Originally posted by WulebgrActually I am quite "dry" this evening. And most others too. But it makes for a better chance of actually engaging people in a "discussion" if I offer them the hope that I am drunk. <sigh>
"Rational" in this sentence is an adjective, as it modifies the noun "position".
But, who cares about such trivia. This thread quickly degenerated into SVW's foolish errand to prompt a clear proposition of fact or opinion out of lioyank, and then Palynka. Sigh.
Content matters, as does form, as I mentioned earlier. SVW offers a provocative perspec ...[text shortened]... it often is) then please be silent. I'm gonna start drinking now, so please try to make sense.
The fact that we disagree isn't a bad thing. The only reason I start these things and goad a bit is to stimulate a bit of "discussion". How are you?
You have to admit that the idea that one wants to preserve Duncan to increase the size of the chimp pack is fightin' words? It was meant to stimulate an intellectual (defense of) opposition to the "death penalty". Think I'll get one? I'll probably have to do it myself... next month.
Originally posted by lioyankIf you don't contribute an idea or opinion... your thumbs are going to get sore. Just watch, read an learn. Sigh. IF.... you get an idea. Jump right in with IT!!!
funny how you say i assume when YOU like to assume most of all. i dont want a "fight". i want to know where you were going with this idea of "content".
i gave you my examples.
(lioyank waits patiently, twiddling his thumbs and humming a familiar tune...)
Hint, hint.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe fact that we disagree is a good thing, whether sober or lubricated.
The fact that we disagree isn't a bad thing.
[snip]
You have to admit that the idea that one wants to preserve Duncan to increase the size of the chimp pack is fightin' words? It was meant to stimulate an intellectual (defense of) opposition to the "death penalty". Think I'll get one? I'll probably have to do it myself... next month.
I thought that you would recognize in my effort to articulate liberal opposion to the death penalty a faint echo of Clarence Darrow's famous closing arguments in the Leopold and Loeb case:
"Cold-blooded? Why? Because they planned, and schemed.
Yes. But here are the officers of justice, so-called, with all the power of the State, with all the influence of the press, to fan this community into a frenzy of hate; with all of that, who for months have been planning and scheming, and contriving, and working to take these two boys' lives.
You may stand them up on the trap-door of the scaffold, and choke them to death, but that act will be infinitely more cold-blooded whether justified or not, than any act that these boys have committed or can commit.
Cold-blooded!
Let the State, who is so anxious to take these boys' lives, set an example in consideration, kindheartedness and tenderness before they call my clients cold-blooded."
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/leoploeb/leopold.htm
Originally posted by WulebgrYea. But you have to realize that he (Darrow) was just a glory hound doing whatever it took to make sure his name went down in history.
The fact that we disagree is a good thing, whether sober or lubricated.
I thought that you would recognize in my effort to articulate liberal opposion to the death penalty a faint echo of Clarence Darrow's famous closing arguments in the Leopold and Loeb case:
"Cold-blooded? Why? Because they planned, and schemed.
Yes. But here are the offic ...[text shortened]... clients cold-blooded."
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/leoploeb/leopold.htm
Leopold & Loeb were just psychopathic killers whose only contribution was to help make a mockery of the notion of "humanity". The fact that Darrow was an ego maniac has nothing to do with it.
They (Leopold & Loeb) have no content that makes humanity "better". Nor did Darrow at this point of his life. He showed the "amoral" path that all libs have worshiped as a path to fame and glory. See my reference to the three stupid monkeys... "See No evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil" and it will become anathema.
I will adopt the point of view that rhetoric doesn't make truth. Just public opinion.
(another famous old saying.... blah blah)
Originally posted by StarValleyWySame old insults of "pseudo libs", feeling important as a big man on a chess site. 😉
Books, movies, plays, civilizations, scientific theories and religious tomes are all things that we judge on their content.
Does content matter? Is it ok to fill a movie with nothing but violence and sex? Is a book still a book if it is an instruction manual on how to kill women for daring send their daughters to school? Is a "scientific theory" a ...[text shortened]... thousand candles" to keep Duncan alive when he is marched to the death chamber in twenty years?
Just kidding, even though you think me "pseudo lib".
I can assure you that my being against the death penalty has nothing to do with the content of the sub-human monsters. It is for the one guy that didn't do it. If you think it is for the truly guilty then you are dumber than slimjim. But we know that's not possible.
You do weave a good tale, however. Your insight in to the minds of liberals is so wonderfully off base.
And we prefer chimpanzee.
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrDissimulation of duty? I don't think that I could stand here and say that I want better "content" for civilization and say that I wouldn't be willing to "take out the trash". Castration is good though. I rather like that. As long as there is no anasthesia involved here. Then a year breaking rock. Then svw takes out the trash.
As for Duncan, his crimes occurred in a community only a few miles from my own. I'd be happy to wield the rusty blade when they castrate him (but, alas, I've long since abandoned participation in lynch mobs).
Originally posted by StarValleyWyCastration with plenty of rust on the knife, and no anasthesia. But those passions must cool, and the system of law must prevail. The system of law marks us as civilized, however much we might cherish swift and seemingly appropriate punishment.
Dissimulation of duty? I don't think that I could stand here and say that I want better "content" for civilization and say that I wouldn't be willing to "take out the trash". Castration is good though. I rather like that. As long as there is no anasthesia involved here. Then a year breaking rock. Then svw takes out the trash.
1 edit
Originally posted by Wulebgr<svw grits his teeth and realizes that the wily woolburger has just about wrested another precious chimp credit from his meaty paw...>
Castration with plenty of rust on the knife, and no anasthesia. But those passions must cool, and the system of law must prevail. The system of law marks us as civilized, however much we might cherish swift and seemingly appropriate punishment.
Before I concede.... I guess that the law stuff is true. We either are civilized of not. But the fact that the damned sleezy #zeros of the world will milk Duncan for the next 20 years for millions of dollars just ain't right. That ain't justice. That's corruption and racketeering of the worst kind. And it's all legal!
<dirty, missenbracken flaken borrin, gossenbobbly horren gripes... >
svw crawls into a corner and contemplates the french revolution remade as the "lawyer revolution". Oh well. I'll concede the rule of law. Reluctantly.
Originally posted by BowmannIt is not a verb--SVW was wrong on that point. But, it is trivial in comparison to the issues he raised in this thread. Try some real debate for a change. Last night in this very thread, through discussion of our disagreements, SVW and I found a point of agreement. That's what real debate can do.
But I was asking for a sentence with it as a verb.