Go back
A brief rant

A brief rant

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

I submit this for your perusal, since I find, from time to time, that many posts in many of the threads in the debate forum take a similar form.

from Chapter 4 of The Sea Wolf by Jack London
[Kerfoot, a hunter was] vociferating, bellowing, waving his arms, and cursing like a fiend, and all because of a disagreement with another hunter as to whether a seal pup knew instinctively how to swim. He held that it did, that it could swim the moment it was born. The other hunter, Latimer, a lean, Yankee-looking fellow with shrewd, narrow-slitted eyes, held otherwise, held that the seal pup was born on the land for no other reason than that it could not swim, that its mother was compelled to teach it to swim as birds were compelled to teach their nestlings how to fly.

For the most part, the remaining four hunters leaned on the table or lay in their bunks and left the discussion to the two antagonists. But they were supremely interested, for every little while they ardently took sides, and sometimes all were talking at once, till their voices surged back and forth in waves of sound like mimic thunder-rolls in the confined space. Childish and immaterial as the topic was, the quality of their reasoning was still more childish and immaterial. In truth, there was very little reasoning or none at all. Their method was one of assertion, assumption, and denunciation. They proved that a seal pup could swim or not swim at birth by stating the proposition very bellicosely and then following it up with an attack on the opposing man's judgment, common sense, nationality, or past history. Rebuttal was precisely similar. I have related this in order to show the mental calibre of the men with whom I was thrown in contact. Intellectually they were children, inhabiting the physical forms of men.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by nemesio
I submit this for your perusal, since I find, from time to time, that many posts in many of the threads in the debate forum take a similar form.

from Chapter 4 of The Sea Wolf by Jack London
[Kerfoot, a hunter was] vociferating, bellowing, waving his arms, and cursing like a fiend, and all because of a disagreement with another hunter as to whether a seal pup knew instinctively how to swim. He held that it did, that it could swim the moment it was born. The other hunter, Latimer, a lean, Yankee-looking fellow with shrewd, narrow-slitted eyes, held otherwise, held that the seal pup was born on the land for no other reason than that it could not swim, that its mother was compelled to teach it to swim as birds were compelled to teach their nestlings how to fly.

For the most part, the remaining four hunters leaned on the table or lay in their bunks and left the discussion to the two antagonists. But they were supremely interested, for every little while they ardently took sides, and sometimes all were talking at once, till their voices surged back and forth in waves of sound like mimic thunder-rolls in the confined space. Childish and immaterial as the topic was, the quality of their reasoning was still more childish and immaterial. In truth, there was very little reasoning or none at all. Their method was one of assertion, assumption, and denunciation. They proved that a seal pup could swim or not swim at birth by stating the proposition very bellicosely and then following it up with an attack on the opposing man's judgment, common sense, nationality, or past history. Rebuttal was precisely similar. I have related this in order to show the mental calibre of the men with whom I was thrown in contact. Intellectually they were children, inhabiting the physical forms of men.


Which one are you ? The first or 2nd hunter ?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Neither. I would be Humphrey Van Weyden, Maud Brewster, or Wolf Larson, depending on the discussion at hand.

Nemesio

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by nemesio
Neither. I would be Humphrey Van Weyden, Maud Brewster, or Wolf Larson, depending on the discussion at hand.

Nemesio


Ah, so you're stating some on this forum to be children in men's bodies , excluding ofcourse yourself ?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by pcaspian
Originally posted by nemesio
[b]Neither. I would be Humphrey Van Weyden, Maud Brewster, or Wolf Larson, depending on the discussion at hand.

Nemesio


Ah, so you're stating some on this forum to be children in men's bodies , excluding ofcourse yourself ?[/b]
or women in men's bodies?
or men trapped in the bodies or a sort of wombat like hedgehog aardvark...thingy.🙂

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by nemesio
I submit this for your perusal, since I find, from time to time, that many posts in many of the threads in the debate forum take a similar form.

from Chapter 4 of The Sea Wolf by Jack London
[Kerfoot, a hunter was] vociferating, bellowing, waving his arms, and cursing like a fiend, and all because of a disagreement with another hunter as to whether a ...[text shortened]... thrown in contact. Intellectually they were children, inhabiting the physical forms of men.
I was going to suggest finding a seal cub and throwing it in the water but I am already not very popular with the Animal Rights people....

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by elvendreamgirl
[b]or women in men's bodies?
does that mean im gay??

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by stoker
does that mean im gay??
Gender identity is not the same as sexuality. It's quite possible for people who are biologically male to consider themselves to be lesbians.