Looking at the poll numbers, one might draw the conclusion that half the people in this country believe 9/11 was an inside job.
# YES 46 46% # NO 46 46% # I COULDNT SAY 5 5% # MAY BE 4 4%
But that would be an invalid conclusion. I suggest the numbers reflect the penchant nutcases have for sharing their insanity, causing an extremely high and very possibly 100% response rate while sane people were more likely to roll their eyes and blow off the the whole thing with no response at all, causing a very very low response rate.
The 9 out of 100 that booked "I couldn't say" or "may be" are the hardest to explain. They took the time to post a response but haven't been able to examine the entire theory and draw any conclusion about how likely or unlikely it may be.
I feel safer betting my life on the FACT that 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with US government conspiracy than I feel betting my life on the fact that brakes make a car slow down when you press on them. And I feel safe enough about that to bet my life on it for two hours a day every single workday and who knows how many hours on weekeends. So... yeah.... I won't embarrass myself by voting "could be" or "I don't know" even if I'm the only one that would know I'd cast a vote for such a vacuous position on the subject.
It would be gut-bustingly funny that there were so many people in this country who believe this sort of unimaginably absurd insanity if those people weren't also eligible to vote. That wrecks the delightful humor of it all, making it more disturbing and creepy than funny.
The reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is because a fool and his money are soon parted.
The world is perfect. It was here before you. It will be here after you. It is exactly what it is supposed to be. If you perceive the world is imperfect, re-examine your perception.
Giving advice is either vanity or futility. A wise man doesn't need it and a fool won't heed it.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how wrong it may be.
Snow does suck. There are a lot of good wild vegetables in Florida as well as anywhere else. Around here, dandelions, stinging nettles, jewel weed, lambsquarter (the best), wapatoo, spring beauty tubers, cattail, milkweed, chickory, plantain and pursely are all very common. Add in all the wild nuts and berries and fruits like the persimmon, crabapples, etc., and there's quite a potential bounty for those that know about the natural wild foods available.
I've seen an awful lot of perfectly good road kill go to waste here in CT. It might sound really crass, but if you think about it, whether a deer is killed by a bullet or a bumper, it's still venison and it's still very tasty and nutritious.
Seriously, HGL, I've thought it a shame that we don't take advantage more of the plentiful wild vegetables and other wild foodstuffs that are wildly abundant here. Hunters for the hungry helps out a lot here in CT providing countless tons of fresh meat to food shelters throughout the state each year. Every little bit helps.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to advance your education yet again, Amity.
"Getting out of here is a good idea and keep your silly-assed pseudo-psychological analysis of others to yourself. You're not qualified to make such assessments and it reflects much worse on you than the person you are insulting."
Ad hominem would be calling the PERSON who made the comment "silly". In fact, what the person said was silly and the refutation of what was said was entirely appropriate. That remark made to me was (a) a personal insult. (b) one without any basis and (c) made by someone patently unqualified to make such a remark.
See, Amity, if I was to say "well, you aren't worth listening to" or "you don't know what you are talking about", I would be attacking YOU (ad hominem). If I point out the reasons why WHAT YOU SAID are incorrect, inappropriate, unacceptable and unreasonable, it's not ad hominem. I'm not attacking you. I'm dealing with your behavior and your statement.
I don't judge you, personally. What you say, however, is always subject to be judged, evaluated, debated, repudiated, argued, etc. If what you say is sound, it will stand up against debate. If not, then accept that you went off half cocked and might have even acted inappropriately (or don't - your call).
Note the important qualifier "may be". You can't assume that those dependent on others ARE at risk or ARE suffering. It does increase the potential for this being a risk, though.
Now are we on the same page? If you are going to discuss a problem or issue like this, you really need to be specific and stick to facts and not simply imply "all" when "some" is actually true. Especially if you are using your "debate" to put someone in their place and castigate them for whatever reason you see fit, it's advisable to use sound logic that isn't refuted and scuttled with ridiculous ease because it's unsound and untrue at face value.
That explains the way you feel about yourself quite well and I'm with you on all that except for the age thing. I've never had anything handed to me, either and neither do I support the socialized this that and everything else people feel they are "entitled to" just because they want it and they think people who make more than they do should pay for it. But I digress.
My point was that "people are sheep" is a statement that is all inclusive and that means if you are people, then you, too are a sheep if your statement is correct.
I don't think people are sheep. But I do think there is a lot of "flock mentality" and that it is appropriate to call those people "sheep" metaphorically. It's just not all-inclusive. You aren't the only one who thinks for himself.
OK. You just want to argue and impugn, apparently. Your arguments are shallow and dishonest and you change the subject leaping into fallacy ad hominem as soon as your irrational position has been hopelessly sunk. Getting out of here is a good idea and keep your silly-assed pseudo-psychological analysis of others to yourself. You're not qualified to make such assessments and it reflects much worse on you than the person you are insulting.
You have singlehandedly convinced me that a thread about how intelligent and rational people should discuss and debate and list logical fallacies and dirty debate tactics that honest people should avoid when possible. So at least there may end up being some value coming out of this pathetic exchange.
You've either got the most incredibly bad reading comprehension I've come across or are utterly delusional. At least I don't think you're lying any more. I don't think you can help yourself.
Transient = temporary. Not all are transient. Some, both transient or chronic could live in the woods or anywhere else.
You seem to be happy to run with the logical fallacy of exchanging "all" with "some" whenever it suits you back and forth in order to create fictitious statements for other people. You really should knock that off.
If you want to pull up my quote saying that, then go ahead and do it, otherwise, you should be apologizing for lying about what I've said. If you're going to debate or argue, for God's sake at least stick to honest points instead of making up really bad strawman arguments for other people. Damn. What ever happened to reasonable and intelligent discussion or debate?
Good. I think at this point, it's safe to assume that we can refer to this when discussing "rights" and "entitlements". Entitlements are for those who prefer a government security blanket paid for by others and rights are preferred by those who value individual freedom and personal responsibility. Conservatives favor rights - liberals favor entitlements.
But most important is that we realize that there is no such thing as a "right" to an "entitlement" since they are very different things.
There are economic problems. There are wars. There are people homeless. There are people hungry. There are people dying of disease. The ruling class wields fearsome power over everyone else. Morals are declining. There are earthquakes and tornados and tidal waves and wurricanes. People are marrying and giving in marriage. These are very ancient and awful prophecies of the end of times.
Is there any bright ray of hope for us?
Yes, I think there is.
The bright ray of hope is that it's been this way since pre-history and these are problems that we have always had and always will have and the world hasn't come to an end over it in the last 2000 years, so I wouldn't go out and max out all my credit cards partying just yet.
The government isn't worth a damn at "making jobs". They're too busy trying to figure out more ways to suck money out of the economy, finding new taxes and running business out of the country with onerous new regulations.
The government isn't the solution to any of our financial problems. They ARE the problem.
If she thinks those people are starving, then there's no debate that's going to help here. They aren't. I thought she must have been babbling about something else because that was completely nonsensical. I wouldn't presume to "fix" someone's syntax in such a way as to make what they said absurd. If she wants to claim "all those people who are homeless are starving", then she should say that herself. I know I'd hate to have someone put words into my mouth, particularly if they weren't very smart words.
Another possibility is that they don't yet have a recent photo. I didn't post a photo when I first filled out my profile because I didn't have one. I put one up within a few days, though.
I'd love to respond but your post is so incoherent that I have no idea what point it is that you were trying to make that warrants a response. Maybe I should assume it's just a poorly thought out rant that doesn't really need a response?
I don't have to watch a video to know there are homeless families living in the woods. They've got it better than the ones living in the urban jungle, in my opinion. But we're drifting mighty far away from the topic of people starving to death in the streets. Homelessness and dying of starvation aren't the same thing nor is there a certain causal relationship. The thread wasn't about whether this country has homeless people. Read the OP again and you'll see that "homless" wasn't the issue.
I'm not sure our moral and ethical values are all that much different. I think the homeless need help and don't get enough. Nothing I said could have or should have been interpreted as a callous disregard for the plight of others, but rather was a statement of fact that people do not HAVE to starve to death in this country. There are options - even if they're not wonderful options - for the times when what we do just isn't enough.
I didn't say that last resorts were "good options". There are a multitude of better options, but if all of them fail...... there's a last resort. Now do you understand what I'm trying to ssay?
I wasn't ducking anyting! I was disgusted at your suggestion, but didn't want to make this personal.[/quote
I'm not sure exactly what you found so disgusting. If you were dying of starvation and there was a police station around the corner where you could get three square meals and a warm bed, do you really think it's disgusting to suggest that someone in that condition might consider it damned brilliant solution?
Believe it or not.... there are people who do just that and so my "distugsting" suggestion is actually tried and true. Beats the hell out of dying wouldn't you say?
My knowledge came first hand. I sent you a little bit of the detail in a PM so you can understand what I'm talking about.
There are people who actually set themselves up to go to jail for the winter. Believe it or not, it's a fact. It's nuts but there are people who do it.
Oh, there are so many better options that they're countless and don't need pointing out. My point was that there is also the last ditch nuclear option if you're truly starving to death.
They do add it to your bill. But assuming you are dying of starvation and the hospital refuses to feed you, wouldn't you say that would be an untenable situation for the hospital? They'd have no choice but to feed you. Dying in their care from starvation because they wouldn't feed you is something their risk managment team would frown on.
Yep, it's a pretty high price for a bed for the night, but it's affordable if dying is the alternative, wouldn't you say? I won't even dignify that comment with a reply!
Can't say I blame you for ducking that one since the only sensible reply is "yes, it's better to spend a night in jail than to die of starvation".
gardenhackle Forum Posts (2,067)
RE: Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/?
Looking at the poll numbers, one might draw the conclusion that half the people in this country believe 9/11 was an inside job.# YES 46 46%
# NO 46 46%
# I COULDNT SAY 5 5%
# MAY BE 4 4%
But that would be an invalid conclusion. I suggest the numbers reflect the penchant nutcases have for sharing their insanity, causing an extremely high and very possibly 100% response rate while sane people were more likely to roll their eyes and blow off the the whole thing with no response at all, causing a very very low response rate.
The 9 out of 100 that booked "I couldn't say" or "may be" are the hardest to explain. They took the time to post a response but haven't been able to examine the entire theory and draw any conclusion about how likely or unlikely it may be.
I feel safer betting my life on the FACT that 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with US government conspiracy than I feel betting my life on the fact that brakes make a car slow down when you press on them. And I feel safe enough about that to bet my life on it for two hours a day every single workday and who knows how many hours on weekeends. So... yeah.... I won't embarrass myself by voting "could be" or "I don't know" even if I'm the only one that would know I'd cast a vote for such a vacuous position on the subject.