Part of Society? - For Akzle

[007XX]

Careful, we wouldn't want you to choke on that stuff before Akzle has finished.

I got practice, but thanks ever so much for you worrying about my welfare. Been on here long enough to know when a thread has gone past its point of interest by means of mindless arguments instead of constructive debating.

You might. You don't even know her after all.

You want me to choke? Please explain...

you must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Genestho again.

You're better than me. I gave up this thread days ago.

Same here. I'm loving sitting back and watching young Genestho carry out her very well worded battle cry. Tis a thing of beauty.

But that's the point you explain what you mean Mashedpotatoman just sounds like a troll.

Yes, yes... Do eeeettt!!

[Drew]

You want me to choke? Please explain.!

Not in the slightest. But I'm not him.What if you hit it off big time, you leave hubby to have Akzel bounce his nads on your chin every day. But one day you get too toothy and he starts to hate you. In this scenario, he might hope you choke...Just sayin.

[skippa1]

mindless arguments instead of constructive debating

most threads at some stage deteriorate to mindless argument. We need more constructive mass debating as a group sort of like a mutual group satisfaction to signify the end of a thread.....or are we already there?

[Banditbandit]

most threads at some stage deteriorate to mindless argument. We need more constructive mass debating as a group sort of like a mutual group satisfaction to signify the end of a thread.....or are we already there?

We're there already ... been there for a couple of days

[007XX]

Not in the slightest. But I'm not him.What if you hit it off big time, you leave hubby to have Akzel bounce his nads on your chin every day. But one day you get too toothy and he starts to hate you. In this scenario, he might hope you choke...Just sayin.

See, I'm sure this type of scenario actually plays out in the lives of a lot of people. In fact, I can see it happening all around me pretty much on a daily basis. Each to their own.

But it doesn't happen in my world. You don't just " hit it off" and leave. Once you make that commitment to the right person, you fucking stay there and keep your promises.

The hate and chocking part, that was my first marriage. I was 19 and I learned a lot.

Don't presume to project on what my life might be when you have no idea about my moral ethos. Just sayin.

most threads at some stage deteriorate to mindless argument. We need more constructive mass debating as a group sort of like a mutual group satisfaction to signify the end of a thread.....or are we already there?

Maybe we need to bring in a hand signal, like the one in Team America...

[Banditbandit]

Maybe we need to bring in a hand signal, like the one in Team America...

Yes . this one .. It's the KB mass debate sign ...

(excuse the pun)

[BoristheBiter]

See, I'm sure this type of scenario actually plays out in the lives of a lot of people. In fact, I can see it happening all around me pretty much on a daily basis. Each to their own.

But it doesn't happen in my world. You don't just " hit it off" and leave. Once you make that commitment to the right person, you fucking stay there and keep your promises.

The hate and chocking part, that was my first marriage. I was 19 and I learned a lot.

Don't presume to project on what my life might be when you have no idea about my moral ethos. Just sayin.



Maybe we need to bring in a hand signal, like the one in Team America...

How about this?

[skippa1]

Yes . this one .. It's the KB mass debate sign ...

(excuse the pun)

hey....I claim rights to the pun first maybe we could mutually mass debate the claim of exclusivity..........on second thoughts, that would be gay

[mashman]

Nice. Thanks for formatting that so I can read it.

If I had have know that all it would take is a bullet point list to get my "position" across, I would have added more examples.

So, somewhere back there, we had you calling people as a whole, Sheeple.

That is a term that absolutely grates me.

I feel it makes us sound as if we weren't a collection of different beings and that's not true, so I lobbed back that clearly, you hadn't interacted with all types of society.

I see no reason for me to change that position. The fact that it irks you some is a bonus, but I guess that's the point of using the term. Take this discussion fr'instance. I'm not a member of your society in the green corner. Yes you are whether you like it or not in the blue corner. The blue corner herding to defend their position because it is the most commonly and socially accepted version of the argument. Baaaaaaaa I say to them. I get what he's talking about, mostly. Hopefully you'll read that as, attaining Sheepleness is contextual.

I maintained to you, that human nature is the barrier to your utopia; that you can't pre-package people.

That we have always been this way, we may have been the other way for a few minutes in the scale of time, that we have evolved but, essentially we stay the same, you maintain that human nature is a collection of individuals, do you see where that ended up, where we agreed?

As I said earlier, people can remain exactly the same, they don't need to change, they don't need to be pre-packaged (advertising and marketing would probably beg to differ with you). A change in "human nature" is not required for "my" utopia, so it's not barrier. Sure there will be a percentage that will say no, just as I'm here saying no to your "utopia". Take the money away and another facet of "human nature" will prevail.

I maintain that human nature (disagreed) doesn't truly exist because we are individuals (agreed) and we all make choices that defy our individual "human nature". Given the situation of meeting imdying: He has decided that given a certain set of circumstances he'll be worried that I'll kill him for his blanky and may well kill me before thinking about the positives that could come from our union. Given that situation I will make a different choice to him given the circumstances. Akzle will make a different choice based on his perception, 007 will troll the fuck out of him and end up on her knees one way or another, Drew will be too busy wondering which order the following will occur, kill him first, get laid or eat him. Human nature is situational. Having said that, all of us will have made a different decision, yet tomorrow I could be taking Drews position, you could take Akzle's, Drew could be watching imdying and 007 swap places. As we react differently to different situations on different days in different circumstances, but with the same fundamental choice, it would highlight to me that somewhere along the lines we'd be going against our human nature. With that in mind, what's your definition of human nature? "You can't pre-package people" and "human nature" seem to contradict each other.

Now, something happened the other night where you either popped a vein or you had a wee drinky drinky, or whatever.
I just couldn't read the wall of un formatted text. I felt sorry for you, because I could tell there may have been some enlightening, but I couldn't participate, too much hard work.

The following is a pre-prepared post from the other night, before I gave up:

You question the human nature "argument" I did call it an argument, I'll apologise and re-name it an "intelligent debate" with dips and peaks.
Riddle me this and these are just off the top of my head and Wikipedia...

...snipped list of questions and reasons...

I find it amusing that walls of text on a forum are frowned upon, where just about every paper, book, article etc... have walls of text explaining a "position". Granted my command of language is poor and my linking of subject matter may hop, skip and jump after a full stop and I'll do my damndest to address that, but I wouldn't hold your breath... so you can keep your pity woman. You need it more than I, baaaaaa. There's no pre-requisite for people to read it and I'll happily try to clarify where I can.

In answer to your questions: every reason you have highlighted and many many many more can be attributed as to why a person does anything. I guess that's why we have a judicial system so that we can decipher why, look up the appropriate categorisation and apply the punishment.

...snipped disorder n datorder...

Luckily there's the rest of society, I'm not going to bother defining normal, there is no normal, only a scale of normality!

Whatever you do, you can't ever balance equality. NONE of the above examples have to do with money, it's human nature, we evolve, but we stay the same.

Strangely enough, I had my listener mag open at an article I hadn't read yet when I logged off here last night.

No where near as in depth, but same view.

People huh?

I've met a few people who have been diagnosed with some of those disorders and by using those definitions I'm sure some psychoanalyst would label me with about half of them, wrongly imho, but they are the expert and I wouldn't get a lookin because that would be denial.

Heh, normal. There must be a definition for normal if you have a definition for OCD etc...

Most of the above are also done because of money (you can read it in the papers every day). Granted not all but: Bully to make money in the playground (office, marketplace), frustrations of a "poor" household leading to violence, financially based crimes leading to violence (few threads on here about that), teenagers selling the clothes they nick, rape through forced prostitution etc... We'd have a much better chance of evolving if we could get rid of value and the associated financial system. We all change and seldom stay the same, circumstance forces us to do this... why not remove the most obvious mechanism for "crime" and inequality if the result takes you back to that moment in time you spoke of earlier? (but with technology and a better understanding of how to do things under yer belt?). Human nature does not explain why this does not happen. If you break your arm do you leave it? If you lose your credit card, do you contact the bank? If people are dying etc... why would you let it happen if you can print the very thing that can save them?

Never heard of the listener mag.

Aye, we're a complicated bunch of scamps.

But that's the point you explain what you mean Mashedpotatoman just sounds like a troll.

I want to be Akzle so bad right now

I got practice, but thanks ever so much for you worrying about my welfare. Been on here long enough to know when a thread has gone past its point of interest by means of mindless arguments instead of constructive debating.

Sword swallower? You're welcome... I'd miss the avatar. Don't let the door smack you on yer way oot... safety first.

[Banditbandit]

hey....I claim rights to the pun first maybe we could mutually mass debate the claim of exclusivity..........on second thoughts, that would be gay

Yes ... it's yours all right ... I suppose I should have asked to be excused for repeating it ... and I won't stop you being gay - just don't expect me to join in ..

[skippa1]

Yes ... it's yours all right ... I suppose I should have asked to be excused for repeating it ... and I won't stop you being gay - just don't expect me to join in ..

its only gay if you push back you know

[Banditbandit]

its only gay if you push back you know

[007XX]

Blah blah blah... Waxing on waxing off...just plain waxing really.

You do love the sound of your own voice, don't you?

Please do keep fascinating us with your almighty word on what is, Oh Mushman!

[mashman]

You do love the sound of your own voice, don't you?

Please do keep fascinating us with your almighty word on what is, Oh Mushman!

Hell yeah.

Ok then.

[schrodingers cat]

Thing I have learnt on the te interwebz forums...

1. People have different points of view

2. Some people do not want to ever question their point of view

2a. The people in point 2 seem to have a lot of time on their hands

2b. The people in point 2 seem reluctant to accept point 1

3. Logic is powerless in the face of obduracy