Re: Perhaps....
anonymous
January 23 2005, 05:07:02 UTC
Okay, let me get your first sentence straight: I don't smoke, therefore I have no right to decide the role of the government in the tobacco industry as applies to our country? That is up there pretty high on the scale of "things that might sound good in your head". "A patch sure as hell isn't going to do it." "I'm gonna need something to take the edge off." Okay, two part question. Are you a soldier? If yes, what the hell kind of soldier are you? You're trained for eight weeks to be dropped into a hellhole, kill shit, be killed at, and follow specific instructions under times of great physical, mental, and emotional stress and you can't handle not popping a cig in the middle of combat? Where the fuck did you train? Children's Courtyard?
And I don't believe in God, so stay the hell away from my Church. Have you even read Cupitt or Swineburn? I don't beleive in God, personally, but I don't think that a person can verifiably state their beliefs in such a presumptuous manner (i.e. not knowing my beliefs) and be justified to have the moral authority to do so. What kind of philosophy group is this? What kind of revolution are you guys pirating? All the good ones are on subs.
Re: Perhaps....buckydakatJanuary 23 2005, 18:59:28 UTC
I never said i was a soldier. I specifically said that if i was dumped in a life and death situation that i would smoke like a freaking banshee. All those down time hours of waiting for death when it could be just outside the tent or the building...you would probably smoke too. I never claim to have authority other than my own because authority is a emblem of the fucked up system we live in today and i choose to only recognize authority when it has been earned. Im guessing im talking to the same person becuz neither one of these had the guts to have a name on it so here goes. Having perviewed your first post i saw a bit of closed mindedness but a pretty sound argument with good ideas and i decided to broaden it. And with the birth of your second post i say good show old man, BUT i would like to point out that if "all the good ones are on subs" why the hell are you here?
I dont know your beliefs this is true....but your statements continually yell naivaite with enlightenment ergo, youve been on the plateau before but your still new. I dont claim to be better than you in belief or in person but i can say from your comments it seems i know more. No im not a soldier in the armed forces. I have 3 cousins in Iraq and Afghanistan and 2 more second cousins in the armed forces. Ive seen the pictures and ive seen their faces. I never want to have to see that stuff in real life and neither did they. Now they all smoke. Smoking is a proven stress reliever...you telling me they dont have stress in war? And i will stay the hell away from your church cuz i dont like to be burned and churches burn people who think outside their shepard herding the flock mentallity.
No i havent read Cupitt or Swineburn but have you read Machaveilli, Dostoyevski, Nietche, Plato, Krauss, or Dr. Suess? All were before their time and ostracized for it. Look im talking in circles now, well anyway i will call into question thoughts by people who dont show their name and i will not be nice. This is the last time i will be nice to any uncomepleted thought,naive comment,idiosycrism,religous ferver,frogs falling from the sky,and idiots. So post something worth reading other than a bash the basher if you want to do that heres my e-mail idi_otic1@yahoo.com. Feel free to e-mail me there and we can continue conversations and that goes to everyone who has a problem with how i view things. I just want to read some enlightening or funny shit and all POTR has gotten so far ,mostly, is mindless drivel. So friends, romans, countrymen.....if you dont know what your talking about...dont post.
From the trenches at Childrens courtyard this is *shick**whoosh**exhale*Ahhhh Bucky signing off
Re: Perhaps....
anonymous
January 23 2005, 20:46:32 UTC
"Machaveilli, Dostoyevski, Nietche, Plato, Krauss, or Dr. Sues" yes, yes, yes... and it's Machiavelli and Nietzsche
Swineburn and Cupitt are contemporary authors dealing with philosophy of religion and theology. All of the authors you listed are long since outdated. Nietzsche sparkled for a bit with philology and some linguistic analysis of religious mindsets, but his claims against science (like that something is calculable doesn't mean it's determined--that was some bad philology of his own) and even some of his ridiculing of religion as it was has really been mooted by the newer developments in fideism like the epistemological theory that if one claims to know the world, then one must be shown to be contradicting themself within their own framework. Again, all of this has been responded to a few times over, but it's good for you to know that when it comes to these subjects, I'm not entirely unhorsed as it were. (Yes, that was a reference to arrogance, but also to knowledge.) I heard what you said about you smoking and I said if a soldier can't deal with that stress, he shouldn't be in the army. I understand the need to smoke and how hard it is to quit and I'm not expecting any of them to quit, I'm simply saying it's the choice of the person issuing them to withdraw them and I, for one, don't want my taxes going to a war I don't support much less issuing drugs I don't support to aid people in taking a mental state I don't support to do something I don't support. I'll throw my support behind the people themselves--I have family in the war, as well--but I reserve the right to complain about how my taxes are being allocated. I'd much rather patches be issued and then at least a few will quit. Then everyone's happy. So what if a patch isn't enough. Barter for another patch. I don't care how it gets done so long as it gets done. I don't know how you come to the conclusions that are the structure of your beliefs--for all I know, they could be the right conclusions in a logically sound manner with all aspects considered (even in the realms of the studies of ethics and logic), but I haven't seen you justify some of these claims, so I don't think it's you who should be telling me to support what I say. I don't spam my beliefs except where they're relevant to the topic. What, exactly, was the point of you telling me that you dislike religion? Do I care? Why do you dislike religion? I say this because I'd be quite interested in having this debate with you. Primarily because it might help you to realize you don't know it all and neither do I. That's the inevitability. I mean, shouldn't you have realized the fact that you're still READING works from the past sort of indicates there's still a few more people? All philosophy is essentially is a bunch of old guys responding to a bunch of dead guys, dying, and getting responded to by a few more old people.
And nice bit about the trenches at Children's Courtyard. That gets a round of applause.
Re: Perhaps....
anonymous
January 26 2005, 01:40:03 UTC
Oh. You also got Seuss wrong.
And have you read Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Descartes, Hume, Spencer, Rousseau, Comte, Spinoza, Berkeley, Kirkegaard, Wittgenstein, Dewey, Santayana, Hegel, More, Leibnitz, Locke, Bacon, Schelling, Royce, Democritus, Thales, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Campanella, Aquinas, Paley, and I can't really think of anymore of the top of my head, which is sort of shameful now that I think about it, but oh well. That's a drop in the sea of important philosophy writers.
-Anonymous
(Sorry if this posts twice--it wasn't showing on my browser)
Philosophy and Smoking Completly Different
anonymous
February 1 2005, 22:02:26 UTC
In your last post you mentioned several famous philosophers. While it is quite impressive that you have read some of the works of all these men, I doubt a single one of them talks about the ethics or dangers of smoking. Therefore your entire post is now null and void. As for the taxes thing, even if this wasn't a private endeavor and our tax dollars paid for it, most people wouldn't even care. I for one would support our taxes being spent on something to help those soldiers relax. You also said that "if a soldier can't deal with that stress, he shouldn't be in the army." This is the stupidest thing i have read from you yet. they are in the army to protect our liberties and those of other people in a country ruled by a tyrannical and selfish asshole. The men and women in our armed forces CAN handle the stress or else they would have been discharged long ago. They started smoking when bullets start flying past their heads, thus making them calmer in battle. Which stops them from freezing up out of fear. Now you don't smoke that much we have read, so what makes you an expert in the field. Just cause you soaked up everything you have ever read or heard doesn't give you the right to preach to people about it. Also in the Constitution it states that all men have the right to property (this has since been extended to women as well), therefore giving us the right to own and smoke cigarettes. I would also like to know what religion has to do with smoking. That's right Absoulutely Nothing so these religious philosophers you have named off have nothing to do with this topic. Did you know that president Lincoln during the civil war, after hearing about Gen. Grant told his aides to find out the brand of whiskey and TOBACCO he uses so he can give it to all his generals. This is only one incident in American History that shows smoking helps soldiers on battlefields. So next time you want to tell us about smoking and how you don't support it or anything connected to it, remember this we don't fucking care what you or any non-smoker have to say. I hope the next person you lecture lights up in your face and blows smoke at you.
Re: Philosophy and Smoking Completly Different
anonymous
February 4 2005, 00:45:16 UTC
Pft. You speak as if only those who smoke have a right to speak on a smoking issue. It makes sense when you say it, but when you really look at it, if we extended this paradigm to everything else it would just be foolish. Given, a smoker's opinion should be weighed a little heavier in a debate over the issue, but that doesn't mean it's the only one. And the religion thing was totally separate. And, as a matter of fact, should this have been a matter of taxes, it would be utterly unethical to allow it. Especially in this war. We saw on Sunday just what our troops had been dying for--how spiffy--but was that the original intent? No. It's a good thing it happened, otherwise we would've lost a few good men for nothing. I am well aware of death tolls and the stress of a combat situation, but that doesn't give a government organization the right to reallocate my taxes to giving cigarettes to soldiers. However, as has been said before, this is an issue of a private sector raising money, which (as I said before) I had no problem with. "This is the stupidest thing i have read from you yet." Have you ever been through boot camp or a combat situation? Something tells me that if you have, you wouldn't be saying this. Either that or you missed the point of training altogether. A person who gives up his life and freedoms to serve the good of a particular society does not own himself. That is drilled into your head like no other in training. You serve only the good of mankind and if it takes quitting cold turkey to serve that good, that's what you'll do. Now, should someone send you cigarettes, the more power to them, but that doesn't mean a soldier can ASK it of us. You see, when it comes to the military, I don't believe in bitching and moaning. When you commit to the Way of the Warrior, you have committed to Death. If you should meet death and live, it is because you have met death weakly and death has taken mercy upon you. I support strict code with troops because in combat there's no time to take a light. If you can prove that not a single person has been killed because of a cigarette, then okay. Otherwise, it remains a deviation from the duties of a soldier. If you've ever done really extensive training in anything that is within the nature of war, you'll know what I'm talking about. There is no complaining. A complaint can mean a blow to the side of the face or a broken limb. Because that and worse is what happens when you go into battle weakly. Complaining. Soldiers have plenty of time to quit when not in combat and that's something that they need to handle. For their own personal growth and for the growth of their country. Soldiers need to be in tip-top shape both mentally and physically. Some may choose not to. Some will, given the choice, choose a cigarette over saving a group of people trapped in a burning building. Who knows? The point is that they can turn to other things. Like working out, which they should be doing anyways. Stretching and working out can be as effective in easing the mind as any cigarette. Meditation can work for the mind, though these are all things between battles. During battle, I want the people out there fighting to protect my spoiled state of life concentrating on but one thing: the battle at hand. Giving a soldier cigarettes will imply that s/he has the right to demand them of me and bitch about how shitty her/his life is. I don't want to hear it. You volunteered for this shit, now take it. This all sounds really twisted and macho, but there's actually a kind of ethics and honor code to it. But I lack the time right now. And no, for the love of god, I don't support it. But I don't support war, either, so I'm making some automatic concessions here.
Re: Philosophy and Smoking Completly Different
anonymous
February 4 2005, 00:47:55 UTC
Oh and Kant writes in his categorical imperative that humans should "act as though the motivating principle of ones actions would become universal law" and giving cigarettes to complaining smokers who think they have a right to smoke when it is the state who has a right to let them (only applies to military, naturally--IN THE CONSTITUTION) which technically applies.
Read the article
anonymous
March 23 2005, 21:56:08 UTC
I do not condone smoking, but I do believe that smokers should smoke until they are dead and anyone who doesn't smoke should start smoking slowly, and then proceed to smoke more and more every single day until they perish.
There's no "complaining smokers". Just relatives trying to do something nice for people willing to die for their country. NICOTIIIIIIINE. You spend time bitching about people bitching and you're not even making a valid referrence to the article? You couldn't possibly be talking about the article or else you'd know the people complaining are the people trying to send smokes. You're trying to go so deep on this incredibly basic issue, and regardless of whether or not you know what you're saying, you still come out over-explaining your reasoning. NICOTIIIIIIIIINE. Your "quote" by Kant completely overlooks the position of individuality and free thought, and you didn't even consider it. Philosophy talks itself in circles. It has the power to prove and disprove the same theory in a three-sentence conversation.. and amazingly enough, it isn't even that important.
On a lighter note, this post was only one sentence and it isn't complete. NICOTIIIIIIIINE.
"humans should [blah blah blah] and giving cigarettes to (misrepresented) smokers [who think blah blah blah - the military surrenders many of it's rights, but I doubt that receiving a legitimate gift constitutes some sort of rights issue.] Here's the part where you insert a prepositional phrase followed by parenthetical data followed by a "which technically still applies". What still applies? The right to smoke? The lack thereof? The authority of the [quiet laugh] state? The military is a federal organization with national standards. The state would have no control over the rights of smokers *OVERSEAS*. Most military families don't even stay in the same state for more than 2-4 years. And good lord, NO, the state does NOT have a right to "let" military smokers smoke. Nicotiiiiiiiiiiine!!!! This is a democracy you crackhead. We, the people, reserve the right to alter our laws through majority agreement and yet all I see are people leaving it to the government and nodding in consensus when another misleading assumption about our legislative system is completely embraced for truth. But that's the bigger picture. This is about killing yourself. Light up!
Anyhow, your quote is interesting because although the easily accepted concept that if someone wanted everyone else to act as though they were having the greatest day in the world, they could easily read that quote aloud and say "philosophy agrees, you should all be better to eachother". But your only able to put one person to your standards [and that which you would wish to become universal law]. Meanwhile someone who thinks precisely opposite of you and prefers to rape and kill women is holding you to his standards. He thinks that if anyone sees him rape AND/OR kill a woman, they should simply walk away and pretend they are none the wiser. That is his standard and this is yours. Anyways, NICOTIIIIIIINE.
Okay, two part question. Are you a soldier? If yes, what the hell kind of soldier are you? You're trained for eight weeks to be dropped into a hellhole, kill shit, be killed at, and follow specific instructions under times of great physical, mental, and emotional stress and you can't handle not popping a cig in the middle of combat? Where the fuck did you train? Children's Courtyard?
And I don't believe in God, so stay the hell away from my Church. Have you even read Cupitt or Swineburn? I don't beleive in God, personally, but I don't think that a person can verifiably state their beliefs in such a presumptuous manner (i.e. not knowing my beliefs) and be justified to have the moral authority to do so. What kind of philosophy group is this? What kind of revolution are you guys pirating? All the good ones are on subs.
Reply
I dont know your beliefs this is true....but your statements continually yell naivaite with enlightenment ergo, youve been on the plateau before but your still new. I dont claim to be better than you in belief or in person but i can say from your comments it seems i know more. No im not a soldier in the armed forces. I have 3 cousins in Iraq and Afghanistan and 2 more second cousins in the armed forces. Ive seen the pictures and ive seen their faces. I never want to have to see that stuff in real life and neither did they. Now they all smoke. Smoking is a proven stress reliever...you telling me they dont have stress in war? And i will stay the hell away from your church cuz i dont like to be burned and churches burn people who think outside their shepard herding the flock mentallity.
No i havent read Cupitt or Swineburn but have you read Machaveilli, Dostoyevski, Nietche, Plato, Krauss, or Dr. Suess? All were before their time and ostracized for it. Look im talking in circles now, well anyway i will call into question thoughts by people who dont show their name and i will not be nice. This is the last time i will be nice to any uncomepleted thought,naive comment,idiosycrism,religous ferver,frogs falling from the sky,and idiots. So post something worth reading other than a bash the basher if you want to do that heres my e-mail idi_otic1@yahoo.com. Feel free to e-mail me there and we can continue conversations and that goes to everyone who has a problem with how i view things. I just want to read some enlightening or funny shit and all POTR has gotten so far ,mostly, is mindless drivel. So friends, romans, countrymen.....if you dont know what your talking about...dont post.
From the trenches at Childrens courtyard this is *shick**whoosh**exhale*Ahhhh Bucky signing off
Reply
yes, yes, yes... and it's Machiavelli and Nietzsche
Swineburn and Cupitt are contemporary authors dealing with philosophy of religion and theology. All of the authors you listed are long since outdated. Nietzsche sparkled for a bit with philology and some linguistic analysis of religious mindsets, but his claims against science (like that something is calculable doesn't mean it's determined--that was some bad philology of his own) and even some of his ridiculing of religion as it was has really been mooted by the newer developments in fideism like the epistemological theory that if one claims to know the world, then one must be shown to be contradicting themself within their own framework. Again, all of this has been responded to a few times over, but it's good for you to know that when it comes to these subjects, I'm not entirely unhorsed as it were. (Yes, that was a reference to arrogance, but also to knowledge.) I heard what you said about you smoking and I said if a soldier can't deal with that stress, he shouldn't be in the army. I understand the need to smoke and how hard it is to quit and I'm not expecting any of them to quit, I'm simply saying it's the choice of the person issuing them to withdraw them and I, for one, don't want my taxes going to a war I don't support much less issuing drugs I don't support to aid people in taking a mental state I don't support to do something I don't support. I'll throw my support behind the people themselves--I have family in the war, as well--but I reserve the right to complain about how my taxes are being allocated. I'd much rather patches be issued and then at least a few will quit. Then everyone's happy. So what if a patch isn't enough. Barter for another patch. I don't care how it gets done so long as it gets done. I don't know how you come to the conclusions that are the structure of your beliefs--for all I know, they could be the right conclusions in a logically sound manner with all aspects considered (even in the realms of the studies of ethics and logic), but I haven't seen you justify some of these claims, so I don't think it's you who should be telling me to support what I say. I don't spam my beliefs except where they're relevant to the topic. What, exactly, was the point of you telling me that you dislike religion? Do I care? Why do you dislike religion? I say this because I'd be quite interested in having this debate with you. Primarily because it might help you to realize you don't know it all and neither do I. That's the inevitability. I mean, shouldn't you have realized the fact that you're still READING works from the past sort of indicates there's still a few more people? All philosophy is essentially is a bunch of old guys responding to a bunch of dead guys, dying, and getting responded to by a few more old people.
And nice bit about the trenches at Children's Courtyard. That gets a round of applause.
Reply
And have you read Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Descartes, Hume, Spencer, Rousseau, Comte, Spinoza, Berkeley, Kirkegaard, Wittgenstein, Dewey, Santayana, Hegel, More, Leibnitz, Locke, Bacon, Schelling, Royce, Democritus, Thales, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Campanella, Aquinas, Paley, and I can't really think of anymore of the top of my head, which is sort of shameful now that I think about it, but oh well. That's a drop in the sea of important philosophy writers.
-Anonymous
(Sorry if this posts twice--it wasn't showing on my browser)
Reply
Thank you for your time,
-Indy
Reply
Reply
-Raistlin
Reply
There's no "complaining smokers". Just relatives trying to do something nice for people willing to die for their country. NICOTIIIIIIINE. You spend time bitching about people bitching and you're not even making a valid referrence to the article? You couldn't possibly be talking about the article or else you'd know the people complaining are the people trying to send smokes. You're trying to go so deep on this incredibly basic issue, and regardless of whether or not you know what you're saying, you still come out over-explaining your reasoning. NICOTIIIIIIIIINE. Your "quote" by Kant completely overlooks the position of individuality and free thought, and you didn't even consider it. Philosophy talks itself in circles. It has the power to prove and disprove the same theory in a three-sentence conversation.. and amazingly enough, it isn't even that important.
On a lighter note, this post was only one sentence and it isn't complete. NICOTIIIIIIIINE.
"humans should [blah blah blah] and giving cigarettes to (misrepresented) smokers [who think blah blah blah - the military surrenders many of it's rights, but I doubt that receiving a legitimate gift constitutes some sort of rights issue.] Here's the part where you insert a prepositional phrase followed by parenthetical data followed by a "which technically still applies". What still applies? The right to smoke? The lack thereof? The authority of the [quiet laugh] state? The military is a federal organization with national standards. The state would have no control over the rights of smokers *OVERSEAS*. Most military families don't even stay in the same state for more than 2-4 years. And good lord, NO, the state does NOT have a right to "let" military smokers smoke. Nicotiiiiiiiiiiine!!!! This is a democracy you crackhead. We, the people, reserve the right to alter our laws through majority agreement and yet all I see are people leaving it to the government and nodding in consensus when another misleading assumption about our legislative system is completely embraced for truth. But that's the bigger picture. This is about killing yourself. Light up!
Anyhow, your quote is interesting because although the easily accepted concept that if someone wanted everyone else to act as though they were having the greatest day in the world, they could easily read that quote aloud and say "philosophy agrees, you should all be better to eachother". But your only able to put one person to your standards [and that which you would wish to become universal law]. Meanwhile someone who thinks precisely opposite of you and prefers to rape and kill women is holding you to his standards. He thinks that if anyone sees him rape AND/OR kill a woman, they should simply walk away and pretend they are none the wiser. That is his standard and this is yours. Anyways, NICOTIIIIIIINE.
PS:
SMOKE
Reply
Leave a comment