkie wrote:Jlamour, I'm torn between pointing and laughing at you for being relatively ignorant of ecological mechanics whilst playing forum professor of sociology and semiotics on the internets to attack environmentalists, and being actively revolted by the attitude you reflect.


I agree 100% with this


o_d_m wrote:Sweet Fucking Christ

In the name of philosophy can we all agree to stop saying stuff is "Kantian"

or insert philosophers name here-ian for that mater.

Sorry, I just heard those statements everyday of my undergraduate career.

The only thing that would have been better is if you found a way to tie the Matrix into it somehow.

I think its all poon-washian personally


I lend my support 100% to this post

jlamour wrote:I'm saying human life itself depends on property rights.


This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You're a philosophy major? No fucking way. I would wager both my balls that if you said that to any philosophy professor on the planet, they would laugh at you so hard that you'd have no choice put to turn and walk out the door of their office blubbing like a big old baby.
Rick Reuben wrote:
daniel robert chapman wrote:I think he's gone to bed, Rick.
He went to bed about a decade ago, or whenever he sold his soul to the bankers and the elites.


Image

Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair

148 by jlamour_Archive
simmo wrote:
jlamour wrote:I'm saying human life itself depends on property rights.


This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You're a philosophy major? No fucking way. I would wager both my balls that if you said that to any philosophy professor on the planet, they would laugh at you so hard that you'd have no choice put to turn and walk out the door of their office blubbing like a big old baby.
I never said I was a philosophy major and I guarantee a lot of philosophy professors would agree with this statement. Rights concern the scope of action a human can perform and property rights, besides the ownership of material, also concern the ability to use these materials for our benefit. Ultimately, without property rights and if the environmentalists had their way, you'd be digging at the soil with your bare hands trying to plant your crops. Let's see you live that way. Now come up with a rebuttal that actually refutes my argument and doesn't just call it stupid, genius.

Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair

149 by o_d_m_Archive
I was a philosophy major in college. (why lord why?)

I can pretty much assure you that nobody in my department would cotton a statement such as "Human life depends on property rights." This is just one department though. One of countless departments.

I did have one professor who was wary of communitarian philosophies, but was still a long way from accepting the paramount importance of property rights.

I must admit I went through a brief phase of at least understanding where libertarian philosophers like John Rawls were coming from.

So in the spirit of goodwill, let me recommend a book for you jlamour, if you don't already have it.

[url]http://www.amazon.com/Liberals-Communitarians-Stephen-Mulhall/dp/0631198199/ref=sr_1_1/002-0756016-7335251?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186670152&sr=8-1
[/url]

It is a nice overview of the issues we've been talking about and contains thoughtful and reasoned arguments from both sides of the debate.

Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair

150 by simmo_Archive
jlamour wrote:
simmo wrote:
jlamour wrote:I'm saying human life itself depends on property rights.


This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You're a philosophy major? No fucking way. I would wager both my balls that if you said that to any philosophy professor on the planet, they would laugh at you so hard that you'd have no choice put to turn and walk out the door of their office blubbing like a big old baby.
I never said I was a philosophy major and I guarantee a lot of philosophy professors would agree with this statement. Rights concern the scope of action a human can perform and property rights, besides the ownership of material, also concern the ability to use these materials for our benefit. Ultimately, without property rights and if the environmentalists had their way, you'd be digging at the soil with your bare hands trying to plant your crops. Let's see you live that way. Now come up with a rebuttal that actually refutes my argument and doesn't just call it stupid, genius.

Ok. I'm very, very far from being a genius, but one doesn't have to be to refute this kind of nonsense.

jlamour wrote:Rights concern the scope of action a human can perform


That's a very crude way of stating it, but rather than pick hairs I'll go with you on that one.

jlamour wrote:Property rights, besides the ownership of material, also concern the ability to use these materials for our benefit.


As above.

jlamour wrote:Ultimately, without property rights and if the environmentalists had their way, you'd be digging at the soil with your bare hands trying to plant your crops.


Cue hyperleap from reasonable argument to pure kneejerk reaction.

You had an argument that you could fairly argue, something along the lines of:

"property rights have to exist in order for any kind of industry or economy to exist."

This is a sensible enough statement - I'm not sure it's necessarily true, but I reckon you could certainly argue your corner with that as the basis, and many a philosophy professor might agree with you, yes.

But what is this assertion that environmentalists want me to be "digging at the soil with my bare hands" ? Where does this idea come from? I feel like an idiot stating the so staringly obvious, but this is not what any environmentalist I have ever spoken to, read the works of, seen on television or even had a goddamn drink in a bar with wants. They simply want the preservation of the natural environment to be a priority for individuals, politicians and industrialists. They very probably would like to see restrictions placed on carbon emissions by factories, transport, etc; they may well wish to outlaw certain areas of industry altogether due to their negative impact on the environment outweighing any potential good they might offer humankind; they may even come up with such offensive suggestions as yes, it might be a good idea to get down on your hands and knees and plant some seeds in your back garden, grow some potatoes yourself, why not. I have never once come accross an environmentalist calling for the total destruction of industry, the economy, or property rights. I would dismiss anyone advocating such a course of action as a crank. I would laugh at them like I laugh at you. Have they too not heard of sustainable forests? Renewable energy? Ethical consumerism? Ethical capitalism? Such tricky concepts for one so keen not to give a fuck about anything other than the individual as yourself, admittedly. I mean, fuck compassion. Fuck it right in the ass.

Moreover, your original, quite ridiculous statement was:

jlamour wrote:I'm saying human life itself depends on property rights.


Which is plainly and simply nonsense. You are suggesting that property rights are a necessary condition for human life. They are not. Human life existed before property rights, therefore property rights are not a necessary condition of human life. Real tough philosophical cookie, that one.

My guess is that you didn't mean to say what you actually said at all. And, I don't know, perhaps you might be lucky enough to come across a particularly kindly Philosophy professor, one who might be patient enough to say to you "I don't understand how that can be true, Jlamour. Is that really what you mean to say? Or do you mean to say something else?" But they'd probably already be sick of you spouting off the dismally constructed non-arguments you're so fond of, and just tell you to fuck off instead.

So yes, your statement is stupid - what it says is remarkably stupid. If it's not what you meant to say, maybe you should think before opening that humanitarian mouth of yours.
Rick Reuben wrote:
daniel robert chapman wrote:I think he's gone to bed, Rick.
He went to bed about a decade ago, or whenever he sold his soul to the bankers and the elites.


Image
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests