Topic: Atheists
+Anonymous A — 11.5 years ago #40,494
Harvey: “You’re sitting there talking with a dude and he tells you he’s an atheist, you need to pack it up and go home. You know, talking to a person that don’t believe in God, what’s his moral barometer? Where’s it at? It’s nowhere.”
Behar: “Do you believe that only people who are religious are ethical and moral?”
Harvey: “No. I just believe if you don't believe in God, then where is your moral barometer? That's just me talking. You can believe what you want to believe. But if you're an atheist, you're basing your goodness and morality on what? I mean, but what is an atheist? I don't really get into that. I've talked the people all the time. I'm an atheist. I just walk away. I don't know what to say to you.”
Behar: “Well, an atheist is someone that doesn't quite believe that there is somebody out there, some God out there.”
Harvey: “Well, then, to me you're an idiot.”
Behar: “Okay. Well --”
Harvey: “I'm cool with that. Probably not the right, politically correct thing to say. But if you don't believe in God, I mean, really, you have to have an explanation for this. You can't just tell me it spun out of a gastrous ball and then all of a sudden we were evolved from monkeys. Why we still got monkeys? There is too much open. I just believe that and if you don't believe that, then I don't like talking to you.”
Behar: “Do you believe that only people who are religious are ethical and moral?”
Harvey: “No. I just believe if you don't believe in God, then where is your moral barometer? That's just me talking. You can believe what you want to believe. But if you're an atheist, you're basing your goodness and morality on what? I mean, but what is an atheist? I don't really get into that. I've talked the people all the time. I'm an atheist. I just walk away. I don't know what to say to you.”
Behar: “Well, an atheist is someone that doesn't quite believe that there is somebody out there, some God out there.”
Harvey: “Well, then, to me you're an idiot.”
Behar: “Okay. Well --”
Harvey: “I'm cool with that. Probably not the right, politically correct thing to say. But if you don't believe in God, I mean, really, you have to have an explanation for this. You can't just tell me it spun out of a gastrous ball and then all of a sudden we were evolved from monkeys. Why we still got monkeys? There is too much open. I just believe that and if you don't believe that, then I don't like talking to you.”
+FUCK !YAH.boners — 11.5 years ago, 45 seconds later[T] [B] #443,824
Didn't read
+Anonymous C — 11.5 years ago, 31 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #443,835
+Anonymous D — 11.5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #443,839
Looks like Harvey forgot to take his Domestos.
+Anonymous E — 11.5 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #443,843
·FUCK !YAH.boners — 11.5 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #443,848
@previous (E)
You say that I am a fag? It is in the sincere hope of beating you at your own game that this letter is offered to an intelligent and discriminating public. Those readers of brittle disposition might do well to await a ride on the next emotionally indulgent transport; this one is scheduled nonstop over rocky roads. As soon as you're strapped in I'll announce something to the effect of how it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of lecherous grobians like you can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them. It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that if you can't cite the basis for its claim that fainéantism is a sine qua non for mankind's happiness then it should just shut up about it.
Rest assured, you want to silence truth-tellers like me. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is your gossamer grasp of reality. You and your zealots coerce children into becoming activists willing to serve, promote, spy, and fight for your plaints. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why do you avouch that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? To turn that question around, is it possible for those who defend crapulous Pyrrhonism to make their defense look more scary than it currently is? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how the point at which you discover that many of us long for a modern-day Jesus who can heal the sores of the lepers and the festering open wounds caused by your effete, high-handed generalizations is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that it has not yet been successful at convincing impressionable young people that it does the things it does “for the children”. Still, give it some time, and I'm sure it'll figure out how to do something at least that macabre, probably more so. In any event, when you say that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable, in its mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like it believes it has said something very profound.
I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have seen and heard enough. Now it is time to induce you to perceive your errors of perception and judgment and make it realize that it cribs a good deal of its tactics from various authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. We must expose your memoirs for what they really are. If we fail then all of our sacrifices and all of the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been in vain. The key is to realize that when you tell us that it's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the brassbound hands of mindless, peremptory control freaks, it somehow fails to mention that it goes ga-ga for any type of Satanism you can think of. It fails to mention that its intellectual dishonesty, mismanagement of facts, and outright lies make the worst classes of nocuous hypochondriacs I've ever seen seem ready for sainthood, in comparison. And it fails to mention that its abrasive form of resistentialism is abhorrent to me. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to you. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which morally crippled rubes like you are entirely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of tribalism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? While that question may not be as profound as “What's the meaning of life?” or “Is there a God?”, I intend to change the minds of those who engulf the world in a dense miasma of vandalism. That's the path that I have chosen. It's definitely not an easy path, but then again, your morals reek of Trotskyism. I use the word “reek” because there is historical precedent for your beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). Specifically, for as far back as I can remember, it has been conning us into sawing off the very tree limbs upon which we're sitting. Given how one sordid activity always leads to another, it should come as no surprise that if you feel ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing it, then that's just too darn bad. Its arrogance has brought this upon itself.
Your biggest lie is that Machiavellianism brings one closer to nirvana. Sure, it might be able to peddle that boatload of parisology to the hayseeds, but it is astonishingly evil. However, as the Buddha remarked, there has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it. I'm sure that if the Buddha lived in modern times, though, he'd also comment on how if I chose to do so I could write exclusively about your antihumanist ravings and never be lacking for material. Nonetheless, I'd rather spend some time discussing how you have gotten carried away with leveling filth and slime at everyone opposed to its beliefs. It's pretty clear from this lack of restraint that it would exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us, all at the drop of a hat. It's therefore imperative that we stop this insanity, as doing so will let you know that your lamentations celebrate deception, diversion, and fashion. This isn't necessarily a new argument. Its roots go back at least to Foucault, and it has been elaborated in numerous venues, such as a book I recently read in which the author maintains that you should stop calling me an oppugnant joker. Although I've been called worse things by better organizations, I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see you set the wolf to mind the sheep. It makes me want to embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of prætorianism, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that you look primarily at a person's superficial qualities such as physiognomy and mannerisms. I, in contrast, consider how likely a person is to keep the faith. That's what's important to me. Either way, it is firmly convinced that granting it complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. Its belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that when you say that its editorials are Right with a capital R, that's just a load of spucatum tauri.
Your claim that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind. you claim to have donated a lot of money to charity over the past few years. I suspect that the nullibicity of those donations would become apparent if one were to audit your books---unless, of course, “charity” includes your organizations that jump on everything that is written, said, or even implied and label it as either morbid or evil. In that case, I'd say that I will stop at nothing to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. My resolve cannot fully be articulated, but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that your destructive form of vigilantism is like a forest fire. Once it is started, none can set bounds to the resulting conflagration. The only option is to spark a powerful student movement that will fight for justice everywhere while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. While doing so won't put a stop to vigilantism, it will demonstrate decisively that you and its legatees behave like a colony of culicidae decrying the occasional angry slap by those that have been stung by your odious, pestiferous sallies. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with anything. Rather, I say it as someone who firmly believes that you desperately wants us to believe that it can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. We have two options: sit back and let such lies go unchallenged or fight back with the truth. I have decided to fight back. I shall do so by spreading the truth about how we've all heard you yammer and whine about how it's being scapegoated again, the poor dear.
Your speeches are tactless. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that some organizations are responsible and others are not. You fall into the category of “not”. Many people think of your repressive, obtrusive ballyhoos as a joke, as something only half-serious. In fact, they're deadly serious. They're the tool by which untoward varmints will destabilize society eventually. A second all-too-serious item is that you preys on the rebellious and disenfranchised, tricking them into joining its polity. Their first assignment usually involves stripping the world of conversation, friendship, and love. The lesson to draw from this is that due to your unruly, conceited denunciations we have witnessed the emergence of a mass movement of materialism on college campuses. But I digress. The suggestion that newspapers should report only on items you agrees with is wrong, absurd, and offensive. Nevertheless, your rank-and-file followers like to suggest such things to distract attention from the truth, which is that to you, the fact that its brusque reinterpretations of historic events have yielded little in the way of positive results-and that they obviously have dangerous long-term consequences-is not a reason to stop and reassess. Rather, it's a call to action; it's an opportunity for you to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature.
Mass anxiety is the equivalent of steroids for you. If we feel helpless, you are energized and ramps up its efforts to erect a shrine of teetotalism. you, do you feel no shame for what you've done? Whenever you want to convince someone that its impetuous crew is a benign and charitable agency, it turns instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. These words and idioms are intended to distract the listener from noticing that you label anyone you doesn't like as “drossy”. That might well be a better description of it. Your permissive attitude toward crude language and gestures, sexual promiscuity, and drugs makes me think that there is no reason to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than you have for its legates, who are legion, and there is every reason not to. But there's the rub; I'll admit that your rhetoric is occasionally decorous. However, its delusions are just as ripe and far more lethal than those of the shabby babblers who insist that I'm too sententious to chastise it for not doing any research before spouting off.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you are not an undiplomatic thought policeman. There are various philosophical arguments that one could use to contradict that assuption, but perhaps the best involves the observation that your execrations represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. Groupthink and mob behavior are common within your terrorist organization. Hence, it isn't unusual for one who commits heresy against your established dogma to be exiled from the community. The sad part is that these outcasts still refuse to believe that you will fail if we unite. Now that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true.
To give the devil his due, I'm impressed with how efficiently you manage to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up, especially given that it is stepping over the line when it attempts to plague our minds---way over the line. I alluded to this earlier, but your argumentative lieutenants fundamentally believe that everything you say is thoroughly and totally true. Alas, this deeply held belief is fiction from start to finish. Every piece of evidence I can find makes it abundantly clear that if you get your way, none of us will be able to anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. Therefore, we must not let you create a one-world government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to its agenda.
You recently began nurturing the seeds of our eventual destruction so that they grow like a rapidly malignant mutant form of kudzu. Once again, it has made a mockery of its pledge not to be so philopolemical. It's too bad that you lack the decency to admit that it believes that it holds a universal license that allows it to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by you and your rambunctious protégés.
This letter may seem a bit long but your anti-democratic précis cannot be adequately described in less than a long essay. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that you adamantly maintain that the most temerarious dolts you'll ever see have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. Such beliefs would be thoroughly factual if it weren't for reality. As it stands, if you continue to turn our country into an addlepated cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets.
Your jeremiads are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until you and your mercenaries started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that you like to cite poll results that “prove” that it can change its chauvinistic ways. Really? Has anyone ever been contacted by one of your pollsters? Chances are good that nobody has ever been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that every one of us has a role in saving this country from your testy coven. We all know that you have put our country in trouble. We may disagree on what to do about it, but we all know that our country is in trouble. May I suggest, therefore, that we let you know, in no uncertain terms, that it plans to usurp the existing power structure by giving people a new and largely artificial basis for evaluating things and making decisions? Doing so may help even lawless barbarians see that it has been paddling around in the swampy parts of sanity. Why else would you maintain that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point?
What shall we do? We have several options. We might call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. We might put the fear of God into it. Or, we might remove the misunderstanding that it has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. Any of these options, I assert, are acceptable. Still, we must choose one of them or else you will raise extortionate demands by next weekend.
You once tried to convince a bunch of us that the Universe belongs to you by right. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed, and a number of people informed the rest of the gang that you have vowed that in the coming days it'll intensify or perpetuate libertinism. This is hardly news; you have been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that you want nothing less than to twist the teaching of history to suit its unrealistic, hopeless purposes, hence its repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of its myopic, wrongheaded barbs. You like to put on a honest face to dissimulate its plans to dam the flow of effective communication. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism but with particular emphasis on the fact that it maintains that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. Given your proclivity to make claims first and check facts later, this is an absurd untruth and means nothing. A more honest statement would be that we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because it should undeniably heed Cicero's advice, “Appetitus rationi pareat.” (For those of you who failed your introductory Latin class, that means, “Let your desires be ruled by reason.”)
Although ordinary men and women want to build a working consensus to tackle big problems, you want to toss sops to the egos of the maledicent. This incongruity reveals that you unquestionably don't want us to provide people the wherewithal to throw down the gauntlet and attain peace, truth, justice, and equality. That'd be too much of a threat to factionalism, denominationalism, and all of the other laughable things you worship.
I am not a fag. You are.
You say that I am a fag? It is in the sincere hope of beating you at your own game that this letter is offered to an intelligent and discriminating public. Those readers of brittle disposition might do well to await a ride on the next emotionally indulgent transport; this one is scheduled nonstop over rocky roads. As soon as you're strapped in I'll announce something to the effect of how it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of lecherous grobians like you can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them. It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that if you can't cite the basis for its claim that fainéantism is a sine qua non for mankind's happiness then it should just shut up about it.
Rest assured, you want to silence truth-tellers like me. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is your gossamer grasp of reality. You and your zealots coerce children into becoming activists willing to serve, promote, spy, and fight for your plaints. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why do you avouch that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? To turn that question around, is it possible for those who defend crapulous Pyrrhonism to make their defense look more scary than it currently is? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how the point at which you discover that many of us long for a modern-day Jesus who can heal the sores of the lepers and the festering open wounds caused by your effete, high-handed generalizations is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that it has not yet been successful at convincing impressionable young people that it does the things it does “for the children”. Still, give it some time, and I'm sure it'll figure out how to do something at least that macabre, probably more so. In any event, when you say that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable, in its mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like it believes it has said something very profound.
I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have seen and heard enough. Now it is time to induce you to perceive your errors of perception and judgment and make it realize that it cribs a good deal of its tactics from various authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. We must expose your memoirs for what they really are. If we fail then all of our sacrifices and all of the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been in vain. The key is to realize that when you tell us that it's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the brassbound hands of mindless, peremptory control freaks, it somehow fails to mention that it goes ga-ga for any type of Satanism you can think of. It fails to mention that its intellectual dishonesty, mismanagement of facts, and outright lies make the worst classes of nocuous hypochondriacs I've ever seen seem ready for sainthood, in comparison. And it fails to mention that its abrasive form of resistentialism is abhorrent to me. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to you. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which morally crippled rubes like you are entirely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of tribalism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? While that question may not be as profound as “What's the meaning of life?” or “Is there a God?”, I intend to change the minds of those who engulf the world in a dense miasma of vandalism. That's the path that I have chosen. It's definitely not an easy path, but then again, your morals reek of Trotskyism. I use the word “reek” because there is historical precedent for your beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). Specifically, for as far back as I can remember, it has been conning us into sawing off the very tree limbs upon which we're sitting. Given how one sordid activity always leads to another, it should come as no surprise that if you feel ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing it, then that's just too darn bad. Its arrogance has brought this upon itself.
Your biggest lie is that Machiavellianism brings one closer to nirvana. Sure, it might be able to peddle that boatload of parisology to the hayseeds, but it is astonishingly evil. However, as the Buddha remarked, there has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it. I'm sure that if the Buddha lived in modern times, though, he'd also comment on how if I chose to do so I could write exclusively about your antihumanist ravings and never be lacking for material. Nonetheless, I'd rather spend some time discussing how you have gotten carried away with leveling filth and slime at everyone opposed to its beliefs. It's pretty clear from this lack of restraint that it would exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us, all at the drop of a hat. It's therefore imperative that we stop this insanity, as doing so will let you know that your lamentations celebrate deception, diversion, and fashion. This isn't necessarily a new argument. Its roots go back at least to Foucault, and it has been elaborated in numerous venues, such as a book I recently read in which the author maintains that you should stop calling me an oppugnant joker. Although I've been called worse things by better organizations, I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see you set the wolf to mind the sheep. It makes me want to embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of prætorianism, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that you look primarily at a person's superficial qualities such as physiognomy and mannerisms. I, in contrast, consider how likely a person is to keep the faith. That's what's important to me. Either way, it is firmly convinced that granting it complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. Its belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that when you say that its editorials are Right with a capital R, that's just a load of spucatum tauri.
Your claim that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind. you claim to have donated a lot of money to charity over the past few years. I suspect that the nullibicity of those donations would become apparent if one were to audit your books---unless, of course, “charity” includes your organizations that jump on everything that is written, said, or even implied and label it as either morbid or evil. In that case, I'd say that I will stop at nothing to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. My resolve cannot fully be articulated, but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that your destructive form of vigilantism is like a forest fire. Once it is started, none can set bounds to the resulting conflagration. The only option is to spark a powerful student movement that will fight for justice everywhere while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. While doing so won't put a stop to vigilantism, it will demonstrate decisively that you and its legatees behave like a colony of culicidae decrying the occasional angry slap by those that have been stung by your odious, pestiferous sallies. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with anything. Rather, I say it as someone who firmly believes that you desperately wants us to believe that it can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. We have two options: sit back and let such lies go unchallenged or fight back with the truth. I have decided to fight back. I shall do so by spreading the truth about how we've all heard you yammer and whine about how it's being scapegoated again, the poor dear.
Your speeches are tactless. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that some organizations are responsible and others are not. You fall into the category of “not”. Many people think of your repressive, obtrusive ballyhoos as a joke, as something only half-serious. In fact, they're deadly serious. They're the tool by which untoward varmints will destabilize society eventually. A second all-too-serious item is that you preys on the rebellious and disenfranchised, tricking them into joining its polity. Their first assignment usually involves stripping the world of conversation, friendship, and love. The lesson to draw from this is that due to your unruly, conceited denunciations we have witnessed the emergence of a mass movement of materialism on college campuses. But I digress. The suggestion that newspapers should report only on items you agrees with is wrong, absurd, and offensive. Nevertheless, your rank-and-file followers like to suggest such things to distract attention from the truth, which is that to you, the fact that its brusque reinterpretations of historic events have yielded little in the way of positive results
Mass anxiety is the equivalent of steroids for you. If we feel helpless, you are energized and ramps up its efforts to erect a shrine of teetotalism. you, do you feel no shame for what you've done? Whenever you want to convince someone that its impetuous crew is a benign and charitable agency, it turns instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. These words and idioms are intended to distract the listener from noticing that you label anyone you doesn't like as “drossy”. That might well be a better description of it. Your permissive attitude toward crude language and gestures, sexual promiscuity, and drugs makes me think that there is no reason to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than you have for its legates, who are legion, and there is every reason not to. But there's the rub; I'll admit that your rhetoric is occasionally decorous. However, its delusions are just as ripe and far more lethal than those of the shabby babblers who insist that I'm too sententious to chastise it for not doing any research before spouting off.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you are not an undiplomatic thought policeman. There are various philosophical arguments that one could use to contradict that assuption, but perhaps the best involves the observation that your execrations represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. Groupthink and mob behavior are common within your terrorist organization. Hence, it isn't unusual for one who commits heresy against your established dogma to be exiled from the community. The sad part is that these outcasts still refuse to believe that you will fail if we unite. Now that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true.
To give the devil his due, I'm impressed with how efficiently you manage to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up, especially given that it is stepping over the line when it attempts to plague our minds---way over the line. I alluded to this earlier, but your argumentative lieutenants fundamentally believe that everything you say is thoroughly and totally true. Alas, this deeply held belief is fiction from start to finish. Every piece of evidence I can find makes it abundantly clear that if you get your way, none of us will be able to anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. Therefore, we must not let you create a one-world government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to its agenda.
You recently began nurturing the seeds of our eventual destruction so that they grow like a rapidly malignant mutant form of kudzu. Once again, it has made a mockery of its pledge not to be so philopolemical. It's too bad that you lack the decency to admit that it believes that it holds a universal license that allows it to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by you and your rambunctious protégés.
This letter may seem a bit long but your anti-democratic précis cannot be adequately described in less than a long essay. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that you adamantly maintain that the most temerarious dolts you'll ever see have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. Such beliefs would be thoroughly factual if it weren't for reality. As it stands, if you continue to turn our country into an addlepated cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets.
Your jeremiads are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until you and your mercenaries started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that you like to cite poll results that “prove” that it can change its chauvinistic ways. Really? Has anyone ever been contacted by one of your pollsters? Chances are good that nobody has ever been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that every one of us has a role in saving this country from your testy coven. We all know that you have put our country in trouble. We may disagree on what to do about it, but we all know that our country is in trouble. May I suggest, therefore, that we let you know, in no uncertain terms, that it plans to usurp the existing power structure by giving people a new and largely artificial basis for evaluating things and making decisions? Doing so may help even lawless barbarians see that it has been paddling around in the swampy parts of sanity. Why else would you maintain that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point?
What shall we do? We have several options. We might call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. We might put the fear of God into it. Or, we might remove the misunderstanding that it has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. Any of these options, I assert, are acceptable. Still, we must choose one of them or else you will raise extortionate demands by next weekend.
You once tried to convince a bunch of us that the Universe belongs to you by right. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed, and a number of people informed the rest of the gang that you have vowed that in the coming days it'll intensify or perpetuate libertinism. This is hardly news; you have been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that you want nothing less than to twist the teaching of history to suit its unrealistic, hopeless purposes, hence its repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of its myopic, wrongheaded barbs. You like to put on a honest face to dissimulate its plans to dam the flow of effective communication. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism but with particular emphasis on the fact that it maintains that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. Given your proclivity to make claims first and check facts later, this is an absurd untruth and means nothing. A more honest statement would be that we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because it should undeniably heed Cicero's advice, “Appetitus rationi pareat.” (For those of you who failed your introductory Latin class, that means, “Let your desires be ruled by reason.”)
Although ordinary men and women want to build a working consensus to tackle big problems, you want to toss sops to the egos of the maledicent. This incongruity reveals that you unquestionably don't want us to provide people the wherewithal to throw down the gauntlet and attain peace, truth, justice, and equality. That'd be too much of a threat to factionalism, denominationalism, and all of the other laughable things you worship.
I am not a fag. You are.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
+FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 11.5 years ago, 55 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,856
@OP
Do you frequently conduct internal dialogues externally and in the third person?
Do you frequently conduct internal dialogues externally and in the third person?
+Anonymous G — 11.5 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,867
how do you explain those faglet computer tings
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.5 years ago, 6 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,919
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 3 days later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #444,470
·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 11.5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #444,471
+Morbid !vbsvhaneDY — 11.5 years ago, 18 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #444,472
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.5 years ago, 25 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #444,474
+DEF-GD — 11.5 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #444,507
Y'all ever wonder iff'n Jesus ever jollied his rocks wit them peepholes in his hands?
+Green — 11.5 years ago, 21 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #444,510
Am atheist, don't given are evens refer to Star Trek Voyager.Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.