Philosophy Now Forum

ForCruxSake wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Harbal is a high achiever, is a contradiction in terms.

Makes you wonder why he spends so much time trolling here

What makes you think I'm a he?

thedoc wrote:No one else has the guts to answer my posts, everyone else is ready to accuse me of following them around.

That's not true. There are time constraints. I'm deeply ashamed to admit I get lost arguing with idiots instead of discussing with those who think with enquiry, instead of agression. I silently follow the better threads, knowing that trolls can kill a thread, so avoid posting unless I have something that really adds.

I feel a bit of a rock star to have engendered the stalking of two trolls. Better earn this status' keep. But where's the time?

There you go, doc. I'm listening...

ForCruxSake wrote: I feel a bit of a rock star

I would have said more like Doris Day.

Harbal wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: I feel a bit of a rock star

I would have said more like Doris Day.

At least it admits it has lost. I see a beautiful love affair blossoming between Fux and TDus. They are both equally dishonest and delusional.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: I feel a bit of a rock star

I would have said more like Doris Day.

At least it admits it has lost. I see a beautiful love affair blossoming between it and TDus.

'It' being Harbal??! Has lost what??! Doris Day???

How you determine any meaning from what others say, is beyond me? You assume so much. You speak as if you are right. Clearly the love child of Immanual Can and Bobevenson, without the conscience of religion. You seem to pull everything out of the rectum connected to your brain without trying to understand to what others are actually trying to say.

Everything is a fight to you. Discussion is about winning or losing. It's not about understanding and giving ground to what seems right. You have the mind of a child whose playground activities amount to little more than winning and losing, But even for children, the opponent must be worthy. You fail to see there is no win when engaging with a loser like you.

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote: I would have said more like Doris Day.

At least it admits it has lost. I see a beautiful love affair blossoming between it and TDus.

'It' being Harbal??! Has lost what??! Doris Day???

How you determine any meaning from what others say, is beyond me? You assume so much. You speak as if you are right. Clearly the love child of Immanual Can and Bobevenson, without the conscience of religion. You seem to pull everything out of the rectum connected to your brain without trying to understand to what others are actually trying to say.

Everything is a fight to you. Discussion is about winning or losing. It's not about understanding and giving ground to what seems right. You have the mind of a child whose playground activities amount to little more than winning and losing, But even for children, the opponent must be worthy. You fail to see there is no win when engaging with a loser like you.

I so love irony.

ForCruxSake wrote: You seem to pull everything out of the rectum connected to your brain without trying to understand to what others are actually trying to say.

If this is an example of what others are trying to say you can hardly blame anyone for not wasting their time trying to understand it.

Everything is a fight to you. Discussion is about winning or losing. It's not about understanding and giving ground to what seems right. You have the mind of a child whose playground activities amount to little more than winning and losing, But even for children, the opponent must be worthy. You fail to see there is no win when engaging with a loser like you.

Are you sure you're not a mediocre school teacher? This is awfully like the tedious drivel I used to get lectured with at school.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: At least it admits it has lost. I see a beautiful love affair blossoming between it and TDus.

'It' being Harbal??! Has lost what??! Doris Day???

How you determine any meaning from what others say, is beyond me? You assume so much. You speak as if you are right. Clearly the love child of Immanual Can and Bobevenson, without the conscience of religion. You seem to pull everything out of the rectum connected to your brain without trying to understand to what others are actually trying to say.

Everything is a fight to you. Discussion is about winning or losing. It's not about understanding and giving ground to what seems right. You have the mind of a child whose playground activities amount to little more than winning and losing, But even for children, the opponent must be worthy. You fail to see there is no win when engaging with a loser like you.

I so love irony.

It's amazing you actually know what it means given yesterday's performance? Have you actually got round to looking up hysterical yet?

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: 'It' being Harbal??! Has lost what??! Doris Day???

How you determine any meaning from what others say, is beyond me? You assume so much. You speak as if you are right. Clearly the love child of Immanual Can and Bobevenson, without the conscience of religion. You seem to pull everything out of the rectum connected to your brain without trying to understand to what others are actually trying to say.

Everything is a fight to you. Discussion is about winning or losing. It's not about understanding and giving ground to what seems right. You have the mind of a child whose playground activities amount to little more than winning and losing, But even for children, the opponent must be worthy. You fail to see there is no win when engaging with a loser like you.

I so love irony.

It's amazing you actually know what it means given yesterday's performance? Have you actually got round to looking up hysterical yet?

Irony sweet irony.

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote: I would have said more like Doris Day.

At least it admits it has lost. I see a beautiful love affair blossoming between it and TDus.

'It' being Harbal??! Has lost what??! Doris Day???

No, you. He/she takes too long to type and there is no gender neutral pronoun in English to use as a replacement.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: At least it admits it has lost. I see a beautiful love affair blossoming between it and TDus.

'It' being Harbal??! Has lost what??! Doris Day???

No, you. He/she takes too long to type and there is no gender neutral pronoun in English to use as a replacement.

You carry on telling yourself that.

I've admitted to nothing. Just because you say something. It doesn't make it true.

Love is a good thing. Being so full of hate, you'd know little of that. I suspect your obtuseness means you never will.

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: 'It' being Harbal??! Has lost what??! Doris Day???

No, you. He/she takes too long to type and there is no gender neutral pronoun in English to use as a replacement.

You carry on telling yourself that.

I've admitted to nothing. Just because you say something. It doesn't make it true.

Love is a good thing. Being so full of hate, you'd know little of that. I suspect your obtuseness means you never will.

It's rare to find so much irony in such a short space of time. For that I must thank you.
The proof is all over this thread. It might be therapeutic and enlightening for you to go back and read it.
Are you suggesting I should 'love' you? There's another word that's thrown around like cheap confetti. I love who I love. Don't have much choice in the matter.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: No, you. He/she takes too long to type and there is no gender neutral pronoun in English to use as a replacement.

You carry on telling yourself that.

I've admitted to nothing. Just because you say something. It doesn't make it true.

Love is a good thing. Being so full of hate, you'd know little of that. I suspect your obtuseness means you never will.

It's rare to find so much irony in such a short space of time. For that I must thank you.
The proof is all over this thread. It might be therapeutic and enlightening for you to go back and read it.

Your handle should be 'vegetarianhyperbole'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: you suggesting I should 'love' you? There's another word that's thrown around like cheap confetti. I love who I love. Don't have much choice in the matter.

What is wrong with you? It's either idiocy or Alzheimer's... You said....

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I see a beautiful love affair blossoming between Fux and TDus. They are both equally dishonest and delusional.

You brought up love, you donkey hoof. I was saying it's a good thing to love but that you are so full of hate you wouldn't understand it or be capable of receiving it. You've gone one step further and can't even grasp your mention of it. Even the word 'love' having left your fingers, refuses to return to your cesspit of a mind!

It's so tiring having to navigate not just your pathetic aggression but your stupidity.

I think we've said all that needs to be said now, unless you desperately desire to continue whining or gloating over more stuff you feel the need to invent. You probably will do. Be my guest.

Tara for now.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The same goes for 'multiculturalism'--another addition to the PC dictionary. Different cultures don't mix and never will, which is why you find so much crime in 'multicultural melting-pot' areas. You don't often find Chinese in Somalian gangs, or vice versa.

Whilst no friend to the phrase "multiculturalism" as its a contradiction in terms and was introduced over here not by the PC but by those wishing to avoid confronting racism, sexism, et al in our society I do think you a caricature of a Daily Mail reader, as crime in such areas is due to relative poverty not cultural differences. I seriously doubt you live or have lived anywhere near such areas as over here Indian, Caribbean, African, Irish, Jewish, et al have mixed pretty well so far.

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The same goes for 'multiculturalism'--another addition to the PC dictionary. Different cultures don't mix and never will, which is why you find so much crime in 'multicultural melting-pot' areas. You don't often find Chinese in Somalian gangs, or vice versa.

Whilst no friend to the phrase "multiculturalism" as its a contradiction in terms and was introduced over here not by the PC but by those wishing to avoid confronting racism, sexism, et al in our society I do think you a caricature of a Daily Mail reader, as crime in such areas is due to relative poverty not cultural differences. I seriously doubt you live or have lived anywhere near such areas as over here Indian, Caribbean, African, Irish, Jewish, et al have mixed pretty well so far.

Never seen the Daily Mail. Ok then. I'm sure crime hasn't increased at all over there, and a young man wasn't beheaded in the street, Pakistani rape gangs don't exist, and it's all a joyful 'melting pot of rainbowness'. I suppose John Cleese must read the Dail Mail. I notice you didn't include 'Eastern Europeans' in your little Utopian dream.
And who said I was only talking about England anyway? Why would I care what happens over there?
There's nothing wrong with immigration in numbers that are small enough to be absorbed. But it's hardly fair when it ends up swamping out the host inhabitants, stretching infrastructure to breaking point, taking most of the jobs, and becoming the dominant culture or cultures. And all because Govts. want to create an artificially high GDP thus making it look as if the economy is 'healthy and growing' and the Govt. is doing a 'great job', when in fact wages have been forced continually down and home ownership forced up and out of reach for people who are now second class citizens in their own country by rich immigrants who aren't interested in assimilating--only laundering their money.
It has NOTHING to do with 'ending racism'. Why the fuck would you need to 'end racism' where it barely existed in the first place? But it sure does now.
And it's hardly 'racism' to object to short-sighted, self-serving and destructive Govt. policy. Oh, how racist of the English to object to German invaders. Just because it's been done legally doesn't mean the end result isn't the same. What if the Govt. had just rolled over and welcomed the Germans? No doubt the English would have simply shrugged and smiled and welcomed them with open arms (to do otherwise would be 'racist!').