I hope not, after all isn't it a crime to hate the President? A hate crime basically. — FreeEmotion

No, but it's actually a crime, an ignorance crime, to think it's a crime to hate the President. That's on the statute books. So, I'd be careful if I were you or you might get reported.

If we ask any member to follow the writing guideline, we'll only do it if there's a consistent pattern of sloppy writing and we'll ask politely as Hanover did. That's our part done. A questioning or negotiating response is fine. Ignoring us and then telling us to pay you to follow the guidelines isn't. Point is we won't be dicks about it, if you're not. We don't want to ban anyone over this but if someone puts us in a position between choosing them or the rules, we'll do the obvious thing.

It's at least a relief to suppose that a self-imposed offer of Hari Kiri after such an error would amount to a similar lexical inappropriacy.

EMERGENCY MOD NOTIFICATION *raza, having been identified as one of Chairman Mueller's double agents is now immune from all mod activity, I repeat, immune from all mod activity!*

Hm, you may be onto something, scout! Things are getting eerie in here. :scream:

Someone's beast of burden anyway.

I feel like it's a mule I'm being presented with here actually.

Mueller's a Republican, a conservative, and a Bush appointee, so not in any alliance of mine.

"Robert Swan Mueller IIIis an American attorney who served as the sixth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2001 to 2013. A conservative Republican, he was appointed by President George W. Bush"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller

I couldn't find the reference to statist cult leader in there though. I presume that's listed in alexjonesopedia.org.

Anyway, apart from pointing out that Mueller's political allegiances don't match up with mine (and, no, I don't like the Democrats either) I'm just having fun with you. Carry on...

My bad.

I am afraid we are too far off-topic to pursue this line of inquiry. Please send any further queries directly to chairmanmuelleratstatistcultdotorg . Or read the guidelines. Now, on with Donald Trump...

...someone just ban him — Maw

Chairman Mueller has determined that seeing as we're in the lounge, a certain amount of insanity is allowable, so due to HIS glorious clemency, raza escapes the gulag. All hail!

We'll leave it up to Chairman Mueller whether or not to send raza to the gulag. All hail CM!

The discussion has been pruned a bit as it was ending up as an alternative Shoutbox. We'll open it up again when we ban someone as per the OP. Thank you for your patience.

:100:

Baden, if you think it appropriate, feel free to move this to its own thread. — Agustino

String successfully pulled.

Generally goes something like this.

mm, a trialing thread it is then...? — Posty McPostface

More like an interactive obituary I'd say. :death:



Sparingly and selectively. There's an art to it. You should take lessons. :nerd:

Not accepting a warning. PMed insults including use of the phrases Nazi, fascist, psychopathic idiot etc. So, yes, you didn't see it.

(And this information was already given out elsewhere, so I'm going to close this.)

:zip:

Sometime during the war anyway.

It's there in its current form since @Sapientia went rogue and was neutralized. Can't remember when that was. About a decade ago I think, was it, Sap?

I'm not familiar with jamalrobs's family tree.. :)

:up:

I found that to be odd...that's not how most forums work, so it's not likely that someone wandering in off the street would think of doing that. I didn't until Baden suggested it. — frank

It's written in the Guidelines, which I hope everyone wandering in off the street or off anything else would read: :)

"Moderator conduct:

In discussions, a moderator is subject to the same guidelines as everyone else...You can report a moderator or ask that a moderator be moderated in the same way as you would any other poster by flagging their posts or by sending a private message to another moderator."

There's no great mystery here.

Two hours work to earn enough to drink the shittiest beverage in your workplace. And make sure to smile!

Min wage is about 50 cents an hour. Baristas make $1.50 here (I checked), and a basic coffee is $3. Obscene sex rituals will run you about a twenty. :nerd:

Minimum wage over here is 10% of US rate. A Starbucks immoralatte is 100% of US price. Don't flag me, hit me with a flagpole.

A whole lot of our nobler passions are predicated on our knowing we're economically secure. — csalisbury

Created by it even. But there's not much we can do about that apart from being aware of it, and I'd give enough credit to the old man that he might take a more understanding view. (Unless he was me in which case I'd probably hate the bastards).

Lyotard has a fantastic essay, 're-writing modernity' that attempts to show that the self-condemnation of western civ is a an extension of the same project that led to them doing what they have to apologize for. I'll have to try to find a link. — csalisbury

Oh yeah, Starbucks wouldn't be possible without a lot of confused morality in the air. (Found another opportunity to bring Starbucks into the conv. :100: ) . Sure send me the link. I expect I'll find myself in agreement.

The reality is that no one wants my tomatoes. — unenlightened

OK, I'll take the effing tomatoes. Jesus. :p

And you are all telling me that I should be grateful for this to the state violence that protects me. — unenlightened

I'm not. I'm thankful for it, and conditionally. But, among other things, I don't come from the same state as you and some states are not as equal as others on the violence scales.

Couldn't he really be sorry and not personally responsible though? Seems a bit of a contrived analogy.

Conflating being better off with being less violent helps your argument more than mine. There is something amiss though, which is our tendency towards violence, which is violently repressed in modern states, thankfully. Of course, the problem is we have bigger sticks and we can throw them further.

Facts can be inconvenient. But they're all we have to work with. If it was a close thing on the statistics it'd be arguable. But I really don't think it is, overall. And heart attacks and cancer have always been around and even my nuclear weapon can't defeat them. :(

Edit: (I should modify the last sentence to say that dying of heart attacks and cancer is a mostly modern privilege of advanced societies with good health-care. In the good old days, they rarely lived long enough for those diseases, at least partly because of increased levels of violence.)

Wrath is an excess of anger, again, it's defined such that it's always wrong. — Agustino

"In its purest form, wrath presents with injury, violence, and hate." Yes, so violence is always wrong (inherently).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Wrath

So what? I never mentioned murder. And I just agreed violence can be a pragmatic good. Wrath is inherently wrong, agree or not?

Wrath is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. Because it's an inherent evil.

It's never inherently good. It can only be a pragmatic good.

...And unfortunately my neighbour is aware of that.

I'm willing to love my neighbour but not to trust him. It seems a lot easier to trust myself. Though that might also be a mistake.

I'm sure if I knew more about the details of the maths, I'd be able to see enough subtleties to allow me to be confused about this. But I'll leave it to the experts, of which I am definitely not one, and just remain confused about the confusion. :D

Fixed important typo that reversed meaning - refresh page plz.

And on the far right of the graph showing almost no visible marking in the graph for violent deaths in 20th century USA and 2005 (world population)? — 0 thru 9

Well, because they're in single figures, they're too small to see in proportion to the other figures. That only underlines the massive differences.

But if I had to be born over? Either way would be fine, might even lean towards going back in time for the heck of it. — 0 thru 9

That's fair enough, but all things being equal, you'd have a higher chance of dying a violent death and certainly a shorter life expectancy.

But the figures are there. There may be some error in them as it is difficult to make reliable estimates the further back you go in time but it's highly unlikely they're out by a factor of hundreds, which they would need to be for states to be more violent than non-states.