You can make intelligent comments using the one line per paragraph mode.
You can also post opinionated, unsupportable bullshit.
Guess which I think The Broken Column does?
Man, that has to be a record. Has anyone ever been pitted so fast?? Whats he got, 20 posts under his belt by now??? Way to go Broken!!
Anyway, I don’t usually do this pit stuff. I simply found the guy annoying in the Is There a God thread…just really dense. His analogy about Blindmen and Rain was just really lame (I have to admit that on my first reading of it I was choking I was laughing so hard)…and even after the myriad gaping holes were pointed out to him, he basically just kept going.
After that, I usually just skip his posts as he has nothing even vaguely interesting to say. Nothing to really get riled about as he’s so obvious. Give me Aldarbaran any day!!
I need to become more provocative in GD though…no one ever pits me. 
-XT
In this hot-off-the-presses thread, he takes on abortion.
Please note: The idiotic ramblings of Broken Column do not reflect those of people, myself included, opposed to abortion and should be taken in context. That context being the Broken Column is a complete and utter idiot.
A lot of people here seem to attack my argument of Liberals = Hypocrits.
But if you’ve ever read Hobbes, Locke or Montesqieue, you’d realize where I developed that. There is no reason for me to be posting sources to the most basic of things. Some of you have claimed to gone to college, yet you do not seem to realize the profound statement of my post.
I said, “Liberals are the same as hypocrits because they want the freedom to do anything but do not want others to infringe upon their freedoms.”
An excerpt from Hobbes is the following:
“The first and fundamental law of nature . . . is to seek peace and follow it . . . From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavor peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others so too, as far forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think necessary, to lay down this right to do all things, and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself.”
This is arguably one of the most important statements ever made in political theory.
To dumb it down for all of you, since you obviously need such pampering (Wahh quote this, cite that…if you knew anything I wouldn’t have to since I’m currently posting general knowledge :rolleyes: ):
A person, who wants liberty to do things, must first compromise with others in his society such that he does not infringe upon their liberties. This derives from the idea of the State of Nature being, “Perfectly free, and perfectly dangerous.”
That is, you have the freedom to do anything, so you will take anything, and kill anything that gets in your way.
This is contradictory to Rousseau if you want to try to provide an argument (I feel you all need a boost…you obviously don’t seem well educated), but Rousseau’s philosophy pretty much went down the shitter in the French Revolution (just a warning).
So my statement “Liberals are Hypocrits” stands not only as a truth (subjective), but a fact (objective).
How much damage you liberals do is the question.
The Revolution in America seemed to work out well, but as al-Jabarti would say about the French, it seems their liberal movement went a little out of hand. “The French are nothing more than Godless invaders, whose women do not cover their genitalia and whose men do not clean themselves after deficating.” (Paraphrasing.)
These are all important to take into account being that my point is that a Liberal, will want to do all things, but will demand that another does not harm his personal freedoms.
This is a contradiction seeing that when you are free to do anything, there is no one to prevent another from harming your personal freedoms.
It is only when you are willing to not do certain things, that a society can function properly.
The argument since the enlightenment has been how to best expand personal freedoms without compromising the integrity of society.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Next time I don’t expect I should have to hold your hands.
Heh. In response to being notified that he’s been pitted, he says this:
And then, several posts later, he says this:
I shall summarize, to make the irony more clear:
The_Broken_Column: Alas! I came here to engage in engage in enlightened debate, free of attacks upon my mind and character, and instead people mock me! Woe!
(shortly thereafter)
The_Broken_Column: You’re idiots if you think abortion isn’t murder! SUCK MY STRAWMAN! I’m gonna go huff benzene! WHEEEEEEEEEE!
Don’t you know, this is the pit, apparently it is sanctioned here…get over your self-righteous bullshit and post in regards to my last post, which blows your dumb ass out of the water. Stupid idiots haven’t even read hobbes. :rolleyes:
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? That “any idiot” post was in Great Debates. I guess, technically, you may be outside of the personal attack circle because of the “any idiot” part, but the irony is still palpable.
As for self-righteous…I invite you to meet my friend Kettle.
Dude, I’ve read Calvin and Hobbes.
The question, dear friend, wasn’t about whether we understand Hobbesian theories of transitions from a state of nature. The quesiton was what the hell you were going on about when you said that liberals want absolute freedom.
We assumed you meant something remotely sensible by that, that you didn’t mean exactly what you said. Since you seem to mean that liberals want to live in a Hobbesian state of nature, care to back that up?
And no, cites to Mr. Kropotkin don’t count, unless you can show why we should consider him a liberal theorist.
The charge of jackassery against you stands.
Daniel
You’d think that someone who’d read Hobbes and Rousseau (and all them other highfalutin’ Greeks) would know how to spell “hypocrite”.
Wow. I came into this fourm this AM specifically to see if anyone had Pitted this guy yet, and there is the thread, right at the top of the list…
Some said he should change his usernname to The_Broken_Record. I thought that was spot on. Just what we need-- another one-trick pony in GD. And this guys seems to be using debating tactics that are pretty darn close to trolling. I just hope the mods will at least restrict to one active thread on abortion at a time. They’ve already gotten a request from me on this.
I have no interest in debating with this guy/gal. He/She comes here to lecture, not to debate.
His second idiotic thread just got locked. His first idiotic thread remains, as does his braincell-challenged pseudologic.
I will repeat one thing I tried to post there: ANOTHER reason to be pro-life? I’ve never heard ONE reason to be pro-life. And if I ever do, it won’t be from this jackass.
And now I should be banned. That’s funny.
Listen, dummy. I’m a conservative and pro-life, ok? You need to shut the hell up. You’re not helping. Idiots like you give “us” a bad name. Your sentence structure, wild analogies and poor spelling are severely overshadowed by your horrible “logic” and nonsense “arguments”. This message board is for sane people with coherent thought processes, not rambling recyclers of shit they read from brochures.
Shut up and go away.
Hey, guess who I am.
My posts are twice as long as they need to be.
This makes sure you read them.
Because you are stupid.
And I am not.
Why?
Because I said I am.
Not stupid, I mean.
That should be reason enough.
Any idiot with a high school education knows I am smarter than everyone else.
That’s why I double-space my posts.
From our friend’s latest thread. Ask and ye shall receive…
As a general rule, if you have to actually tell people how smart you are, buddy, you just ain’t.
Too bad there’s already someone named Otto on the boards, because that name would be perfect for you.
“Apes don’t read philosophy.”
“Yes they do, The_Broken_Column, they just don’t understand it!”
Ah fuck it, man, he’s got me!
Hoist with my own petard!
I am a liberal. I took the piss out of The_Broken_Record by pointing out a spelling mistake. I am just so typical! I hereby admit my guilt. That the inability to spell a very simple, 8-year-old standard spelling bee question that is a central tenet of one of his arguments does nothing to undermine the credibilty of his learned nature at all.
It is just my standard pinko kneejerk at work here. Move along, please.
you know, I tend to think that ‘general knowledge’ can be a very subjective classification.
Why not cite? If you’re quoting general knowledge or fact, respected sources only strengthen arguments. Where’s the downside?
Somehow I avoided reading Hobbes through my university career (my degree is in computer science and visual arts) – it just wasn’t on the reading list for some reason. Imagine that.
I find this guy so boring.
:rolleyes:
Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I’ve known sheep who could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?
Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don’t understand it.
My thanks to A Fish Called Wanda for the most apropos quote I’ve ever posted.
whoops, silly me. I had the same problem in my last post!
okay, so maybe it could happen.
Well, B/C I had a nice long response for you and attepted to post it BUT the other thread got locked and the hamsters ate the message so I’ll make this one brief.
You aren’t gaining any support here by complaining about others attacking you while calling us all idiots and making statements like…“I’ll dumb it down for you.”
It’s obviously NOT obvious to many WHO defined what LIFE is and When. So it IS up to you to define or cite your references. Verbatim quotes are preferred to interpretations when using sources out of context.
Claiming absolutes like, “abortion is murder” then making exceptions to the absolute like, “except when the mother’s life is endangered” disproves your argument.
Try to be less condescending, flies and honey, ya know. BTW if you’re gonna use a sig or quote you need to get it right and understand that the quote you’ve chosen is also incorrect in it’s interpretation of scripture.
Try this.
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1868_75Independent/680625_freemasonryXI.htm
A virgin weeping over a broken column, with a book open before her; in her right hand a sprig of cassia; in her left, an urn; Time standing behind her, with his hands infolded in the ringlets of her hair."
and sorry Dutchboy 'bout all the entered spaces.