Episode 1 of Fuck It! We'll Do It Live! (https://ethanglover.biz/politics/do-it-live-1/) went er... live... a couple days ago. (Here's episode 0.5 (https://ethanglover.biz/politics/sit-down-discussion-activism/).) Jim says the audio sucks. Now everyone wants to build a studio. I'm skeptical of doing such a show in a studio or having a limited amount of mics, still thinking on that one.
The idea of the show is to,
Quote...take arguments off of Facebook and bring them into the real world. A real, face-to-face discussion contains a very different tone and has a far greater quality than what you will ever find online. This potential continuing series aims to prove that, encourage others to have real world conversation more often, and take on real issues with real differing opinions.
The next topic I personally want to tackle is SFK. That is, find a non-Boston Strong character from the SFK and have a sit-down discussion. I would limit it to them, myself, and Rich Paul. Limit the numbers so there's no piling on the poor guy, Rich because he's a laid back dude and won't play games like Ian, and myself because I've been on both sides. I agree with the message of FK, but agree with many of the claims of SFK. It's a project in progress.
But I do want to see others taking up the idea. Having the real world conversations first, and allowing the internet to expand on them. Concentrating on what is said IRL rather than online makes a huge difference in how much people can learn from one another.
With that said, there are two very active threads here on the NHUnderground forums that may be a beneficial discussion in the real world, ideally on mutual ground. Sam Harris (known to Will Coley as a racist against Muslims last I checked) and Maajid Nawaz (well-known Muslim activist and scholar) came together and wrote a book on the violence of Islam (talked about here (https://youtu.be/sWclm4Bi4UM)). The results were a greater understanding of both sides that lead to a laser-like focus on the real problems.
Many arguments online are a pointless back and forth of, "You don't understand me! I'll one up you/post links until we're all dead!" I don't know why either, but the real world stuff just works better. Sam Harriss won't do interviews or debates unless it's a sit-down face to face discussion with no time limits. Joe Rogan has always encouraged people to do the same. So why not break out the phone, invite your enemy over and record some bad audio? I'd love to hear, publish and share any results as, I believe, would Rich Paul.
Also, here's the table of contents from Episode 1 linked above for an onsite TL;DR:
Quote
- 00:00:35 - It begins. Introductions and things.
- 00:04:11 - Jeffrey Tucker will punch you for viciously insulting his partner.
- 00:05:43 - Jeffrey Tucker is wrong. Mouth noises are just mouth noises. Iniating force makes you 'the state'.
- 00:11:30 - Some duals are beneficial. Some are feeding the trolls.
- 00:12:50 - Is implicit consent still consent in dualing?
- 00:18:18 - Culture and fear dominate the NAP into irrelevancy.
- 00:22:12 - Don't kill chilvary, fight for your woman. ...Or fuck her feelings. Debaters debate.
- 00:25:25 - Ronda Rousey just knocked a guy out and I ain't even mad. Is it OK to root for the violent one? (Also things about property rights.)
- 00:29:00 - Explicit consent to fighting is like explicit consent to sex. Fluidity in law is a requirement in a free society.
- 00:32:05 - 20 minutes later, Rich thinks of an example of implicit consent for fighting.
- 00:34:05 - Determining approriately proportionate responses. Trading blows vs. ending the fight.
- 00:37:17 - Answering a deadly threat with deadly force is OK... unless the threat came over the internet. ...Maybe it's more nuanced than that.
- 00:38:34 - Matt drops the bear mace bomb.
- 00:39:25 - Is it OK to let an insulter in the distance control where you go and what you do? How would you react to these situations as a witness?
- 00:43:00 - Nobody wants to fight. It still happens. Do you deal with that with a universal rule? Or do you allow communities to deal with them dynamically, without restrictions on the parameters of how to do so?
- 00:44:25 - Old guys attacking kids for running remote control car on their golf game. Who's side do you take? Why?
- 00:47:24 - The implications of saying that the interruption of a service is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Determining when that's true, and when it isn't.
- 00:48:17 - Is there a difference between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong? What becomes illegal under anarchist law? How and what happens?
- 00:51:56 - Anarchy = Panarchy. Even if the NAP were a univeral ethic, it would never be universally adopted and codified.
- 00:59:26 - If the NAP can't solve all our problems, can property rights? Does property supersede all wrongs, should it be the end all, be all? Additional conversation on remaining in contact with those who disagree with you.
- 01:05:55 - Fight clubs, fight club laws, and someone says 'death sports'.
- 01:12:51 - Who funds a death sport and how do they get their money? How many people are sociopaths? (Apparently 13%) And will they go away?
- 01:19:05 - Speaking of sociopaths, what do we do with the former government employees in anarchy world?
- 01:22:20 - Maybe sociopaths just need an outlet where they can be controlled and watched while still serving.
- 01:31:15 - Rich says goodbye. "Peace, Pot and Peanut Butter".
I would add milk to the peace, pot and peanut butter thing, lest the peanut butter stick to the roof of the mouth, which would confound things while trying to consume the pot.
However I do understand milk does not start with the letter "p" and sort of fouls up the alliteration. :)
QuoteMouth noises are just mouth noises.
Ridiculous. Words have meanings.
"I'm going to kill you." For example.
Yelling, "Fire!" In a crowded theatre. For another example.
That discussion went off its rails on line 4.
Words are meaningless without action.
Your response to words says a lot about you, your ability respond rationally, and your violent nature.
Academic nonsense. ;D
Lie, bully, threaten... everything is to be tolerated. An example why I don't have much faith in the talkers of the movement. Words are meaningless. An endless exercise in mental masturbation. Reminds me of the Keeniac response to deplorable behavior in the public space as "Tragedy of the commons." No, it's bad manners and why folks feel they need all the laws. To keep people from taking a dump on the sidewalk and then proudly proclaiming "Tragedy of the commons." ;D
Catch a guy in the bedroom of your daughter licking his lips, fondling himself and telling her what he is going to do to her. All you can do is say, "Sir, you must leave my property!"
Or a less vulgar example... Yelling, "Fire!" In a crowded theatre. Stampede kills 12 people.
The social boundaries of behavior are so people don't inadvertently bump into the limits and experience violence.
Of course some would suggest that the whole of a thousand years of customs and laws could be replaced with one rule, the NAP. ;D Good luck convincing people of that being a better way to live. It has proven a failure even within the core group.
Someone voicing a threat, if a reasonable person could believe the threat could be carried out is enough. You don't have to wait until he levels the gun and pulls the trigger.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on December 08, 2015, 04:09 PM NHFT
Someone voicing a threat, if a reasonable person could believe the threat could be carried out is enough. You don't have to wait until he levels the gun and pulls the trigger.
I agree.
Discarding obvious things like "yelling fire in a crowded...", the "words mean nothing" argument means...nothing to the majority of the population. Who observably make decisions based more on how it makes them feel at the time.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on December 08, 2015, 04:09 PM NHFTSomeone voicing a threat, if a reasonable person could believe the threat could be carried out is enough. You don't have to wait until he levels the gun and pulls the trigger.
Credibly threatening violence is a violent act. Responding to that attack is self-defense, not an initiation of force. NAP works perfectly, there.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on December 08, 2015, 11:43 AM NHFT
That discussion went off its rails on line 4.
It didn't actually, it just expanded into one major point. It is not the NAP that determines what we know to be right and wrong, it is culture and social feedback. As we all know, a shitty society under anarchy is a shitty society. It is the people who make a place livable, not law, not principle, just human action.
Determining whether everything is right or wrong based on the NAP is naive. So when someone says, "Punching someone for an insult is wrong." They don't actually know, it's only an imagination of an ideal society, or based on what they've been taught. That judgement is not made on the context of the situation. If it were it would be, "There was a moment there where he had a chance to walk away, but he dug deeper and made the argument worse. That's why it was wrong." Even then it is only an opinion of a witness, considerable, but not definitive.
Someone who says, "He ought to have done X," without being there, without having any sense of empathy for what went down, is someone I don't listen to.
Quote from: MaineShark on December 08, 2015, 08:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on December 08, 2015, 04:09 PM NHFTSomeone voicing a threat, if a reasonable person could believe the threat could be carried out is enough. You don't have to wait until he levels the gun and pulls the trigger.
Credibly threatening violence is a violent act. Responding to that attack is self-defense, not an initiation of force. NAP works perfectly, there.
But the fact that you have to preface your sentence with the word "credibly" shows how subjective the thinking is. A threat is still just mouth noises and not an actual encroachment on life, liberty, or property. But we still know the guy who responds accordingly to be in the right. We think that way because it's been subjectively determined to be the right thing by an aged culture, not because of principle.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on December 08, 2015, 11:43 AM NHFT
That discussion went off its rails on line 4.
Words are meaningless without action.
Your response to words says a lot about you, your ability respond rationally, and your violent nature.
In every situation I've been in where I could have but didn't end up in a fight, and I've seen this many times with others, what actually happens is this. The person who is being insulted or bothered does nothing until the insulter gets bored. I would like to imagine I could walk away or talk the guy down, but it doesn't happen. I've ignored being pushed, but did not dare to turn my back, and eventually things ended. No fight, no initiation of force on my behalf, but completely unjust. (This example is NOT limited to a push, focusing on that misses the point.)
If you suggest that's right, or that it's always right to walk away, you're allowing some people to develop dominate bullying behavior. I grew up with that, until I got socked in the nose one too many times. Is it wrong to throw the first punch? In some sense no. In other senses yes. It depends on what happens. How long it has been happening and an infinite amount of other factors.
I won't judge somebody on the fact that they got in a fight. Rich Paul says in the video he pinned someone against a wall for insulting someone else. Does that mean he lacks the ability to "respond rationally" or has "violent nature?" Of course not. I'd be an asshole to suggest such a thing. You might still suggest it based on that one sentence "pinned someone against the wall for insulting someone," obviously wrong! But it's not so obvious when you're confronted with the story and talking to him face to face. Judge not what you do not know, and do not claim to know what's "right" based on your own internal, ideal standards.
Quote from: Jay on December 08, 2015, 07:03 AM NHFT
The intelligent SFK leaders use their brains to intentionally manufacture propaganda that gets the less intelligent riled up enough emotionally to incite violence.
This is what you're dealing with. Good luck.
I've been told that if I want to talk to someone from SFK I must get permission from Andrea Whitcomb or Joshua Erickson. The problem is, if both of those people are just trolls, they'll shut the idea down and not let anyone know I'm trying to get into contact. Everything with them is private and you really do have to go through the admins.
In the thread that inspired the above conversation, there was a troll who got obnoxious and said, "I can't wait to have this discussion in real life!" after a series of comments that downgraded the conversation. Obviously, he didn't show and stopped responding when the thread became about meetup times.
Trolls are afraid to talk in real life because they can't pretend to be so dominate in the conversation and Google doesn't have their back. So their arguments become shaky at best. Another advantage to the real world stuff is that you mostly filter those people out, even when you invite them. I don't believe that all of SFK is trolls, there has to be some people in there that just don't like the FSP. If not, I can always looks for someone with the same beliefs, but not in the group.
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 09:38 PM NHFTIt didn't actually, it just expanded into one major point. It is not the NAP that determines what we know to be right and wrong, it is culture and social feedback. As we all know, a shitty society under anarchy is a shitty society. It is the people who make a place livable, not law, not principle, just human action.
Determining whether everything is right or wrong based on the NAP is naive.
The NAP does not determine what is right right and wrong. The NAP only determines what is wrong. It does not say how you
should act - only how you
should not act.
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 09:38 PM NHFTSo when someone says, "Punching someone for an insult is wrong." They don't actually know, it's only an imagination of an ideal society, or based on what they've been taught. That judgement is not made on the context of the situation. If it were it would be, "There was a moment there where he had a chance to walk away, but he dug deeper and made the argument worse. That's why it was wrong." Even then it is only an opinion of a witness, considerable, but not definitive.
No, it is wrong, because it is a violation of the self-ownership of the individual who was violently attacked. The insult did not do any such thing, but the punch did. Ergo, the puncher is wrong.
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 09:43 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on December 08, 2015, 08:52 PM NHFTQuote from: Tom Sawyer on December 08, 2015, 04:09 PM NHFTSomeone voicing a threat, if a reasonable person could believe the threat could be carried out is enough. You don't have to wait until he levels the gun and pulls the trigger.
Credibly threatening violence is a violent act. Responding to that attack is self-defense, not an initiation of force. NAP works perfectly, there.
But the fact that you have to preface your sentence with the word "credibly" shows how subjective the thinking is. A threat is still just mouth noises and not an actual encroachment on life, liberty, or property. But we still know the guy who responds accordingly to be in the right. We think that way because it's been subjectively determined to be the right thing by an aged culture, not because of principle.
No, a threat is not "just mouth noises." It is violent.
If someone throws a rock at your head, the throwing is the act of violence, even though the rock has not yet struck. If you see the rock coming and duck, it does not make his act non-violent. You were forced to act in a way contrary to how you would otherwise have acted, in order to avoid the impact of the rock.
If someone makes a credible threat, it forces you to deal with that threat, rather than acting as you otherwise might have acted. Credibility is not significantly subjective; if you could ignore what was said, and nothing would happen to you as a result, then it is not a credible threat; if you were to fail to avoid the threatened harm, and the threatened harm would actually take place, then it is a credible threat. It's a judgement call, but so is ducking to avoid the thrown rock: maybe it would have missed you if you did not duck, but since it was clearly aimed for your head, it's only reasonable to assume that the thrower is competent and to duck.
Quote from: MaineShark on December 08, 2015, 10:16 PM NHFT
No, it is wrong, because it is a violation of the self-ownership of the individual who was violently attacked. The insult did not do any such thing, but the punch did. Ergo, the puncher is wrong.
Wishful nonsense and a refusal to accept reality as is. Drawing a line between two things does not make it universally true. "Wrong," is not and should not be defined by one sentence. It is determined by context, surrounding culture, who is involved, emotion (yes emotion, it matters, get over it), and, as I said, and infinite amount of other factors. Determining what is right and wrong in every situation morally is like trying to the same thing economically. You simply can not centrally plan morality and its rules. Won't work. You can be insistent all you want on the internet but chances are if you actually tried, you'd know that you've witnessed more than one event where violence was initiated and you knew it was the right thing.
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 09:43 PM NHFTNo, a threat is not "just mouth noises." It is violent.
If someone throws a rock at your head, the throwing is the act of violence, even though the rock has not yet struck. If you see the rock coming and duck, it does not make his act non-violent. You were forced to act in a way contrary to how you would otherwise have acted, in order to avoid the impact of the rock.
If someone makes a credible threat, it forces you to deal with that threat, rather than acting as you otherwise might have acted. Credibility is not significantly subjective; if you could ignore what was said, and nothing would happen to you as a result, then it is not a credible threat; if you were to fail to avoid the threatened harm, and the threatened harm would actually take place, then it is a credible threat. It's a judgement call, but so is ducking to avoid the thrown rock: maybe it would have missed you if you did not duck, but since it was clearly aimed for your head, it's only reasonable to assume that the thrower is competent and to duck.
If someone is running on a track and you're walking on the inside lane, and they yell "Track!" it's generally recognized that faster people get the inside lane and you should move when you hear that. But there is no actual rule that says so on most tracks. Your refusal to move, whether ignorant or knowledgeable of this unwritten rule, does not make their running at you violence. If they are at full sprint on a curve and can't move or slow down, it's not violence on your behalf because they had no choice but to run into you. Potentially, but not necessarily a dick move. There are too many factors to consider that you could pull apart all day, but that's exactly why you're wrong.
We can play the "if" game all day, but one-half decent example on my side proves you wrong. You're the one trying to prove a universal and it's already clear you can't.
...and also a thrown rock is a physical threat. A verbal threat is not a physical threat nor does it force you to act. A life threat over the internet is generally dismissed entirely and not taken with seriousness. I'd suggest listening to the video starting from 37:17 to see how many additional rules to "threat" a few people HAD to add in order to try and make themselves right in saying it is always OK to answer a deadly threat with deadly force. Spoiler: No universals were found. If Chris Cantwell threatened to kill me, I'd laugh, if he threatened to kill Ghraham Colson, he'd be afraid. Neither one of us is incorrect. This is subjectivity. The level of threat is determined by the fear of the individual by the individual, not principle. (18:18) It seems most people would not take Ghraham Colson's fear seriously and thus their subjectivity would bar any action from being taken. The results of crying wolf I suppose, but it's subjectivity interfering with subjectivity.
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 10:10 PM NHFT
I don't believe that all of SFK is trolls, there has to be some people in there that just don't like the FSP.
I think there are at least 4 classes of people in SFK:
The people who run it who do it for the constant stream of community peer validation in their lives that they wouldn't otherwise get. They are completely willing to "sell their souls" by doing unethical things to keep it going.
People who's livelihoods depend on government as it now exists. Meaning those business and real estate owners who profit off the ever expanding Keene State College gravy train. And the people who work for the city/county government and school district, which includes an unusual number of those working for "charities" and mental health services which are supported by State funding.
The "proles" with room temperature IQ's who will follow anything that appears to be popular in their peer group to fit in, and who's opinions are molded by the above two groups.
The normal intelligent people who either lurk and never post, or are shut down by the others (banned too, sometimes) when they post something that tries to inject a little reason into the conversation.
Of course, your only likelihood of getting a sit down conversation is probably with the last group. But they don't hate us, they just think
some of the shit "we" do is stupid.
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 11:34 PM NHFTWishful nonsense and a refusal to accept reality as is. Drawing a line between two things does not make it universally true. "Wrong," is not and should not be defined by one sentence. It is determined by context, surrounding culture, who is involved, emotion (yes emotion, it matters, get over it), and, as I said, and infinite amount of other factors.
Based upon what you just claimed, it is literally impossible for there to be anything that is wrong. If there are infinite other factors, then there is no possible way to examine them all, and nothing at all - no matter how heinous - can ever be wrong. With infinite factors, there's always one you have not considered.
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 11:34 PM NHFTDetermining what is right and wrong in every situation morally is like trying to the same thing economically. You simply can not centrally plan morality and its rules. Won't work.
Really? That's an interesting claim. So, an economic rule like, "profit is income, less expenses," is "central planning" in your world?
No, that's just the definition of the thing. Central planning occurs when some central tries to tell you what to
do with that. The NAP is not even vaguely comparable to central economic planning - it's a definition.
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 11:34 PM NHFTYou can be insistent all you want on the internet but chances are if you actually tried, you'd know that you've witnessed more than one event where violence was initiated and you knew it was the right thing.
No, I haven't. Nor can I even think of an example. Nor has anyone else ever presented an example.
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 11:34 PM NHFTIf someone is running on a track and you're walking on the inside lane, and they yell "Track!" it's generally recognized that faster people get the inside lane and you should move when you hear that. But there is no actual rule that says so on most tracks. Your refusal to move, whether ignorant or knowledgeable of this unwritten rule, does not make their running at you violence. If they are at full sprint on a curve and can't move or slow down, it's not violence on your behalf because they had no choice but to run into you. Potentially, but not necessarily a dick move. There are too many factors to consider that you could pull apart all day, but that's exactly why you're wrong.
No, intentionally running into someone is violent. End of story. "He should have known" is not an excuse for violent behavior. That's victim-blaming, like "she dressed sexy."
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 11:34 PM NHFTWe can play the "if" game all day, but one-half decent example on my side proves you wrong.
Too bad you haven't presented one...
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 11:34 PM NHFTYou're the one trying to prove a universal and it's already clear you can't.
Clear to whom, exactly? By the way, "there is nothing so evil that it cannot sometimes be righteous in certain contexts" is also a universal statement. Which I'm rather certain that you cannot possibly prove. Human nature being what it is, there are plenty of examples of truly-heinous evils that have been committed. Do you really think you can come up with "context" that would justify each of them?
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 11:34 PM NHFT...and also a thrown rock is a physical threat. A verbal threat is not a physical threat nor does it force you to act.
It certainly does. Even if you do not alter your behavior, it has changed the nature of your behavior. If someone convinces you that he will kill you if you walk 100 yards down the street, you may be obstinate and choose to keep walking, but he has changed the nature of your act from "walking down the street, minding my own business" into "walking to my death."
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 11:34 PM NHFTA life threat over the internet is generally dismissed entirely and not taken with seriousness.
So, it's not a credible threat, then. Ergo, it is not violent.
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 11:34 PM NHFTI'd suggest listening to the video starting from 37:17 to see how many additional rules to "threat" a few people HAD to add in order to try and make themselves right in saying it is always OK to answer a deadly threat with deadly force. Spoiler: No universals were found. If Chris Cantwell threatened to kill me, I'd laugh, if he threatened to kill Ghraham Colson, he'd be afraid. Neither one of us is incorrect. This is subjectivity. The level of threat is determined by the fear of the individual by the individual, not principle. (18:18) It seems most people would not take Ghraham Colson's fear seriously and thus their subjectivity would bar any action from being taken. The results of crying wolf I suppose, but it's subjectivity interfering with subjectivity.
No, that's not subjectivity. That's credibility. Communication is a two-way street. If Cantwell threatened you, he would know that you don't take it seriously, so it would not be a credible threat. If he threatened Colson, he would know that Colson does take it seriously, so it
would be a credible threat.
OK, I guess I am ignorant, what does SFK stand for? If you are going to use intials please give those of us not in the know a clue. Thank you. I do know what FSP and NAP are.
Quote from: jerryswife on December 09, 2015, 09:06 AM NHFTOK, I guess I am ignorant, what does SFK stand for? If you are going to use intials please give those of us not in the know a clue. Thank you. I do know what FSP and NAP are.
"Stop Free Keene" - a group of anti-liberty malcontents in Keene. Or, as Jay noted, a very few who just don't like some particular action that has been associated with Free Keene. But most are rabid and unstable nutcases with all the charm of Klansmen.
Quote from: jerryswife on December 09, 2015, 09:06 AM NHFT
OK, I guess I am ignorant, what does SFK stand for? If you are going to use intials please give those of us not in the know a clue. Thank you. I do know what FSP and NAP are.
St0p Free K33ne, which runs a website and Facebook Group (I'm purposefully obfuscating their links below so they don't show up in search engines):
Website (http://www.donotlink.com/i-v)
Facebook Group (http://www.donotlink.com/hkj8)
Quote from: MaineShark on December 09, 2015, 08:05 AM NHFT... it is literally impossible for there to be anything that is wrong. If there are infinite other factors, then there is no possible way to examine them all, and nothing at all - no matter how heinous - can ever be wrong. With infinite factors, there's always one you have not considered.
I think you nailed it there, about as well as you can with words.
How about replacing 'wrong' with "known for sure to be wrong"? And with infinite factors and a weeny human brain, there's always more than one factor not considered, there are infinite factors not considered.
QuoteIt is literally impossible for there to be anything that is known for sure to be wrong. If there are infinite other factors, then there is no possible way to examine them all, and nothing at all - no matter how heinous - can ever be known for sure to be wrong. With infinite factors, there's always infinite factors you have not considered.
I can suspect, discern, judge, deduce, and examine critically with my weeny human brain, but I can't really know for sure.
I was enslaved by the trap of discerning errors in my neighbors actions, based on limited perception, and righteously standing in judgement over them as if I were all knowing. A real freedom came from giving up such ridiculous discernment.
Quote from: K neth on December 09, 2015, 09:36 AM NHFT
I was enslaved by the trap of discerning errors in my neighbors actions, based on limited perception, and righteously standing in judgement over them as if I were all knowing. A real freedom came from giving up such ridiculous discernment.
That's some good stuff right there.
Quote from: K neth on December 09, 2015, 09:36 AM NHFT
Quote from: MaineShark on December 09, 2015, 08:05 AM NHFT... it is literally impossible for there to be anything that is wrong. If there are infinite other factors, then there is no possible way to examine them all, and nothing at all - no matter how heinous - can ever be wrong. With infinite factors, there's always one you have not considered.
I think you nailed it there, about as well as you can with words.
How about replacing 'wrong' with "known for sure to be wrong"?
Doesn't really matter does it? He already admitted there's no such thing as a universal ethic. Now we're just nitpicking over words so the conversation as at an end. Any further arguments are just a desperate attempt to be right at something. There is value is passing judgement through something like a jury and basing decisions off past cases. Even without a formal court system we have always crowdsourced law and justice to the community. Sometimes you personally may think the decision was wrong, another might disagree. Yes, right and wrong is often an opinion. Infinite factors does NOT imply impossible to judge, although sometimes it does. Falling head over heels for a strawman doesn't make anything correct. Again, assuming you know what to be right because NAP, or because "my opinion/personal principle" is wholly retarded.
BTW, Amazon makes no profit. Don't give me your stupid "universal" economic opinions either.
Quote from: MaineShark on December 09, 2015, 08:05 AM NHFT
No, intentionally running into someone is violent. End of story. "He should have known" is not an excuse for violent behavior. That's victim-blaming, like "she dressed sexy."
The person walking is the one who did it intentionally. Keep up dingo.
Quote from: MaineShark on December 09, 2015, 08:05 AM NHFT
No, that's not subjectivity. That's credibility. Communication is a two-way street. If Cantwell threatened you, he would know that you don't take it seriously, so it would not be a credible threat. If he threatened Colson, he would know that Colson does take it seriously, so it would be a credible threat.
Says you, it's your subjective opinion claiming to know what Cantwell knows.
:deadhorse:
Quote from: eglove on December 09, 2015, 11:30 AM NHFTDoesn't really matter does it? He already admitted there's no such thing as a universal ethic.
No, I didn't. I referenced your claim that there is not.
Quote from: eglove on December 09, 2015, 11:34 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on December 09, 2015, 08:05 AM NHFTNo, intentionally running into someone is violent. End of story. "He should have known" is not an excuse for violent behavior. That's victim-blaming, like "she dressed sexy."
The person walking is the one who did it intentionally. Keep up dingo.
Not in the example you gave. You stated that someone was walking, and someone else ran into him from behind. That was an intentional act on the runner's part.
So, "try to keep up." Particularly when it's your own example.
Quote from: eglove on December 09, 2015, 11:34 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on December 09, 2015, 08:05 AM NHFTNo, that's not subjectivity. That's credibility. Communication is a two-way street. If Cantwell threatened you, he would know that you don't take it seriously, so it would not be a credible threat. If he threatened Colson, he would know that Colson does take it seriously, so it would be a credible threat.
Says you, it's your subjective opinion claiming to know what Cantwell knows.
No, it's not. I don't need to make a subjective judgment, because the example is based upon this public posting.
Nor would it matter. Making a subjective judgment as to the facts of the case does not change the objective standard used to judge those facts.
"All chickens are birds" is an objective standard. "This critter right here is a chicken" is subjective, dependent upon the observer's skill at determining the species of a given animal. The subjective skill level of the observer does not change the objective standard; it merely impacts how well that standard can be applied in the real world.
"My ethics are universal, just not in real life." -MaineShark
If you can't even read what's being said, don't respond.
Quote from: eglove on December 09, 2015, 12:23 PM NHFT"My ethics are universal, just not in real life." -MaineShark
If you can't even read what's being said, don't respond.
If you can't post without lying, don't bother to post.
Something something libertarians arguing on the internet...
Must be winter.
Jerryswife comes in and starts trouble. Wait a minute I'm a troublemaker she's not.
eglove has stepped into the Maineshark zone I'll let Joe chew on him for a while. I say eglove makes some good points, but the mouth noise angle is still ridiculous. ;D
As to the viciously insulting person...
The dominance game is what mouthy people are often trying to pull. I've been messing with our son to help teach him to verbally respond and hopefully prevent the need to use physical force to put them back in to their place. A well placed putdown in front of the group can often take the wind out of the bully's sails.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on December 09, 2015, 06:43 PM NHFT
Jerryswife comes in and starts trouble. Wait a minute I'm a troublemaker she's not.
eglove has stepped into the Maineshark zone I'll let Joe chew on him for a while. I say eglove makes some good points, but the mouth noise angle is still ridiculous. ;D
As to the viciously insulting person...
The dominance game is what mouthy people are often trying to pull. I've been messing with our son to help teach him to verbally respond and hopefully prevent the need to use physical force to put them back in to their place. A well placed putdown in front of the group can often take the wind out of the bully's sails.
That's really specific and hopeful. Plan for the best scenario, one-day things don't go that way. I once got in a fight doing that very same thing. Welcome to reality.
The fact that we disagree about what's right and wrong in different situations only proves the point that there is no universal ethic. The more MaineShark struggles with his dyslexia, the more he digs into the nitpicking, the more wrong he his. Anybody who acts like they have all the answers has some serious ego issues to deal with.
How these arguments tend to go, from an example in the video:
Rich: "Is there a way to implicitly consent to a dual?"
Matt/Mike: "No."
Me: "If someone stays in your face and keeps dogging you..."
Matt: "That's a different thing. We need to set parameters..."
Thus the "fingertip length proximity amendment" was added to the NAP, which does not cover such cases. The hypocrisy is lost on those too arrogant to believe that their imaginary ethics in their heads could ever possibly NOT cover a particular situation.
Rich: "The non-initiation of force is not a sufficient life philosophy. ...It answers only one question, at what point do you use violence?"
Mike: "It doesn't even answer that very explicitly. ...some of these lines can be blurry in real life." (Mike being one of the two who said no to the question of implicit duals.)
Rich: "If I'm in a David and Goliath situation... I might be more apt to take the initiative [initiate violence]."
Matt: "Is he making his way towards you? If he's clearly becoming a threat, I'm going to meet him half way." (Just agreed to a situation of an implicit agreement to a dual.)
You can tell me how you imagine yourself to be perfect and how your pretty little rules make your decisions the right thing all the time every time all you want. And I'm going to call you a liar. Meet a guy half way, throw the first punch on Goliath, push a guy who gets too close and you're not a bad person. Nor did any of those "threats violate the NAP." Those are childish excuses, amendments to a one sentence principle, to try and make yourself look better than you are... even though there was no problem to begin with.
Rich: "Answering a deadly threat with deadly force is certainly, I would say we would all agree with; that's your right."
Me: "What if it's on the internet?"
Rich: "Huh?"
Me: "What if the threat comes over the internet?"
Matt: "Again, it's words." Really? Because they were words before they were on the internet too.
Melanie: [Proximity argument.]
Rich: [Well if *I* believe it...]
Me: "[Fighting] can't be dealt with on a universal basis, it has to be dealt with by [locals, property owners, witnesses, victims, etc.] rather than some monopolized court system, or you HAVE to fall under the non-aggression principle. It's not my business to say how every situation (even if the same thing happened) should be handled."
And this is why we have Government.
Just the opposite, we have government because everyone wants to use THEIR definition of "heap" in order to determine what it is. Emergent order and anarchy do not do this, do-gooder, power hungry, ego trips do.
Quote
The sorites paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
Be OK without an answer and deal with your community in the way you need to deal with it. People in general aren't evil, assholes who try to control the "self-interest" of others are.
Quote from: eglove on December 09, 2015, 07:07 PM NHFTThe fact that we disagree about what's right and wrong in different situations only proves the point that there is no universal ethic.
No, that's not how a proof works. If folks disagree, it can also be because some of them are just wrong.
Quote from: eglove on December 09, 2015, 07:07 PM NHFTThe more MaineShark struggles with his dyslexia, the more he digs into the nitpicking, the more wrong he his. Anybody who acts like they have all the answers has some serious ego issues to deal with.
You seem to be doing a lot of looking into mirrors, and not much actual reasoning. You might want to work on that.
Here, I'll give you a reasoning exercise. Please attempt to engage your brain for this, okay?
A mad scientist builds a doomsday device which will wipe out all of humanity if activated. He is diagnosed with a terminal illness and, because he is both very angry over this and also very petty, decides that if he is to die, no one else will be allowed to survive him. So, when he is sure that his life is approaching the end, he activates his device and wipes out the entire human race, for no purpose other than to satisfy his petty desire that no one enjoy a future which he has been denied.
You've stated that there are no universally-wrong actions, and that it all depends upon context. Please describe the context which makes wiping out the entirety of humanity for petty revenge against random chance into a righteous (or, at least, not wrongful) action.
Quote...there is no universal ethic.
QuoteYou've stated that there are no universally-wrong actions...
MaineShark 2016. (https://youtu.be/c_PsOVPaW4w)
You spend a lot of time in front of that mirror, don't you?
You're the one who's here politicking for your Statist position. The fact that others are refusing to accept it does not place them in your category of behavior.
You've made claim after claim, which have all been shot down. But you keep insisting that your premise is correct. You've lied about what others actually said, and expect to be taken seriously. And, when presented with a simple opportunity to apply your premise to an example, you just attempt to deflect that with nonsense. Seems like you should be looking for a position as Trump's campaign manager, eh?
:guitar: :guitar: :guitar: :guitar:
Well,my daddy left home when I was three
And he didn't leave much to ma and me
Just this old guitar and an empty bottle of booze
Now, I don't blame him cause he run and hid
But the meanest thing that he ever did
Was before he left, he went and named me Sue
Well, he must o' thought that is quite a joke
And it got a lot of laughs from a' lots of folk
It seems I had to fight my whole life through
Some gal would giggle and I'd get red
And some guy'd laugh and I'd bust his head,
I tell ya, life ain't easy for a boy named Sue
Well, I grew up quick and I grew up mean
My fist got hard and my wits got keen
I'd roam from town to town to hide my shame
But I made a vow to the moon and stars
That I'd search the honky-tonks and bars
And kill that man who gave me that awful name
Well, it was Gatlinburg in mid-July
And I just hit town and my throat was dry
I thought I'd stop and have myself a brew
At an old saloon on a street of mud
There at a table, dealing stud
Sat the dirty, mangy dog that named me Sue
Well, I knew that snake was my own sweet dad
From a worn-out picture that my mother'd had
And I knew that scar on his cheek and his evil eye
He was big and bent and gray and old
And I looked at him and my blood ran cold
And I said, "My name is Sue, how do you do
Now you're gonna die"
(yeah, that's what I told him)
Well, I hit him hard right between the eyes
And he went down, but to my surprise
He come up with a knife and cut off a piece of my ear
But I busted a chair right across his teeth
And we crashed through the wall and into the street
Kicking and a' gouging in the mud and the blood and the beer
I tell ya, I've fought tougher men
But I really can't remember when
He kicked like a mule and he bit like a crocodile
I heard him laugh and then I heard him cuss
He went for his gun and I pulled mine first
He stood there lookin' at me and I saw him smile
And he said, "Son, this world is rough
And if a man's gonna make it, he's gotta be tough
And I knew I wouldn't be there to help ya along
So I give ya that name and I said goodbye
I knew you'd have to get tough or die
And it's the name that helped to make you strong"
He said, "Now you just fought one hell of a fight
And I know you hate me, and you got the right
To kill me now, and I wouldn't blame you if you do
But ya ought to thank me, before I die
For the gravel in ya guts and the spit in ya eye
'Cause I'm the son-of-a-bitch that named you Sue"
Well what could I do? What could I do?
I got all choked up and I threw down my gun
And I called him my paw, and he called me his son
And I came away with a different point of view
And I think about him, now and then
Every time I try and every time I win
And if I ever have a son, I think I'm gonna name him..
Bill or George! Any-damn-thing but Sue!
Alright, thank you very much
Quote from: MaineShark on December 10, 2015, 08:20 AM NHFT
You spend a lot of time in front of that mirror, don't you?
You're the one who's here politicking for your Statist position. The fact that others are refusing to accept it does not place them in your category of behavior.
You've made claim after claim, which have all been shot down. But you keep insisting that your premise is correct. You've lied about what others actually said, and expect to be taken seriously. And, when presented with a simple opportunity to apply your premise to an example, you just attempt to deflect that with nonsense. Seems like you should be looking for a position as Trump's campaign manager, eh?
Lmfao!!
I don't get the song though. If the only point is that fighting sucks you're missing the point entirely and ignoring the issue. If it's just a good song you could have at least provided a link.
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 01:16 PM NHFTLmfao!!
I notice that you can't seem to respond to any of the criticisms of your position.
Yup, just like Trump. Or Cantwell, for that matter - your behavior here has been precisely in line with what I've seen of his behavior... make a ridiculous assertion, then defend it to the death and attack anyone who doubts it. I hear you two don't get along? Just too similar, eh?
Sir, I'm gonna' need you to reread, quote, and summarize my position before we continue. Your dyslexia is acting up. :glasses7:
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on December 09, 2015, 06:43 PM NHFT
Jerryswife comes in and starts trouble. Wait a minute I'm a troublemaker she's not.
i consider all of your posts to be a violation of NAP
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 01:49 PM NHFTSir, I'm gonna' need you to reread, quote, and summarize my position before we continue.
You'll have to learn to live with unfulfilled needs, then. You've completely failed to answer simple questions put to you, so you are not in a position to demand anything from anyone else. Catch up with some real responses to the questions and comments that have been directed in you, and then we'll talk.
But you won't see me summarizing your position for you. If you believe that your position is not being understood, then it is solely your responsibility to add clarity.
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 01:49 PM NHFTYour dyslexia is acting up.
I'm not dyslexic. Your lack of skill with English has been present from the very first time you've posted here (and previously, since I've read some of your linked articles), but I have managed to read your words, regardless.
Your bigotry against dyslexics, though, is definitely "acting up." You apparently see them everywhere, now.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 10, 2015, 02:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on December 09, 2015, 06:43 PM NHFT
Jerryswife comes in and starts trouble. Wait a minute I'm a troublemaker she's not.
i consider all of your posts to be a violation of NAP
Is this where I threaten to assault the pacifist?
I'm shunning you at the very least! So take that!
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 12:13 AM NHFT
Jim says the audio sucks. Now everyone wants to build a studio. I'm skeptical of doing such a show in a studio or having a limited amount of mics, still thinking on that one.
What is the current set up?
Why not a decent onmidirectional mic in the center of everyone?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 10, 2015, 02:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on December 09, 2015, 06:43 PM NHFT
Jerryswife comes in and starts trouble. Wait a minute I'm a troublemaker she's not.
i consider all of your posts to be a violation of NAP
Sorry.
CAN YOUS GUYS KEEP IT DOWN SOWS RUSSELL CAN GET SOME SLEEP!
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 01:19 PM NHFT
I don't get the song though. If the only point is that fighting sucks you're missing the point entirely and ignoring the issue. If it's just a good song you could have at least provided a link.
A link? So the "kids" today don't know Johnny Cash? It's so crazy that I am old.
But yeah, fighting sucks. It is a low class problem. Usually with intoxicants involved. I am not sure the last time someone I know has even gotten into a physical fight. Probably about 15 years ago.
What is the issue that is being ignored?
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 01:19 PM NHFT
I don't get the song though. If the only point is that fighting sucks you're missing the point entirely and ignoring the issue. If it's just a good song you could have at least provided a link.
Pay me no heed. I was practicing being mysterious.
Quote from: Free libertarian on December 10, 2015, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 01:19 PM NHFT
I don't get the song though. If the only point is that fighting sucks you're missing the point entirely and ignoring the issue. If it's just a good song you could have at least provided a link.
Pay me no heed. I was practicing being mysterious.
One day eglove (grasshopper) will be able to take the pebble from your hand. Of course then he has to pick up that hot cauldron with his forearms...
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on December 10, 2015, 08:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: Free libertarian on December 10, 2015, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 01:19 PM NHFT
I don't get the song though. If the only point is that fighting sucks you're missing the point entirely and ignoring the issue. If it's just a good song you could have at least provided a link.
Pay me no heed. I was practicing being mysterious.
One day eglove (grasshopper) will be able to take the pebble from your hand. Of course then he has to pick up that hot cauldron with his forearms...
That's the worst part.... having "Wait..." burned into one arm and "What?" burned into the other.
Quote from: blackie on December 10, 2015, 02:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 12:13 AM NHFT
Jim says the audio sucks. Now everyone wants to build a studio. I'm skeptical of doing such a show in a studio or having a limited amount of mics, still thinking on that one.
What is the current set up?
Why not a decent onmidirectional mic in the center of everyone?
Done. I got one of these (http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TGTDFM). We gave it a short test, it sounds really great. I'm surprised such a thing exists. It would allow people to sit back on a couch and chat as we did in the video, and still have quality audio. At least, the test seems to suggest so.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on December 10, 2015, 08:55 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on December 10, 2015, 08:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: Free libertarian on December 10, 2015, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 01:19 PM NHFT
I don't get the song though. If the only point is that fighting sucks you're missing the point entirely and ignoring the issue. If it's just a good song you could have at least provided a link.
Pay me no heed. I was practicing being mysterious.
One day eglove (grasshopper) will be able to take the pebble from your hand. Of course then he has to pick up that hot cauldron with his forearms...
That's the worst part.... having "Wait..." burned into one arm and "What?" burned into the other.
It's already burned into my skull after enough strawmen from that maine guy. What I'm stuck on is how people react to the question at hand. You've also mentioned, Jim, that there is no universal ethic, and you can't pretend to be able to judge every situation yourself based on a single principle. Context always matters. It's why we've developed juries. So what then, is the issue? It looks like either one of two things, 1) You think somebody is suggesting fighting is a good idea, or 2) It's a question of whether the NAP covers 'threats.' But when you consider the example of the difference between threats online and in real life (to include when the person online lives near you and when they don't) it still comes back to the fact that it can not universally tie into every situation.
So what do you think you're arguing with?
Quote from: blackie on December 10, 2015, 03:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 01:19 PM NHFT
I don't get the song though. If the only point is that fighting sucks you're missing the point entirely and ignoring the issue. If it's just a good song you could have at least provided a link.
A link? So the "kids" today don't know Johnny Cash? It's so crazy that I am old.
But yeah, fighting sucks. It is a low class problem. Usually with intoxicants involved. I am not sure the last time someone I know has even gotten into a physical fight. Probably about 15 years ago.
What is the issue that is being ignored?
The question is, primarily, is there such a thing as an implicit dual? That is, can there be such a situation that the guy who "aggressed" ie. made the first physical attack, was in the right (or atleast was a part of an implicit, mutual agreement to fight)? Rich's example is when he put a guy against the wall for insulting someone else continuously. That doesn't constitute "reparations," he shouldn't be "apprehended" for it, it doesn't mean he has no self-control, nor would you call him a violent person. To call what he did "wrong" based on the NAP ignores the reality of the situation. In his case, it probably needed to happen. If you say, "Well, he SHOULD have talked the guy down." You're ignoring the tension, emotion, history, and context of the situation. To say that YOU would do different, because YOU'RE "principled" is naive, because it DIDN'T happen to you. What's important is that it happened to HIM, why he did it, and what the FULL story is. It'd be wrong of you to judge what happened based on a single principle, especially seeing how it solved the issue at hand without further problem.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on December 10, 2015, 08:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: Free libertarian on December 10, 2015, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 01:19 PM NHFT
I don't get the song though. If the only point is that fighting sucks you're missing the point entirely and ignoring the issue. If it's just a good song you could have at least provided a link.
Pay me no heed. I was practicing being mysterious.
One day eglove (grasshopper) will be able to take the pebble from your hand. Of course then he has to pick up that hot cauldron with his forearms...
;D ;D
I think there are some situations where the initiation of force is OK.
I don't think a threat is the initiation of force, but it may warrant a response if it is a perceived credible threat.
If someone points a gun at me and tries to rob me, I am going to perceive the gun is real, and loaded. Doesn't matter if it is a toy gun, and there is no real threat of being shot.
As far as Rich getting physical because of insults, that is weird to me. I would need to hear the other guy's side of the story, and witnesses, before I could attempt to make a judgement.
Verbal contracts are "just mouth noises". Insults don't require a response but a perceived credible threat may, even if it is "just mouth noises".
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 09:35 PM NHFTIt's already burned into my skull after enough strawmen from that maine guy.
Hey, look, you also don't know that a "strawman" is.
How surprising. An illogical Statist. There's a shocker.
Quote from: blackie on December 10, 2015, 11:51 PM NHFT
I think there are some situations where the initiation of force is OK.
I don't think a threat is the initiation of force, but it may warrant a response if it is a perceived credible threat.
If someone points a gun at me and tries to rob me, I am going to perceive the gun is real, and loaded. Doesn't matter if it is a toy gun, and there is no real threat of being shot.
As far as Rich getting physical because of insults, that is weird to me. I would need to hear the other guy's side of the story, and witnesses, before I could attempt to make a judgement.
Verbal contracts are "just mouth noises". Insults don't require a response but a perceived credible threat may, even if it is "just mouth noises".
Exactamundo. I agree with all of that. What's really perplexing to me is that everytime this subject has been brought up, "Is it OK to hit the guy who viciously insults your partner?" the quick answer is "NO! Never!" When you get into the details, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that you just mentioned. But there's still resistance for some people. Maybe it just makes some people uncomfortable to think that the way they imagine things going in their head, might not happen.
Quote from: eglove on December 11, 2015, 12:08 AM NHFTWhen you get into the details, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that you just mentioned.
No, it isn't. It's actually very, very easy not to come to that conclusion.
Unless you're a Statist who
desires to violently impose your will on others.
Then, I suppose, it might be hard to avoid that conclusion. But "violently impose your will on others" is the default Statist position, so it's not surprising that a Statist would jump there.
Hey Tom. I called the headquarters on the Maine coast and Becky said you were down with your NSA buddies. We had fun talking and I think I heard the ex-president say he was ready for you to "bring it on old man" in reference to bootcamp tactics.
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 09:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: blackie on December 10, 2015, 02:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 12:13 AM NHFT
Jim says the audio sucks. Now everyone wants to build a studio. I'm skeptical of doing such a show in a studio or having a limited amount of mics, still thinking on that one.
What is the current set up?
Why not a decent onmidirectional mic in the center of everyone?
Done. I got one of these (http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TGTDFM). We gave it a short test, it sounds really great. I'm surprised such a thing exists. It would allow people to sit back on a couch and chat as we did in the video, and still have quality audio. At least, the test seems to suggest so.
http://www.conversationsnetwork.org/levelator
Quote from: Jay on December 11, 2015, 08:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 09:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: blackie on December 10, 2015, 02:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: eglove on December 08, 2015, 12:13 AM NHFT
Jim says the audio sucks. Now everyone wants to build a studio. I'm skeptical of doing such a show in a studio or having a limited amount of mics, still thinking on that one.
What is the current set up?
Why not a decent onmidirectional mic in the center of everyone?
Done. I got one of these (http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TGTDFM). We gave it a short test, it sounds really great. I'm surprised such a thing exists. It would allow people to sit back on a couch and chat as we did in the video, and still have quality audio. At least, the test seems to suggest so.
http://www.conversationsnetwork.org/levelator (http://www.conversationsnetwork.org/levelator)
http://feenphone.com/ :P
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 11, 2015, 05:09 PM NHFT
Hey Tom. I called the headquarters on the Maine coast and Becky said you were down with your NSA buddies. We had fun talking and I think I heard the ex-president say he was ready for you to "bring it on old man" in reference to bootcamp tactics.
;D
Dang it, no one is afraid of me anymore... see what happens when you stop punching people in the face!
yep some of us are going soft in their old age
Quote from: Free libertarian on December 12, 2015, 09:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 12, 2015, 02:00 PM NHFT
yep some of us are going soft in their old age
T.M.I. :)
My uncle always said, and you have to imagine this in an Alabama accent... "The older the buck, the harder the horn."
The Speech
An Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman are all to give speaches to the Deaf Society. All are keen to make an impression on their audience. The Englishman goes first and to the surprise of his colleagues starts by rubbing first his chest and then his groin.
When he finishes the Scotsman and Irishman ask him what he was doing. Well" he explained" By rubbing my chest I indicated breasts and thus Ladies and by rubbing my groin I indicated balls and thus Gentlemen. So my speech started Ladies and Gentlemen".
On his way up to the podium the Scotsman thought to himself I'll go one better than that English bastard and started his speech by making an antler symbol with his fingers above his head before also rubbing his chest and his groin.
When he finished his colleagues asked what he was doing. "Well" he explained" By imitating antlers and then rubbing my chest and groin I was starting my speech by saying Dear Ladies and Gentlemen".
On his way up to the podium the Irishman thought to himself I'll go one further than those mainland bastards and started his speech by making an antler symbol above his head, rubbing his chest, and then his groin, and then masturbating furiously. When he finished his colleagues asked him what he was doing. "Well" he explained," by imitating antlers, rubbing my chest and then my groin and then masturbating I was starting my speech by saying -Deer Ladies and Gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure......."
They is just mouth noises:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deFQazKDLgo