UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
point out where i tried to equate the two. don't recall doing that, you're thinking of lifegoeson.
How our lives will change with a President Ron Paul
- Thread starter MellowFarmer
- Start date
InCognition
Active Member
Post #105 - #107 about sums that up. You infer similarities between government and nature, because government is just a bunch of people. Absolutely the most ignorant logic I've ever heard spew from someone's mouth.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the only thing i said was in post 106, where i said that government is composed of people. try again.
InCognition
Active Member
You can try again.
You attempted to relate government to nature. Would you like to attempt in backing yourself out of that corner now? We know you don't admit your wrongs... it's ok though, there's a first for everything.
Your logic is an absolute fallacy, and is the epitome of ignorance.
I pray to something, that you're just trolling. Your hypocrisy and sheer ignorance is in a league of it's own.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, other people related government to nature. maybe you can try to show me where i did and quote it. maybe. probably not.
the fact is that your understanding of social darwinism is false. the weak are not always left to die. sometimes they are. but in many species, they aren't. in humans, they most certainly aren't.
you wanna know why? because humans feel empathy. you appear to have had your empathy ass fucked out of you by your dad or uncle or priest. you wish death upon the indigent. you wish death upon politicians. you lack empathy. very unsettling.
i'm more of a constitution kind of guy. if i don;t like a certain politician, i'll use my freedom of speech and my vote to get them out of there. you, on the other hand, advocate assfucking them to death.
kinda telling. who raped you bro?
InCognition
Active Member
No, other people did not relate what you speak of, you related government to nature. Refer to post #105-#107... I already told you this, did you forget?
My understanding of social Darwinism is correct, you're just too ignorant in understanding that social Darwinism, and Darwinism itself are one in the same. Nature dictates that the weak are left to die, unless otherwise circumvented via the processes, and chances of nature, and the possibilities of natural-survival, in which mother nature provides. Your opinion that humans are somehow immune to this natural process, is just that an opinion, and an ignorant one at best. Humans operated this way not too long ago.
Government intervention, via forcing the strong to rescue the weak, against their will (financially or physically), is not a natural process, and any human being who attempts to exert such force is, can and should be righteously killed. Whether you agree with it or not, that exertion of force itself, is a blatant violation of human rights. Forcing the strong to save the weak, against the strong's will, is more wrong than letting the weak die at the mercy of nature. You can not justify the opposite with logical rationale. Doing so will just push you further in the classification of a wack job.
No one is arguing empathy, or that I have a lack thereof. You got yourself all confused and tangled into a web of frustration, which in return causes an attempt in de-tangling yourself, via the scissors of ignorance, which have very blunt and thus ineffective blades. In fact I have a great deal of empathy, if one is not deserving of receiving empathy to begin with. I'm like a double edged sword, and both sides are just as sharp. In the case that someone is not worthy of receiving empathy, it's because they've violated a human right either indirectly or directly, in which case I have absolutely no problem in ending their existence. If the violation of human rights is towards me, they are all the more-so in a position to be killed. If anything, my argument has to do with the lack of empathy of others upon me and those around me. I have no mercy for that bullshit, and if you do, you're just a coward, plain and simple. Would you tolerate someone treading all over you? If you're a coward, I guess you would.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the only post i make there is in post 106, where i correctly state that government is composed of people. anything anyone else says is not my belief or words.
explain why elephants and a plethora of other species all take care of their weak and vulnerable if able.
hmmm, government is composed of people who exist in nature. whatever government does happens in nature and is thus....natural.
you just said that if government intervenes to help, that they should be killed. then you said you have a great deal of empathy.
do you not see why you are a fucktard?
let me summarize it for you: you're a psycho fucktard who exhibits signs of having suffered major trauma.
seek professional help.
InCognition
Active Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
just stating the simple fact that many, many species care for their sick and wounded in nature. never mentioned government, that's your psycho delusion.
is government not composed of humans? do humans not exist in nature? do societies or cultures or even tribes not set rules in a similar fashion to government?
that's the thing, what i call "helping" is what you call "forcing". whereas i see caring for the weak and infirm as my natural duty and the right thing to do, you see it as someone forcing you to do something.
as a human, i want to help those worst off because they are fellow human beings and they deserve dignity. as a psycho, you would take joy in seeing the worst off die, and righteously so, because you are a psychopath with no empathy.
the rest of what you write is just nonsense and insults. you're psycho and you need help.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
I have never seen someone deny their own argument before. What the fuck is wrong with you? You are arguing that government is nature, it's all right here. Are you some sort of psycho? The second and hardest step is asking for help.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
all semantic twisting on your part, my confused little friend.
government is natural. happens all the time from a huge nation like ours to a little tribe.
you and the psychotic cocktechnicican have tried to change the field goals at will. you tried to say i was arguing that nature represented government. then cocktechnician tries to say that i equated nature to government services. now you are saying that i am arguing that government IS nature.
nature is nature, government is government, and government exists in nature.
is that so fucking hard for your pathetic little brain to keep in place? how well are you doing in your PHI101 class at junior college (i.e. high school with an ashtray)?
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Jokes on you my psychotic conversation twisting weird little friend. Its the University of Michigan and you can't smoke anywhere on campus.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i have you recorded changing the field goals yet it's me twisting the conversation.Jokes on you my psychotic conversation twisting weird little friend. Its the University of Michigan and you can't smoke anywhere on campus.
alright. yep.
you're not trying to muddy the waters at all. common ronbot defense mechanism.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Addressing your insults is indeed a ronbot defense mechanism.
Can you prove that about the technology or give examples?
In every field I can think of, technology has driven down costs. When government gets involved costs go up.
Isn't most of the greatest generation ever dead? Those that fought in WW2 were probably born in 1923-4 at the youngest making them 18 in 1941 when war broke out. So they are 90 now.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
MRIs. NASA didn't invent them, but their image enhancement and processing originally developed to better look at the moon made the MRI possible.
i could go on and on, but there are a ton of innovations from NASA that got applied to the medical field.
government funding made the medical field what it is today.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yes, because the greatest generation is the only thing we owe our greatness to.
it was one example of many to demonstrate that he is a freeloading mooch.
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
I bet Ron's Flock believe the Free Market is what furthers Medicine but then why is it Big Pharma claims to spend so much money on research yet all they come up with is Boner pills and the last known cure was Polio? There's no $ in the cure.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Because big pharma uses lobbying to get regulations passed that limit their competition. For example they lobbied for more expensive phase testing through the FDA in order to prevent smaller corporations from getting FDA approved products.