Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:After all that dodging the question still begs an answer.

The answer is you are a bigoted twat.

In the voice of the great Rod Serling, a man:

The frequency shifts to shrill indicating an overtaxed engine caused by an offense somewhere within the blockhead, Charlie Brown. When this happens, here’s how it works. Rather than trying to club others into a state of mindfulness in which they achieve the impossible feat of never offending anyone, a higher return for finite rebalancing energy is to venture into the unknown. Exit off the Retribution Freeway and motor along some surface roads visible from above. Their destination has always been a mystery, as this neighborhood is foreign. Careful, for here in the unknown delta, where tributaries in their downward flow of time drain, the dead ends go unmarked because mandated funds from lottery proceeds went for pensions and not maintenance. Scraps of rumors have collected in memory, a comment here or there, overheard words from other conversations not clearly heard. The sun is going down and you’re looking for a street sign that says, No Retaliation. You’ve heard that along this quiet lane is a door marked equanimity, where the grinding of gears in the overtaxed engine of progress can find peace in the stillness of perpetual motion.

Your next stop, The Twilight Zone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The answer is you are a bigoted twat.

Oh, he's a 'twat' and I'm an 'old hag'. How very misogynistic of you, you sexist ageist woman-hating buffoon.

Make up your mind. Either I'm a SJW or any other box you want to put me in.

Irony and Americans. Like oil and water.

Although often associated with the fair and fragile sex, impetus to dampen guffaw might be congenital in either sex. If it appears, it’s only when two or more are gathered.

Placing this tendency in relation to characteristics of man’s man, neti neti.

Walker wrote:Although often associated with the fair and fragile sex, impetus to dampen guffaw might be congenital in either sex. If it appears, it’s only when two or more are gathered.

Placing this tendency in relation to characteristics of man’s man, neti neti.

The problem with your way of thinking is, even you know it's wrong on a fundamental level.

You would hate to know the truth, that your hero, Trump, feels the same way about you, as you feel about women.

Unless you can do something for him, he could give a rats ass about you. You are no more to him than another pussy to grab.

And this is where your philosophy breaks down. Because you see yourself as someone who matters...maybe more than another...but your party sees you as nothing more than you see a woman.

artisticsolution wrote:

Walker wrote:Although often associated with the fair and fragile sex, impetus to dampen guffaw might be congenital in either sex. If it appears, it’s only when two or more are gathered.

Placing this tendency in relation to characteristics of man’s man, neti neti.

The problem with your way of thinking is, even you know it's wrong on a fundamental level.

You would hate to know the truth, that your hero, Trump, feels the same way about you, as you feel about women.

Unless you can do something for him, he could give a rats ass about you. You are no more to him than another pussy to grab.

And this is where your philosophy breaks down. Because you see yourself as someone who matters...maybe more than another...but your party sees you as nothing more than you see a woman.

You take projection to a whole new level of irrelevancy and make it look effortless.

So, you’re saying that women only want to be considered fair and fragile when it’s to their advantage?

*

I predict you will love this song about Donald, if you just listen.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1133&p=304267#p304267

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Irony and Americans. Like oil and water.

Ironists are sophomoric.

They’re the sophomores of life.

Reactionary, not creative.

The question is, is philosophy purely reactionary?

Walker wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:

Walker wrote:Although often associated with the fair and fragile sex, impetus to dampen guffaw might be congenital in either sex. If it appears, it’s only when two or more are gathered.

Placing this tendency in relation to characteristics of man’s man, neti neti.

The problem with your way of thinking is, even you know it's wrong on a fundamental level.

You would hate to know the truth, that your hero, Trump, feels the same way about you, as you feel about women.

Unless you can do something for him, he could give a rats ass about you. You are no more to him than another pussy to grab.

And this is where your philosophy breaks down. Because you see yourself as someone who matters...maybe more than another...but your party sees you as nothing more than you see a woman.

You take projection to a whole new level of irrelevancy and make it look effortless.

So, you’re saying that women only want to be considered fair and fragile when it’s to their advantage?

*

I predict you will love this song about Donald, if you just listen.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1133&p=304267#p304267

Keep being dishonest and digging your own hole.

artisticsolution wrote:Keep being dishonest and digging your own hole.

No dishonesty on this side of the table and strange because, what would be the point? I offer sweet music and do my ears hear bile returned? It is barely enough to gasp, that's right, gasp.

Remember, you identify as a good person, and good is an action verb made real by seeing and saying the good, which does not exclude truth. Life should not go to pettiness.

The vague fog of accusation based on belief is too commonplace for effect, but it does say a lot about the need to choose what one must, which sadly can make need sound like the promise of a perpetual bicker pawned off as philosophy. Now is the time to put an end to that rumour.

All things considered, do you actually think that someone as nice as this ... or not ... can actually choose to be that way?

I say, no. To surrender to rationality that begins with observation naturally results in kindness that naturally overrides beliefs, beliefs that may conflict with the reality of conditions. Emergency personnel and others know this, and thus remain detached, because conditions are temporal and this is learned in the course of life.

All I am hearing is your rationale for the need to be evil, Walker.

Tell you what. According to the record, the only time you have written anything positive on this forum, is when you have written about yourself. So, now’s your chance. You have the floor to actually be a good girl, and not just mouth the words. Take all the time you need, no rush. And if in reality this is something that cannot be, well that’s life, that’s what all the people say …

In truth, I’ve been sucking up the oxygen and cramping your style. Reduced to phrases and insults, soon you may be grunting, ha ha. Relax, post, enjoy unfettered. I’ll STFU, leave the oxygen to the self-identified philosophers.

Here is evil from the usual suspects. Progressives. And you know what? Nothing will come of it. (Too boring, sex is what sells).

“Essentially, Obama’s White House took away affordable housing for the middle class to give them Obamacare. The $260 billion diverted to the U.S. Treasury under the “Net Worth Swap” to fund Obamacare is perhaps the largest theft in U.S. financial history of stock dividend payments from private investors – the legal and rightful recipients of those dividend payments.”

- http://conservativeintel.com/2017/03/15 ... d-freddie/

Walker wrote:
So, you’re saying that women only want to be considered fair and fragile when it’s to their advantage?

OMG. You can't say that!

Walker wrote:Tell you what. According to the record, the only time you have written anything positive on this forum, is when you have written about yourself. So, now’s your chance. You have the floor to actually be a good girl, and not just mouth the words. Take all the time you need, no rush. And if in reality this is something that cannot be, well that’s life, that’s what all the people say …

In truth, I’ve been sucking up the oxygen and cramping your style. Reduced to phrases and insults, soon you may be grunting, ha ha. Relax, post, enjoy unfettered. I’ll STFU, leave the oxygen to the self-identified philosophers.

Here is evil from the usual suspects. Progressives. And you know what? Nothing will come of it. (Too boring, sex is what sells).

“Essentially, Obama’s White House took away affordable housing for the middle class to give them Obamacare. The $260 billion diverted to the U.S. Treasury under the “Net Worth Swap” to fund Obamacare is perhaps the largest theft in U.S. financial history of stock dividend payments from private investors – the legal and rightful recipients of those dividend payments.”

- http://conservativeintel.com/2017/03/15 ... d-freddie/

You are not being realistic. Let's look at motive, for a moment. The major "motive" in Obama's presidency was always based on helping the majority of people. The major "motive" of the Republican party is "money". Both parties will never get everything right all of the time. But had Republicans help write Obamacare they could have taken part in something that will be inevitable in the future. And what's more, I think it could have worked. But Republicans don't think of people first. They are willing to watch people die in the streets if it means they might have to cough up a buck. Nevermind, social security helps millions. Nevermind cooperating to bring cost down. Nevermind finding solutions.

You want the real truth? No Healthcare policy, Republican or Democrat is going to work until you make healthcare non profit. Capitalism and medical care don't mix. Because capitalism and "care" are oxymoron.

You can't get Healthcare to work ifor they can do things like sell one pill for thousands that cost pennies to make. It just won't happen. Please stop kidding yourself.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Walker wrote:
So, you’re saying that women only want to be considered fair and fragile when it’s to their advantage?

OMG. You can't say that!

WHAT? Not PC enough for you. LOL.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Walker wrote:
So, you’re saying that women only want to be considered fair and fragile when it’s to their advantage?

OMG. You can't say that!

WHAT? Not PC enough for you. LOL.

Oil and water.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: OMG. You can't say that!

WHAT? Not PC enough for you. LOL.

Oil and water.

Is that the best a girl can do?