# does nature have intentionality?



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

i have heard several right wing folks tell me that nature has intentions lately.

you guys want to have at it for my amusement?


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Feb 1, 2014)

[video=youtube;LLrTPrp-fW8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrTPrp-fW8[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> i have heard several right wing folks tell me that nature has intentions lately.
> 
> you guys want to have at it for my amusement?


What do you mean by "intentionality" exactly?


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What do you mean by "intentionality" exactly?


in·ten·tion·al·i·ty (&#301;n-t&#277;n&#8242;sh&#601;-n&#259;l&#8242;&#301;-t&#275_n._ _pl._ *in·ten·tion·al·i·ties* *1. * The state of having or being formed by an intention

in·ten·tion (&#301;n-t&#277;n&#8242;sh&#601;n)_n._*1. * A course of action that one intends to follow.
*2. **a. * An aim that guides action; an objective.


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> i have heard several right wing folks tell me that nature has intentions lately.
> 
> you guys want to have at it for my amusement?


Hmmm, what would Bucky say?
"Citation needed" or some bullshit?


----------



## BigNBushy (Feb 1, 2014)

Intelligent design has attracted the christiansts who very often misrepresent it. Probably as a means to get theology taught in classrooms.

But one night listening to coasttocoastam I heard an atheist, who was an intelligent design proponent, and his arguments were very compelling.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

BigNBushy said:


> Intelligent design has attracted the christiansts who very often misrepresent it. Probably as a means to get theology taught in classrooms.
> 
> But one night listening to coasttocoastam I heard an atheist, who was an intelligent design proponent, and his arguments were very compelling.


i am not talking about intelligent design. if you want to be mocked for supporting that silly theory, then start a thread elsewhere please.


----------



## BigNBushy (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> i am not talking about intelligent design. if you want to be mocked for supporting that silly theory, then start a thread elsewhere please.


I didn't say I supported it, I said a guy made a good case for it. I don't really think either of us are really qualified to say one way or another.


And I lol at you wanting to keep a thread ontopic.


But srsly, if something like intelligent design does not fit the perameters of what you were wishing to discuss, then what else do you mean?


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

BigNBushy said:


> I didn't say I supported it, I said a guy made a good case for it.


no, you said that YOU felt it was compelling. i would not, because the theory is flying spaghetti monster ridiculous. 

as i said, if you would like to be mocked for feeling compelled, go start that thread elsewhere.




BigNBushy said:


> I don't really think either of us are really qualified to say one way or another.


i'm not concerned about your lack of qualifications, i understand and accept that you have incredible shortcomings in that department.





BigNBushy said:


> But srsly, if something like intelligent design does not fit the perameters of what you were wishing to discuss, then what else do you mean?


4 real tho brah, i defined exactly what i was talking about at the start of the thread, and tried to keep it simple for the walmart greeters and subway sandwich makers of the world. check there 4 wat u nd, k?


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Feb 1, 2014)

and tried to keep it simple for the walmart greeters and subway sandwich makers of the world.​




 And where are you currently employed?


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

Nutes and Nugs said:


> and tried to keep it simple for the walmart greeters and subway sandwich makers of the world.​
> 
> 
> And where are you currently employed?


the school of no knocks, everywhereville, USA.

did you have a point to make, or did the shiny flashy rhetoric just grab your attention?


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> the school of no knocks, everywhereville, USA.
> 
> did you have a point to make, or did the shiny flashy rhetoric just grab your attention?


Sorta thought you were still unemployed is my point yet you poke fun at people with low paying jobs.
At least they are trying.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

Nutes and Nugs said:


> Sorta thought you were still unemployed is my point yet you poke fun at people with low paying jobs.
> At least they are trying.


oh, i get it. you just wanted to make things personal. and you don't think growing cannabis counts as "trying". on a cannabis website, no less.

do you just hate pot growers or something?


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> oh, i get it. you just wanted to make things personal. and you don't think growing cannabis counts as "trying". on a cannabis website, no less.
> 
> do you just hate pot growers or something?


LOL, Oh for fucks sake buck.

You should get your own talk radio station.
You made me lol more than Leno tonight.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 1, 2014)

Nutes and Nugs said:


> Hmmm, what would Bucky say?
> "Citation needed" or some bullshit?


It was me. From padas thread about global warming Ithink.

I said I see intention in the geometry. Idk. Something about the Fibonacci sequence just screams intent to me.

Buck would like to believe I follow jehovah or elohim or something Iguess.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> I see intention in the geometry. Idk. Something about the Fibonacci sequence just screams intent to me.


please go on.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> please go on.


What about dna? Nature no?


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Feb 1, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> It was me. From padas thread about global warming Ithink.
> 
> I said I see intention in the geometry. Idk. Something about the Fibonacci sequence just screams intent to me.
> 
> Buck would like to believe I follow jehovah or elohim or something Iguess.


Ah No.
Buck just get caught in a loop of his own lies.

He's getting older and forgets what he posts.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> What about dna? Nature no?


are you saying DNA was intentional?


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

Nutes and Nugs said:


> Ah No.
> Buck just get caught in a loop of his own lies.
> 
> He's getting older and forgets what he posts.


please shut your stupid mouth if you have nothing to contribute.

thank you.


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> please shut your stupid mouth if you have nothing to contribute.
> 
> thank you.


An that is calling the kettle black!

You almost made me piss my panties.
Thanks for the lol's.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> are you saying DNA was intentional?


I believe in a "creator" or an "engineer" if that's what you're getting at. I also believe in evolution pretty hard to deny that flounder I gigged a coupla months ago.

As I said on the post that prompted this thread...I don't presume to know all the details I do like ancient aliens though....seems as valid a theory as any.

shaped your tool to a point yet? You've been building this one up a bit too hard.....its show and tell time.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 1, 2014)

Nutes and Nugs said:


> Ah No.
> Buck just get caught in a loop of his own lies.
> 
> He's getting older and forgets what he posts.


Yeah I found one where he admits to being john galt....I find the irony amusing.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 1, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> I don't presume to know all the details I do like ancient aliens though....seems as valid a theory as any.


What makes you think ancient alien theory is valid?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Feb 1, 2014)

I think so.To survive and reproduce in order to insure the survival of the next generation.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 1, 2014)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I think so.To survive and reproduce in order to insure the survival of the next generation.


What are you defining as 'nature'? Of course you don't think other things in nature have intentionality, like hurricanes and volcanoes. I agree with you that our basic instincts are pointing towards reproduction, but I wouldn't necessarily call that intentionality, I don't see any active aspect in the process. Similarly, I wouldn't call blinking or breathing 'active'


----------



## MISSPHOEBE (Feb 1, 2014)

Nature is Awesome!

I love me some Nature!


----------



## smokejoint (Feb 1, 2014)

explain to me how nature could have an "intention".


----------



## MISSPHOEBE (Feb 1, 2014)

smokejoint said:


> explain to me how nature could have an "intention".


like if you leave the washing OUT on the line - nature "rains"

and if you have taken the washing IN - then nature can't be bothered!

this is just one of her simple tricks...


----------



## Dr.J20 (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> i have heard several right wing folks tell me that nature has intentions lately.
> 
> you guys want to have at it for my amusement?


intentionality implies consciousness. without understanding consciousness fully it would be hard to assert either way that nature is possessed of consciousness, and, by the transitive property, intentionality.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Feb 1, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> Something about the Fibonacci sequence just screams intent to me.


but Fibonacci developed the sequence; it was recognized from nature and structured by human pattern-making consciousness and exists separate from phenomenal reality (math is pure abstraction). Fractals are compelling too, but they aren't indications that there lies an intentionality in nature; i'd say they indicate the capacity for pattern recognition/construction of the human mind.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 1, 2014)




----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> I believe in a "creator" or an "engineer" if that's what you're getting at.


no, i'm talking about nature. 

like i told bigotednbushy, if you want to start a thread about your weak mind that must rely on some odd notion of a creator, start that thread somewhere else.


----------



## GOD HERE (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> no, you said that YOU felt it was compelling. i would not, because the theory is flying spaghetti monster ridiculous.
> 
> as i said, if you would like to be mocked for feeling compelled, go start that thread elsewhere.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Feb 1, 2014)

Nature, per se, is inanimate and inanimate things dont have intentions (as far as I know)... BUT there are many animals in nature and animals usually have some sort of intentions.

~PEACE~


----------



## tyler.durden (Feb 1, 2014)

There is nothing to indicate that nature has intentions. It is interesting that many things in nature have the appearance of design (esp. life), and natural selection has it's own strict rules for the way life evolves. But it is a Blind Watchmaker with no apparent intention. Dawkins book of the same title is an excellent read, as in Climbing Mount Improbable. I highly recommend these books to achieve a clear understanding of how these processes work. Possessing a notion that there is a benevolent, conscious force directing things can be comforting if one is ignorant enough, or desperate enough, for that to work. I do not have that option...


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 1, 2014)

How would you presume to know? Can you say, as fact, the universe is NOT infinite? And natural?


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> no, i'm talking about nature.
> 
> like i told bigotednbushy, if you want to start a thread about your weak mind that must rely on some odd notion of a creator, start that thread somewhere else.


Oh how I laughed at this one....belief in something bigger than yourself is weak minded? What then is the collective?
I digress.....I will leave you to play with your football bat.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 1, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> How would you presume to know? Can you say, as fact, the universe is NOT infinite? And natural?


The universe is not infinite, that is a fact.

The universe is natural, that is also a fact.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 1, 2014)

I'm a lean mannish boy, I can make love to ya woman, in 5 meenuts tyme.

That's the only fact in here.


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 1, 2014)

I think that "intentionality" and the classic concept of an engaged God are one and the same.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Feb 1, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What are you defining as 'nature'? Of course you don't think other things in nature have intentionality, like hurricanes and volcanoes. I agree with you that our basic instincts are pointing towards reproduction, but I wouldn't necessarily call that intentionality, I don't see any active aspect in the process. Similarly, I wouldn't call blinking or breathing 'active'


Nature in the sense of everything, just trying to exist and keep on going, the atoms that make up everything... every time they break apart they create something new, sometimes different, sometimes more complex... it seems if it can become more and more complex it does so... and does whatever it can in order to keep becoming more and more complex, more successful at existing. 

So in that sense, i think "nature", has the intention to survive... to exist, and take whatever measures it can in order to insure it's own existence, to preserve it and make it more complex in order to continue to preserve it. 

It just makes sense to me that way, the phenomena of the physical world collectively... seems to me when i observe it, to be doing just that.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> Oh how I laughed at this one....belief in something bigger than yourself is weak minded? What then is the collective?
> I digress.....I will leave you to play with your football bat.


you said you believed in evolution, which explains what we see. adding unnecessary and dubious moving parts is bad practice.

if i fall off a ladder and my watch breaks and stops working, should i also posit that there is some evil gremlin who pushed me off the ladder?

and i can prove that the collective exists, too.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Nature in the sense of everything, just trying to exist and keep on going, the atoms that make up everything... every time they break apart they create something new, sometimes different, sometimes more complex... it seems if it can become more and more complex it does so... and does whatever it can in order to keep becoming more and more complex, more successful at existing.
> 
> So in that sense, i think "nature", has the intention to survive... to exist, and take whatever measures it can in order to insure it's own existence, to preserve it and make it more complex in order to continue to preserve it.
> 
> It just makes sense to me that way, the phenomena of the physical world collectively... seems to me when i observe it, to be doing just that.


then reconcile that view with trisomy 21.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> then reconcile that view with trisomy 21.


Mutations are a part of nature. Either trying something new, or trying something different... it seems that the mutation that creates down syndrome was not such a good mutation, and does not help human animals survive.. i never said i thought "nature" was perfect, or that "nature" does not make "mistakes". Just that it keeps trying things different, keeps trying to survive, and to do it's best to preserve itself... even if the preservation is something... "not perfect".


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Mutations are a part of nature. Either trying something new, or trying something different... it seems that the mutation that creates down syndrome was not such a good mutation, and does not help human animals survive.. i never said i thought "nature" was perfect, or that "nature" does not make "mistakes". Just that it keeps trying things different, keeps trying to survive, and to do it's best to preserve itself... even if the preservation is something... "not perfect".


but you said "nature...does whatever it can...[to be] more successful at existing". trisomy 21 seems to contradict that line of thought.

are you saying mutations are intentional rather than random?


----------



## Abiqua (Feb 1, 2014)

Do you mean, does it have intrinsic value or aesthetic value?


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> you said you believed in evolution, which explains what we see. adding unnecessary and dubious moving parts is bad practice.
> 
> if i fall off a ladder and my watch breaks and stops working, should i also posit that there is some evil gremlin who pushed me off the ladder?
> 
> and i can prove that the collective exists, too.


Bad practice by whom?

Are you a victim of gremlins?

I agree you can prove the collective exists, but you can only prove it to yourself. Still does not make it less imaginary.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 1, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> Bad practice by whom?
> 
> Are you a victim of gremlins?
> 
> I agree you can prove the collective exists, but you can only prove it to yourself. Still does not make it less imaginary.


you must be intent on proving your own stupidity and stubbornness now.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 1, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> you must be intent on proving your own stupidity and stubbornness now.


Sure why not. Did you forget how much you own opinion is worth?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Feb 2, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> but you said "nature...does whatever it can...[to be] more successful at existing". trisomy 21 seems to contradict that line of thought.
> 
> are you saying mutations are intentional rather than random?


I am saying that "nature" is chaotic and random, that sometimes it can come together to make "beautiful" things that work well, as well as "ugly" things that don't work well. When you look at the evolution of the universe, and of life in general... it seems to me, that the intention of nature (if there is one, i have no idea) would be to exist, and take whatever measures it can in order to insure it's own existence, to preserve it and make it more complex if it can in order to continue to preserve it, and in order to become more complex evolution tries many different things... some that work well and some that don't. And just because "nature" tries something that doesn't work well... doesn't mean that it isn't going to continue to try to exist.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 2, 2014)

Zaehet Strife said:


> *I am saying that "nature" is chaotic and random*, that sometimes it can come together to make "beautiful" things that work well, as well as "ugly" things that don't work well. When you look at the evolution of the universe, and of life in general... it seems to me, that *the intention of nature* (if there is one, i have no idea) would be to exist, and take whatever measures it can in order to insure it's own existence, to preserve it and make it more complex if it can in order to continue to preserve it, and in order to become more complex evolution tries many different things... some that work well and some that don't. And just because "nature" tries something that doesn't work well... doesn't mean that it isn't going to continue to try to exist.


i'm trying but i simply can not reconcile the two bolded thoughts.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Feb 2, 2014)

Just read it over again, and remember, i am not presenting an argument, just an opinion... that IF, mind you IIIIIFFFFF, the chaotic and random structure of nature has intention.... that it _can come together to make "beautiful" things that work well, as well as "ugly" things that don't work well. When you look at the evolution of the universe, and of life in general... it seems to me, that the intention of nature *(if there is one, i have no idea)* would be to exist, and take whatever measures it can in order to insure it's own existence, to preserve it and make it more complex if it can in order to continue to preserve it, and in order to become more complex evolution tries many different things... some that work well and some that don't. And just because "nature" tries something that doesn't work well... doesn't mean that it isn't going to continue to try to exist._


----------



## Dr.J20 (Feb 3, 2014)

for those trying to cobble together an argument FOR nature having intentionality: when two potentially reactive elements are in proximity, the fact that they react is not evidence of an intention. it is evidence of _*reaction. *_It is not one element's intent to react with another element, it is a physical, chemical reality of the potential interactivity of substances. as with random mutation, we cannot posit an intent simply because something happens. 

side note, on trisomy 21-- let's not presume that this is wholly negative: as conscious beings we do learn something from the existence of trisomy 21 AND our socially constructed definitions of normativity force us to value/adjudicate the social worth of someone with trisomy 21 in ways that are not NECESSARILY accurate. To be more clear, what I mean by this second part is: it is theoretically possible to argue that someone with trisomy 21 may provide different and potentially progressive insight to the world through his or her unique and technically "abnormal" experience of reality. Thus, the fact of a non-average existence cannot be wholesale categorized as "nature undermining herself." 

In other words, it could be construed that the knowledge humanity garners from investigating trisomy 21, among other phenomena, help one particular species of nature--a species with a great potential to interact with natural processes, hopefully to shape them towards their best expressions--to understand the natural forces within which said species is bound. 
But, of course, this would take us far afield from the discussion as to whether nature itself possesses intentionality. rather, this line of argumentation brings forth the paradoxical problem of classifying man as both part of, and in conflict with nature/the natural. Man certainly has intention. man is part of nature. man, though, is not Nature en toto. man can affect nature (e.g, place sodium in water to cause a reaction).
perhaps the proper line of questioning begins with the question of intentionality: what is it, where does it come from?


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 3, 2014)

Consciousness. 

Someone mentioned fractals. I see this as evidence infinity can exist in a finite space.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 3, 2014)

Dr.J20 said:


> for those trying to cobble together an argument FOR nature having intentionality: when two potentially reactive elements are in proximity, the fact that they react is not evidence of an intention. it is evidence of _*reaction. *_It is not one element's intent to react with another element, it is a physical, chemical reality of the potential interactivity of substances. as with random mutation, we cannot posit an intent simply because something happens.
> 
> side note, on trisomy 21-- let's not presume that this is wholly negative: as conscious beings we do learn something from the existence of trisomy 21 AND our socially constructed definitions of normativity force us to value/adjudicate the social worth of someone with trisomy 21 in ways that are not NECESSARILY accurate. To be more clear, what I mean by this second part is: it is theoretically possible to argue that someone with trisomy 21 may provide different and potentially progressive insight to the world through his or her unique and technically "abnormal" experience of reality. Thus, the fact of a non-average existence cannot be wholesale categorized as "nature undermining herself."
> 
> ...


Hi Doc,

chemical reactions in humans also cause a bond and potentially create something new. I suppose, all joking aside, that the intention is one recombination. It seems also interesting (to me) that man is given the ability to reassemble himself on a daily basis. Animals and others further 'down' the chain are what they are and have no choice.

Though man is a part of nature, he has the choice to be either a reaper or a sower.

---

Nice post.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 3, 2014)

"one OF recombination"

Can't edit, ffs


----------



## kinetic (Feb 3, 2014)

Dr.J20 said:


> for those trying to cobble together an argument FOR nature having intentionality: when two potentially reactive elements are in proximity, the fact that they react is not evidence of an intention. it is evidence of _*reaction. *_It is not one element's intent to react with another element, it is a physical, chemical reality of the potential interactivity of substances. as with random mutation, we cannot posit an intent simply because something happens.
> 
> side note, on trisomy 21-- let's not presume that this is wholly negative: as conscious beings we do learn something from the existence of trisomy 21 AND our socially constructed definitions of normativity force us to value/adjudicate the social worth of someone with trisomy 21 in ways that are not NECESSARILY accurate. To be more clear, what I mean by this second part is: it is theoretically possible to argue that someone with trisomy 21 may provide different and potentially progressive insight to the world through his or her unique and technically "abnormal" experience of reality. Thus, the fact of a non-average existence cannot be wholesale categorized as "nature undermining herself."
> 
> ...


Just out of curiosity do you see the human species as not of nature? Are we not naturally occuring on this planet? Why the seperation, (not just you), that the human species is something separate from the nature in which it's surrounded by?


----------



## Scroga (Feb 3, 2014)

Nature is not intentional as it has no self..it is manipulated by a divine intention..to understand/define this from a human perspective is surely not possible


----------



## TheSnake (Feb 3, 2014)

Nature = Mysterious. 
Mysterious = Being a relentless, viscous, bane of unstoppable death and suffering, for every second of every day, with absolutely no remorse or care. 

At least that's what religious people say mysterious is, when shit gets fucked up and asked why "god" didn't stop it from materializing.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Feb 3, 2014)

kinetic said:


> Just out of curiosity do you see the human species as not of nature? Are we not naturally occuring on this planet? Why the seperation, (not just you), that the human species is something separate from the nature in which it's surrounded by?


 no, i do not see the human species as not of nature. (do you write questions for the LSAT or something?) I do, personally see man as part of nature. 
I pointed out that this question (the thread's question) brings forth the paradoxical problem of classifying man as both part of and in conflict with nature/ the natural. By "in conflict with" i mean things like presuming to conquer nature. One generally does not conquer something/someone with which/whom one is in harmony.
But you do point out that it is us, humans, who have developed these concepts of "nature" through a process of definition that tends to leave the impression that there are categorical differences between forms of matter that may not actually be meaningful. 
I'm pretty baked though, so i'll leave it at this:
throughout human civilization and culture we've struggled with the concept of our own apparent cognitive superiority to other beings, and have sought out ways of explaining and representing to ourselves what we presume to be exceptional capacities in a decidedly positive way. We should probably realize that not only are we a part of nature, we're not the only part; and, consciousness, as we understand it, can only be understood as far as consciousness allows. Thus, we are necessarily perspectivally bound to the dimensions of human cognitive functioning. So, whatever we may assert, however we may adjudicate, we can never know what an entity possessed of a different valence of cognitive capacity knows, how it knows it (meaning, in what way, what is the timbre of its knowledge?), or whether our categories of evaluation are extensive enough to adjudicate such forms of knowledge. 
so i guess whether nature has intention is really a quite small question, only pertinent to Dasein, struggling about searching for an answer to the existential "why?" For the question is only pertinent to Dasein, human beings, who are themselves (ourselves) responsible for the concepts of nature and intentionality.
be easy,


----------



## Dr.J20 (Feb 3, 2014)

Scroga said:


> Nature is not intentional as it has no self....to understand/define this from a human perspective is surely not possible


yeah, this is basically what all that text says that i posted...sorry...be easy


----------



## Dr.J20 (Feb 3, 2014)

kinetic said:


> Why the seperation, (not just you), that the human species is something separate from the nature* in which it's surrounded by*?


in which it's surrounded. 

didn't address this directly, but I'd say we have tended to separate ourselves from "nature" because we have consciousness and communicate with one another, but cannot, as yet, communicate with any other entity. So, we fallaciously presume that we are the only ones of worth based on a hierarchy of cognitive capacities that we erected--guess who we placed at the top? The entire structural analysis of literary plots that fall under the rubric "man vs. nature" demonstrate well that the separation we make is adversarial, and, since we are basically egotistical, we are (supposed to be) interested in the fate of the man in these narratives. Thus, the separation is due to the fact of consciousness and the fault of egoism.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Feb 3, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> Hi Doc,
> 
> chemical reactions in humans also cause a bond and potentially create something new. I suppose, all joking aside, that the intention is one recombination. It seems also interesting (to me) that man is given the ability to reassemble himself on a daily basis. Animals and others further 'down' the chain are what they are and have no choice.
> 
> ...


thanks man, you too. hope all is well with you!
be easy,


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Feb 5, 2014)

Greenthumb what anime is your avatar from?


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

Training with hinako


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

thank you to the mods for deleting madamgreenthumb's anti-semitic spam.


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> thank you to the mods for deleting madamgreenthumb's anti-semitic spam.


hahaha.cry baby. 

It's ok for you to do it but no one else eh..


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> hahaha.cry baby.
> 
> It's ok for you to do it but no one else eh..


since when do i spam anti-semitic cartoons? i leave that up to people like you who join white supremacy and holocaust denial groups when they're not too busy citing the white supremacists from american renaissance.


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> since when do i spam anti-semitic cartoons? i leave that up to people like you who join white supremacy and holocaust denial groups when they're not too busy citing the white supremacists from american renaissance.


Lying through your teeth again I see.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> Lying through your teeth again I see.


so are you claiming that you didn't cite colorofcrime.org, an offshoot of american renaissance (a white supremacist group) which is funded by notable white supremacist jared taylor, who also receives funding from white supremacist philippe rushton?

because i recall that you did cite statistics from that white supremacist group and then defended them, even though they are plainly false to even the most casual observer.


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> so are you claiming that you didn't cite colorofcrime.org, an offshoot of american renaissance (a white supremacist group) which is funded by notable white supremacist jared taylor, who also receives funding from white supremacist philippe rushton?
> 
> because i recall that you did cite statistics from that white supremacist group and then defended them, even though they are plainly false to even the most casual observer.


You are literally the only person to try and say that the info I posted where the research came from the *FBI* is false .. Get some new material... No one believes you when you say this shit, they never have, they never will.. You know why? Cause every time you tried, I made you look like a dumbass. HAHA

Gonna repeat some more bullshit? Probably so, cause that is all you are good at.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 5, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What makes you think ancient alien theory is valid?


I find it every bit as valid as flying spaghetti monster....thats what I mean.



Dr.J20 said:


> but Fibonacci developed the sequence; it was recognized from nature and structured by human pattern-making consciousness and exists separate from phenomenal reality (math is pure abstraction). Fractals are compelling too, but they aren't indications that there lies an intentionality in nature; i'd say they indicate the capacity for pattern recognition/construction of the human mind.


So you're saying it existed in nature, and structured by human consciousness....I would agree.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> You are literally the only person to try and say that the info I posted where the research came from the *FBI* is false .. Get some new material... No one believes you when you say this shit, they never have, they never will.. You know why? Cause every time you tried, I made you look like a dumbass. HAHA
> 
> Gonna repeat some more bullshit? Probably so, cause that is all you are good at.


the FBI is not a white supremacist organization and the conclusions you cited did not come from the FBI, they came from an offshoot of the white supremacist group 'american renaissance' called colorofcrime.

here it is. notice that you did not cite fbi.gov, but rather colorofcrim.org



SirGreenThumb said:


> Well this will be easy.
> http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
> *The Color of Crime*
> 
> ...


now, the first hint that what you cited was patently false tripe was the very first of their "major findings". it is well documented that minorities do get higher sentences for the same crimes, and are more likely to be pulled over, searched, arrested, etcetera.

can you cite a similar finding from the FBI?

i'll wait while you try to find a similar "major finding" from the FBI.

go on. i'm waiting.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> the research came from the fbi


no, raw data came from the FBI.

a white supremacist group then took that data and made some odd, wildly retarded conclusions. the "research" came from white supremacists.

for example:

_*The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.*
_


SirGreenThumb said:


> the same shit was on wiki.


no, it isn't. 

here is what wiki says about predictors of crime:

*While there is a correlation between blacks and Hispanics and crime, the data implies a stronger tie between poverty and crime than crime and any racial group, when gender is taken into consideration.[SUP][39][/SUP] The direct correlation between crime and class, when factoring for race alone, is relatively weak. When gender, and familial history are factored, class correlates more strongly with crime than race or ethnicity.[SUP][40][/SUP][SUP][41][/SUP] Studies indicate that areas with low socioeconomic status may have the greatest correlation of crime with young and adult males, regardless of racial composition*





SirGreenThumb said:


> You know, I never really believed it, but from all the repeated lies you try and tell about me I can almost guarantee that you are fucking snitch.


baselessly calling me a snitch will not change the fact that you look to white supremacists for your worldview.

further, it will not change the fact that you did indeed join a white supremacist, holocaust denial group and pointlessly spam my thread with anti-semitic cartoons.

so feel free to call me a snitch, it will only get you banned even quicker than your white supremacy tendencies will.


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> so feel free to call me a snitch,* it will only get you banned even quicker*


Boom, proved my point for me.. 

You wasted your time with that other bullshit.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> Boom, proved my point for me..
> 
> You wasted your time with that other bullshit.
> 
> View attachment 2986057


maybe you should post some more anti-semitic cartoons to dispel the aura of white supremacy you have created around yourself.

the funniest part of you citing white supremacist groups is that you did so in a thread titled "LOW IQ yet again linked to conservative ideas and racism".

i'm not sure if you meant to literally prove the point of the thread singlehandedly, but it was lulzier than all holy fuck.


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> maybe you should post some more anti-semitic cartoons to dispel the aura of white supremacy you have created around yourself.
> 
> the funniest part of you citing white supremacist groups is that you did so in a thread titled "LOW IQ yet again linked to conservative ideas and racism".
> 
> i'm not sure if you meant to literally prove the point of the thread singlehandedly, but it was lulzier than all holy fuck.


Keep on repeating it.. Maybe one day it will become true.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> Keep on repeating it.. Maybe one day it will become true.
> View attachment 2986063


what am i lying about?

you did indeed post demonstrably false nonsense from a white supremacy group.

should i show the connections between colorofcrime, american renaissance, jared taylor, philippe rushton, the pioneer fund, eugenics, and white supremacy?

because i will.


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> what am i lying about?
> 
> you did indeed post demonstrably false nonsense from a white supremacy group.
> 
> ...


If you want to waste your time posting bits and pieces of things I post so be it. I could care less. I have no reason or need to defend what I have written as I have already proven you to be a liar and idiot. Carry on.

[video=youtube;r8gnmUyminI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8gnmUyminI[/video]


----------



## Wait, what? (Feb 5, 2014)

Everything has the intention to survive


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> I have already proven you to be a liar and idiot.


how so?

you said i was lying about the fact that you posted nonsense from a white supremacy group. 

so i literally posted the proof in the form of your citation of "colorofcrime.org", an offshoot of 'american renaissance', which is a white supremacy group started by jared taylor.

you said that it came from the FBI, but it didn't. you can't cite anything from the FBI that says the same thing that the white supremacists say.

you said wiki says the same thing, but it doesn't. i posted what wiki says, which is that crime is related to poverty and class rather than skin color.

so i ask you again, what am i lying about exactly?


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 5, 2014)

Wait said:


> Everything has the intention to survive



Oh you didn't know? This is a racial thread....don't let the title fool ya.


----------



## Wait, what? (Feb 5, 2014)

Oh. I was just explain my vote


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> Oh you didn't know? This is a racial thread....don't let the title fool ya.


madamgreendumb decided to come in and pointlessly spam anti-semitic cartoons, so i figured i would remind everyone about his long history with white supremacy here on rollitup.

context is important.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 5, 2014)

Wait said:


> Oh. I was just explain my vote


Go on......is a consciousness required to have this intention?


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 5, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> madamgreendumb decided to come in and pointlessly spam anti-semitic cartoons, so i figured i would remind everyone about his long history with white supremacy here on rollitup.
> 
> context is important.


Most shit is already deleted by the time I login. Oh well.


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

Arrest data: FBI,
Crime in the United States, 2001
(USGPO, 2002), p. 252. FBI,
Crime in the United States, 2002
(USGPO, 2003), p. 252. FBI,
Crime in the United States, 2003
(USGPO, 2004), p. 288


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

Arrest data are from US, Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureauof Investigation (FBI),
Crime in the United States, 2002
[Thisis the official title of document that is based on the UniformCrime Reporting Program (UCR).] (Washington, DC: US Gov-ernment Printing Office [USGPO], 2003), p. 252. Unless oth-erwise indicated, all information about arrests in this report isfrom this source. Population data are from Population Divi-sion, US, Census Bureau (Census Bureau), &#8220;Annual Estimatesof the Population by Sex, Race and Hispanic or Latino Originfor the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (NC-EST2004-03)&#8221; (Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 2005), http:/ /www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2004/NC-EST2004-03.xls. Accessed July 11, 2005.

You sure you want me to keep this up? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHa


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

Eh, there is no reason for me to post anymore..I do believe I have proved my point once again.


----------



## beenthere (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> Eh, there is no reason for me to post anymore..I do believe I have proved my point once again.


I believe that's checkmate!
But, you know he'll lie like usual and swear up and down later that he pwned you.

Nice job SirGreenThumb


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

beenthere said:


> I believe that's checkmate!


I'm almost certain he will repeat the same lies about me. 

Even though its quite obvious why I posted the color of crime a long time ago. He still feels as though I didn't bait him with that one.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> One of the biggest obstacles to understanding therelationship between race and crime is the failure of most national crime statistics to distinguish betweenHispanics and whites. The Uniform Crime Report-ing Program (UCR), which is the basis of the *FBI&#8217;snational tabulation of arrests*, puts most Hispanicsin the &#8220;white&#8221; category.
> 3
> The National Crime Vic-timization Survey (NCVS), an extensive annual sur-vey of crime victims, classifies some Hispanic crimi-nals as white and some as &#8220;other race.&#8221; BecauseHispanics commit most crimes at higher rates thannon-Hispanic whites, lumping the two groups to-gether distorts the data
> 
> ...


*Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime &#8212; A Look at How Racists Do Math*


Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.


To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department&#8217;s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many &#8220;white&#8221; victims of &#8220;black crime&#8221; are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.


But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of &#8220;black crime,&#8221; his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).







wooops! looks like you shot yourself in the foot.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> Even though its quite obvious why I posted the color of crime a long time ago. He still feels as though I didn't bait him with that one.


there is only one problem with your new narrative: you yourself argued against that narrative initially.

witness: https://www.rollitup.org/politics/782999-bucks-bogart-illegal.html

in this thread, you try to claim that only i think that jared taylor, american renaissance, and colorofcrime are racist white supremacists. you try to argue that it's good information from good people, not white supremacists.

you quickly ducked out once i pointed ou tthat jared taylor himself is a white separatist.

so no, you were clearly not trying to bait me. you actually cited white supremacists in all seriousness thinking they were good sources of information.

only now do you try to change your reasoning for posting that to "it was bait".

you are a racist little weasel and more and more people are seeing it.

go cry now.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

beenthere said:


> I believe that's checkmate!


what you believe and what reality looks like are two vastly different things.

i have you on record stating that the polls were all skewed by the liberal media, and that obama's lead was a fictional creation of the liberal media.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/567721-obamas-fake-lead-polls-exposed.html

the best part was how you continued to defend your failed theory long after it was shown to be a scam for idiots.

you are a joke.


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

You seem mad..


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> Arrest data: FBI,
> Crime in the United States, 2001
> (USGPO, 2002), p. 252. FBI,
> Crime in the United States, 2002
> ...





SirGreenThumb said:


> Arrest data are from US, Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureauof Investigation (FBI),
> Crime in the United States, 2002
> [Thisis the official title of document that is based on the UniformCrime Reporting Program (UCR).] (Washington, DC: US Gov-ernment Printing Office [USGPO], 2003), p. 252. Unless oth-erwise indicated, all information about arrests in this report isfrom this source. Population data are from Population Divi-sion, US, Census Bureau (Census Bureau), &#8220;Annual Estimatesof the Population by Sex, Race and Hispanic or Latino Originfor the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (NC-EST2004-03)&#8221; (Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 2005), http:/ /www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2004/NC-EST2004-03.xls. Accessed July 11, 2005.
> 
> You sure you want me to keep this up? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHa


please do continue to point out that the FBI stats do not say the same thing that the white supremacists you cite are saying.

i'm still waiting for you to point out where i lied, like you claimed.

i have justified myself with references and citations galore with respect to your love of manufactured, bullshit white supremacy "stats".

you have only been able to muster a cry of "liar" without ever demonstrating even once where i have lied or what i have lied about.

you are clown shoes, greendumb.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> You seem mad..


you don't seem to get what's going on here, but that is no surprise.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 5, 2014)

What is going on here? If I say you're a snitch, do I get banned? That most certainly is not against the site rules, is it?

I know multiple accounts will do it........but here Buck still is.....what's up with that?


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> please do continue to point out that the FBI stats do not say the same thing that the white supremacists you cite are saying.
> 
> i'm still waiting for you to point out where i lied, like you claimed.
> 
> ...


You are literally to stupid for words. 

Now go ahead and keep repeating the same bullshit after you got owned. You think posting stupid shit from random people means anything? It doesn't and you obviously forgot what the original post was about. 

Black people commit more crime as a whole. Its already been proven. 

Its quite amusing that you will sit there and call me all sorts of a racist, yet your precious Obama is a racist himself.


----------



## SirGreenThumb (Feb 5, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> What is going on here? If I say you're a snitch, do I get banned? That most certainly is not against the site rules, is it?
> 
> I know multiple accounts will do it........but here Buck still is.....what's up with that?


You didn't know that's how it works around here. 

I quoted it for everyone to see the lopsided bullshit he gets away with.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> You are literally to stupid for words.


lovely.



SirGreenThumb said:


> Now go ahead and keep repeating the same bullshit after you got owned.


can you please point out where this ownage occurred?



SirGreenThumb said:


> You think posting stupid shit from random people means anything?


do you think posting demonstrably false "findings" from a white supremacy group signifies anything except your own racism and inability to discern good information from bad information?



SirGreenThumb said:


> It doesn't and you obviously forgot what the original post was about.


you have not had a thing to say about the OP.

you came in here spamming anti-semitic cartoons after i made you upset last night, and so i took the liberty of pointing out that i was not surprised by your anti-semitism since you often cite white supremacists and join white supremacy groups.



SirGreenThumb said:


> Black people commit more crime as a whole. Its already been proven.


crime is correlated with poverty and low SES, not skin color.

or do you believe there is some magical property about melanin that makes those with more of it commit crime?

you tell me.



SirGreenThumb said:


> Its quite amusing that you will sit there and call me all sorts of a racist, yet your precious Obama is a racist himself.


what does anything obama thinks have to do with the aura of white supremacy you have shrouded yourself in?


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> You didn't know that's how it works around here.
> 
> I quoted it for everyone to see the lopsided bullshit he gets away with.


what is lopsided?

i have plenty of evidence for calling you a racist. you cite white supremacists. you then defended those white supremacists and said they weren't racists. once i point out that jared taylor calls himself a white separtist, you started saying it was just to bait me.

you also joined a known white supremacy and holocaust denial group.

you jumped into this thread from out of nowhere to post anti-semitic cartoons.

now what evidence do you have for calling me a snitch?


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 5, 2014)

SirGreenThumb said:


> Ok everyone, I'm taking a break from this place.
> 
> Peace.


*like*

did some mean man get you all upset after you decided to spam his thread with anti-semitic tripe?



don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.


----------



## beenthere (Feb 6, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> so feel free to call me a snitch, it will only get you banned even quicker than your white supremacy tendencies will.





twostrokenut said:


> What is going on here? If I say you're a snitch, do I get banned? That most certainly is not against the site rules, is it?
> 
> I know multiple accounts will do it........but here Buck still is.....what's up with that?


How the hell is calling you a snitch going to get someone banned UB, you have something to say, spit it out, boy.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 7, 2014)

Oh snap now tripe is an insult?
That's so racist. 

Buck your racism is coming through more and more....please continue with your....how would you put it?
Literary pigs feet?

That was low man.


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Feb 7, 2014)

I sometimes wonder if Bucky is black like he claimed to be a few months ago.

I'm watching that racist show Cops.
All they do is pick on black guys.
When in custody, they lie and rat on their friends.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 7, 2014)

I am watching re-runs of the boondocks....which is racist according to buck.


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Feb 7, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> I am watching re-runs of the boondocks....which is racist according to buck.


I hated that show at first but as time went by I liked it.
At first glance it was nigga or nigger this or that and I watched something else.
After I gave it a chance I learned some things.

I sure do miss The Maxx.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 7, 2014)

Where is your avi from Nutes and Nugs?

I miss my damn bubba. Gave it to this kid to keep the strain alive and he got fucking russet mites all in his tent and killed them.
I even gave him some avid to spray while veggin and it all went to shit somehow.

I got some bubba76 beans....did you get a good pheno first try? 

I could go for some bubba right now.

Its always nigga dis or dat where I'm from so boondocks just reminds me of home.
Can't wait to get back.
Norcal is the whitest place I have ever seen, no shit.

You know Maxx re-runs are on mtv.com I think....you like sam keith?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 7, 2014)

kinetic said:


> Just out of curiosity do you see the human species as not of nature? Are we not naturally occuring on this planet? Why the seperation, (not just you), that the human species is something separate from the nature in which it's surrounded by?





UncleBuck said:


> how so?
> 
> you said i was lying about the fact that you posted nonsense from a white supremacy group.
> 
> ...


I followed it pretty easily.

Read the quotes he posted, saw where they came from. Checked the wiki page, nothing there. Nothing from the FBI either.... did a two second search on colorofcrime.org, and their affiliations. 

Seems to add up, took about 3 mins to completely fact check.


Not sure how (if you even did) you lied previously, or how this would affect this particular incident. What Greenthumbs is doing is poisoning the well, and a little bit of a false dilemma. (_falsum in uno_, _falsum in omnibus, Wrong in one thing, wrong in everything)
_
Logical fallacy_ fail.
_


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 7, 2014)

Oh dear. I *knew *I lost a thread somewhere, and here it is. Heis, feel free to dump it back in the bear pit.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 7, 2014)

I forgot why I was here.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 7, 2014)

i had to sacrifice my own thread. it happens.


----------



## twostrokenut (Feb 7, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> i had to sacrifice my own thread. it happens.


Turnoabout is fair play.


----------



## UncleBuck (Feb 7, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> Turnoabout is fair play.


but the execution was thoughtless. anti-smeitic cartoons? gotta try a little harder than that.


----------



## jahbrudda (Mar 4, 2014)

I would just like to know why buck can call everyone who disagrees with him a racist, but someone else can get suspended for call him a snitch?
Whats up with that?


----------



## twostrokenut (Mar 4, 2014)

You havent even scratched the surface. He says nigger every other post, directly calls anyone he disagrees with a blankety blank "piece of shit", something cannabineer told me directly wasn't allowed.

This one thread I went through and highlighted every name call he did, thread was only 80 posts or so and I had 10 quotes at least.

"bigoted piece of shit" was the soup de jure that day.

Got deleted with the quickness.


----------



## UncleBuck (Mar 4, 2014)

jahbrudda said:


> I would just like to know why buck can call everyone who disagrees with him a racist, but someone else can get suspended for call him a snitch?
> Whats up with that?


you are a racist.



jahbrudda said:


> You really African American buck, 4 realz?


stop crying because you got banned, beenthere.


----------



## twostrokenut (Mar 4, 2014)

Buck's inspiration for life:

[youtube]UksfV5V7R20[/youtube]


----------



## UncleBuck (Mar 4, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> You havent even scratched the surface. He says nigger every other post, directly calls anyone he disagrees with a blankety blank "piece of shit", something cannabineer told me directly wasn't allowed.
> 
> This one thread I went through and highlighted every name call he did, thread was only 80 posts or so and I had 10 quotes at least.
> 
> ...



you are a racist.



UncleBuck said:


> do you agree that it was a good idea for the federal government to mandate that private business owners whose businesses were 'open to the public' serve the entire public? i'm talking hotels, gas stations, restaurants, and the like. do you agree that it was a good idea for the federal government to end racist practices that states were refusing to end on their own?





twostrokenut said:


> Look dude I don't think its a good idea.


----------



## twostrokenut (Mar 4, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> you are a racist.


Oh really? I don't remember getting banned WHILE calling a black man a nigger like you did.

Racist.



UncleBuck said:


> i got banned for posting pictures of kaendar, not for calling him a niqquer. you dumb, confused thing.


Matter of fact it would make a nice siggy.


----------



## Pinworm (Mar 4, 2014)

How can 3 giant dicks be such pussies?


----------



## twostrokenut (Mar 4, 2014)

Pinworm said:


> How can 3 giant dicks be such pussies?


3 giant dicks would make something out to be a pussy given enough time.
Brokeback Mountain taught me this, yep I am that secure.


----------



## UncleBuck (Mar 4, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> Oh really? I don't remember getting banned WHILE calling a black man a nigger like you did.
> 
> Racist.
> 
> ...


nice sig, it highlights the manner in which you have to lie about me, whereas i only have to tell the truth about a racist like you.


----------



## Pinworm (Mar 4, 2014)

Dude...


----------



## twostrokenut (Mar 4, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> nice sig, it highlights the manner in which you have to lie about me, whereas i only have to tell the truth about a racist like you.


Dont be skuuurrrd dude....your little slice of this world is pretty lacking in color but its nothing to fear.


White alone, percent, 2010 (a) 73.0%83.6% Black or African American alone, percent, 2010 (a) 2.6%1.8% American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2010 (a) 0.6%1.4% Asian alone, percent, 2010 (a) 10.5%3.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2010 (a) 0.5%0.3% Two or More Races, percent, 2010 4.5%3.8% Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2010 (b) 16.3%11.7% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2010 66.3%78.5%


----------



## twostrokenut (Mar 4, 2014)

Pinworm said:


> View attachment 3013596
> 
> Dude...


Disclaimers are a bitch....just like QuickFix, shit works though.


----------



## Pinworm (Mar 4, 2014)

twostrokenut said:


> Disclaimers are a bitch....just like QuickFix, shit works though.


Lawls. ...................


----------

