Point of fact: you are a lying troll and I never claimed any such thing. In fact, from my first post on the subject I pointed out, several different timesthat while it broke down into things like methanol, they were quickly metabolized and posed no actual threat. What I did point out, several times, is that Smashy was stupid and didn’t know the first thing about science, and his bootlicks were fawning, sycophantic morons for lapping it up, and that in the context of aspartame ingestion, methanol was not dangerous at all.
And gee, the first time I pointed that out and acknowledged Nutra Sweet’s well known metabolites, it was in response to you. You poor idiot troll. Less “lol TLDR!” more, you know, using your grey matter.
It’s generally not very smart to lie when all I have to do is cite my own posts in the same thread to show you’re clearly lying.
Troll harder, liar.
Of course, but I will have to tell the truth and say that I disagree with some of your political ideas. This is because there are indeed ivn1188s and pinheads * that assume that just because one agrees with someone in a thread it means that I’m your bootlicker.
It is an insult to pinheads to put **ivn1188 **in the same category.
FinnAgain, you never did answer my question, you know. You still haven’t explained why you had to post 45 times about whatever shit you’re rambling on about if it’s obvious everyone who goes against you is wrong. Care to answer that? If I’m a troll, you’re certainly feeding me, you poor dumb bastard.
Oh, and RE: aspartame, my bad. I confused you with your sock/mancrush Jackmanii, who claimed there was no methanol breakdown products. Of course, you did say he was a trained medical professional and that it was obvious he was right… and then you proved him wrong in that same post. I bet he almost took his dick out of your mouth.
**ivn1188 **I also did notice how silly your point was on **FinnAgain **still being wrong. Not only you have demonstrated how insecure you are, but also how dumb you are when you have to resort to lies in an attempt to defend a willful ignorant. Sure, you are saying now it was your bad, but your insults before and after just show how deluded you are into thinking that we can forgive that lie.
Give it up, even when I defended posters that were banned, I had to accept the evidence presented that showed that the banning was proper. Likewise, when it is demonstrated that someone is posting industrial strength levels of ignorance one should just learn the lesson of not jumping on their defense in the future, until you also find evidence to support his/her position.
I’m really sorry that you’re intimidated by me, and by the other people that challenge your narrow little worldview. Perhaps it’s that you are less educated, or maybe it’s a lingering effect from your funny uncle. Regardless of the circumstances of your unfortunate lack of ability to use proper grammar and your sad shortcoming in the wit department, I will provide you with some advice: you might be more interesting if you can think of something new other than I’m insecure/stupid.
See, the thing is, you’re really pretty much the intellectual equivalent of a Rush Limbaugh fan, repeating “ditto” ad nauseum. You’ve done far more to prove that than I ever could. But I pose to you the same stumper that your idol has refused to answer. Why are you so invested? If what you say is true, why are you still here? Insecure, you call me… I think the lady doth protest too much.
Yep. To a servile, fawning lapdog who’s stuck defending someone just because they piss off other Dopers, thinking isn’t all that easy. But then again, I’m not sure if Ivy was just being his normal stupid self and doesn’t understand why he and Kimmy are bootlicks, or he knew why the definition wouldn’t apply to you and he was just trolling. It’s a delightful puzzle. He’s got Gonzomax level dumb with troll level drunken pugnaciousness.
Oh, and Ivy?
In relating what went on when Smashy started shitting all over the GD thread (and you helped him, natch), Jack pointed out that Smashy was alleging that “aspartame is horrible nasty toxic stuff that introduces METHANOL into our bodies”.
That Nutra Sweet introduces methanol into our bodies is beyond dispute. That it was “nasty” or "toxic’ in that context or that Nutra Sweet was, was the point under discussion. You should have realized why Jack put the word into all caps. It wasn’t to dispute it, it was to show the hysterical woo-mongering that was going on when Smashy was trying to scare people by mentioning it.
Much like if someone was to say “old vaccines were horrible nasty toxic stuff that introduced MERCURY into our bodies”.
Even in the original GD thread, Jack pointed out that “Aspartame is a simple combination of two common amino acids that are building blocks for proteins and found in many foods. Saying that aspartame “breaks down into METHANOL” is akin to the scaremongering about “formaldehyde” allegedly in vaccines (any trace amounts of this compound are dwarfed by formaldehyde normally found in the human body as a metabolic breakdown product - the same goes for methanol).”
In case you’re too stupid, this is a direct claim that aspartame breaks down into methanol but that it’s in trace amounts which pose no actual health risk.
You are either too fucking stupid to realize that he wasn’t saying that it’s not a metabolite but that scaremongering about it is wooian idiocy, or you’re a lying troll.
I tend to go with a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B.
Who the fuck is Ivy? And why are you still here? You asked my why I am still on the board, and I answered; apparently you don’t have the nerve to answer my question about why you are still here? (Also, I’m genuinely curious as to how you have the time to post so much blather! I’m picturing Cartman from the WoW episode.)
You are a liar and a troll who aims at deceiving those reading along. I’ve ignored most of your recent posts and concentrated on the egregious lies that would be detrimental if believed. Much like you spent lots of time lying about what I said (despite the fact that I first said it to you, which you luckily just so happened to forget and claim never happened), and rather than let you deceive people into thinking that there really are some hideous dangers to Nutra Sweet, I pointed out that you were lying and trolling again. I figure you were counting on people coming to page X of this thread and seeing you lying about how I was wrong, and without seeing a rebuttal from me, assuming that maybe anybody really had presented any evidence on the dangers of Nutra Sweet or its metabolites in context.
Much like you were just caught lying about what Jack was saying and immediately dropped that tangent, hoping that people wont’ realize you were lying about Jack, too, and then decided to bait me some more. I’ll admit that I haven’t found the optimal strategy to dealing with trolls like you,
Well, short of banning you and sending you back to the oozing corner of the 'net that spawned you.
Of course it’s a fine line, as I’m sure that your little troll heart quickens a bit when someone responds to you at all. Why, it gives you more time to talk about tards and fatties. Responding to your “stumper” is, unfortunately, just another part of dealing with trolls like you. If I don’t, you continue to troll me by posting it, if I do, you babble about how I’m responding to you and you troll me with that. If I try to ignore you? Why, then I’m stupid. If I don’t ignore you? Why, them I’m stupid.
Good game you’ve got set up, troll.
Just like you’ve been using the fact that I’ve consistently debunked your, Kimmy and Smashy’s idiocy as proof of how “obsessed” I am. If I don’t respond, then of course you can claim that you’re correct and you haven’t been debunked. If I do, why, then I must have OCD. That I’ve shown you to be full of shit gets ignored, because admitting “gee, I guess I was wrong to support Smashy” isn’t as much fun as trolling.
And, naturally, you post about how much you hate posting on the Dope and how much you hate most Dopers and how horrible a board it is. Which, of course, is why you stick around in order to troll it. You could solve all your problems with posting at the Dope by just going away. Instead you stick around to troll… and you expect folks to believe that you really are too stupid to figure out that if you hate posting to a message board that the most efficient way to cure that feeling is to stop posting rather than pick as many fights as you can.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand how “I’m not malicious, I’m just frighteningly stupid!” is used as a defense by anybody with any self respect.
But okay, I will admit you are close to being stupid enough that I’d believe you’re really so cognitively lacking that you do not comprehend that the way to stop a message board frm annoying you is to stop posting to it.
Close though. I still think you’re just a very stupid troll and that you’re not really so stupid that you’re ignorant of the effect that not posting on the Dope would have on how unpleasant it is for you to be posting on the Dope.
Let’s see, I even started a thread in the pit condemning the Republicans for licking the boots of Rush Limbaugh, so you are demonstrating here that you are clueless.
You continue to demonstrate that you are an insecure person because even in your last post you are still banging on the point that my grammar is terrible, yet I’m already on record saying that my grammar is a crime against nature, I will have to tell you that in the SDMB it is better to deal with the evidence rather than scoring cheap points.
Finally, I’m invested here by the fact that you have to resort to lie in a feeble attempt to demonstrate that **FinnAgain **was not correct. Well, based on the last post it is clear that he has your number. Sucks to be you as you are only now resorting to the “he told me I’m a troll so he should say nothing” harebrained tactic.
This is a poor point of view. Although politics is generally understood as the art of governing, it can also be understood as the way that power is distributed in a society. Anarchism is a political belief in the same way that anti-choice is a belief about abortion, or anti-theism (not the denial of God’s existence, but rather the belief that God is to be opposed) is a belief about God.
And the idea that anarchists propose a system exactly like what we have now is just silly. Feel free to oppose anarchism–I find it fatally flawed myself–but not on such strawman grounds, please. Anarchists generally propose a system in which there is no centralized coercive power, no elected officials, no borders, etc. I believe core tendencies in human nature (the willingness to follow a charismatic leader, the desire for a group identity, the willingness to commit violence against a nonmember of the group, and the occasional charismatic sociopath who thrives on control) are powerful enough that, until they’re overcome, any fledgling anarchist society either will exist only on the sufferance of an organized, more powerful archist society or will quickly be overrun by the closest group (internal or external) that wants what they have.
Rare semi-exceptions such as the Hopi found a third way: be so desperately poor that you have nothing that a conqueror would want.
But anarchists DO have a political view, and it’s silly semantic sophistry to define their political view away; and their view does not call for villages, towns, judges, etc.
First off, no matter how you want to slice it “pacifistic anarchy”, “anarchosyndicalist communism”, whatever, it requires that any actual governing force be eliminated. You cannot have a society of 300+ million (let alone six billion) organizing themselves along anarchist principles. You simply can’t. Doing away with government on such a scale does not leave us with “well, everybody will just agree to cooperate and such”.
We’ve seen what modern anarchy actually develops into. Somolia is a very good example. Anarchism is, indeed, a philosophy which leads to absolutely no real government in anything but the smallest of communities (just like communism works in kibbutzim and pretty much nothing that’s scaled up). And there is no organized way of distributing power, either. It’s rank chaos. It’s not a political philosophy in any real sense of the word, it’s claim that magic will happen when we do away with politics and governance.
And no, you’re misunderstanding. My point was that the only way that an anarchist society could ‘work’ on a national level was to institute the exact same general programs and procedures we have now. You need rules, you need people to determine if the rules have been violated you need people to discuss issues and inter-region cooperation, especially since many people will be spending their time working on living their lives rather than engaging in politics.
It’s not a strawman, you just missed the point. Smashy could make whatever claims he’d want about anarchsim “come the revolution, everybody will share freely and there won’t be any violence!”, but it won’t and can’t work that way.
If you’d contend that it’s actually a cogent/coherent political philosophy, explain how we get from “no laws, no borders, no governance of any sort” to a working society.
Otherwise we’re on Underpants Gnome level rhetoric where Step 1 is “Smash the state!” and Step 3 is “profit!”
What I pointed out is what would actually have to be in place for a real-world nation like ours to go on about avoiding absolute anarchy.
I know. And in those situations we get absolute hell on Earth. In order to avoid the guys down the street banding together and just coming to take your belongings (and your family members as slaves if they want), there has to be some sort of power beyond “Hey let’s all be nice”. And if the answer is “well, then everybody will be armed” then all you get is any number of African nations that we’ve seen disintegrate into bloodbaths as soon as there was no central coercive power and everybody had guns. If the answer is “well, we get into groups and decide on things”, then you’ve just defined “town districts, whatever the fuck”, and you still need to find a way that these various whatever-the-fucks can interact with each other.
That’s my exact point.
That in the world we’re actually living in, society requires certain ordering principles.
Sure in ancient Minoan society things may’ve been awesome, but we’re a long, long way from that. For instance, with no borders, boundaries, laws of state power, what happens tomorrow when the Mexican cartels decide that they now own Los Angeles, and the anarchists who disagree with them are to be put up against a wall?
1,. No, they really don’t. They have a magical fantasy whereby massive societies will somehow get by without the actual use of governmental politics. You can call it something else if you’d like, but a political philosophy it aint. Magical idealism is a much more apt adjective than “political”. Any political philosphy whose proper functioning requires a step in the logical proof that reads “and then a miracle happens!” isn’t a valid philosophy. Any political philosophy that claims that all the actions of politics which make society work will disappear and things will suddenly actually get better is not a philosophy of governance or politics, it is a philosophy of chaos and bloodshed.
It doesn’t matter if you define it as “towns” or “districts” or what have you, there must be some sort of fundamental unit in which people can talk and come to agreements. Even your mention of the Hopi includes the concept of things like ‘tribal communities’. And without collective discussion/decision making, all you’re left with is that everybody does whatever they want. So when the Mexican cartels decide they own LA, they don’t even have to meet with the local Anarchist Town Hall (or whatever), they just walk right in.
And no, it’s not sophistry, and no, they don’t have any actual political view. The view that we should have no real politics only magically-happy humans just getting along is not a philosophy of politics. It’s a claim of magic.
If I told you that my educational philosophy was that we should have no more home schooling and no more public schools and no more private schools, but that everybody will just learn what they need somehow or another, would you say that I’ve crafted an ‘educational philosophy’?
The view that there should be no actual, established system for sharing power is not, in fact, a system for sharing power. “Magic happens and power will be equitably shared” is not a philosophy on how power should be shared.
So basically, FinnAgain, you’re saying that you can’t let me “win”. Add to that you keep calling me a liar, because, according to you, Jackmanii’s use of “METHANOL” instead of “methanol” proves your point.
Well argued sir. Here’s one for you: you lost, you are a shitty debater, and SmashTheState, me, Kimmy_Gibbler, and everyone else you try to browbeat by calling them stupid trolls are smarter than you, and always will be. You have no purpose on this board other than to dismiss people and then try to win by attrition, because of your near-mutant ability to bore the shit out of people with your sidekick Gigatard, who can’t even understand the difference between being something, and being like something.
P.S. Thanks for proving the point of the OP, which is that the boring majority of the SDMB cannot stand to have their tiny craniums strained, and their only resort is to jump on the troll/crazy bandwagon. I win again!
I want to endorse this view in its entirety, and couple it with the observation that “debaters” like FinnAgain are why the legal community long ago adopted the Collateral Impeachment Rule. Briefly, that rule aims at preventing the kind of trainwrecks that F.A. makes his stock in trade: seizing on some minor point that is in no way related to the topic at hand and then mounting a dog-and-pony show–enacted with strawdogs and strawponies–around that misstated and ultimately tangential point. He proceeds with this straw opera until his interlocutors drop out from utter boredom and he mistakes the obscurity of irrelevance for the authority of the victor. FinnAgain nobody is contradicting you not because you won, but because you bore the shit out of your opponents.
(By the way, Finny, the weather this weekend was simply gorgeous; it’s a shame you spent it arguing with the internet.)
Lefty: can you please elaborate on how you see anarchism (of any flavor) as a philosophy which actually is concerned with how political power is distributed rather than claiming that ‘magic’ will make it so once any cohesive form of governance is gone?
A few more things.
By any definition, a commune fits in with “villages, towns, etc…” Some anarchists do indeed call for communes.
In any case, aside from that small quibble, I’m curious as to how you feel that your definition of politics as “the way that power is distributed in a society.” fits in with this.
Are you saying that, in purely conceptual terms, anarchism conceives of a society in which power is distributed totally equally and evenly? If so I’d readily agree. But I’d also point out that, on that level “Angels will rain down mana on us and there will be no need for work anymore and we can all just do drugs and have sex, and we’ll all just munch mana and hang out” is also a political philosophy.
On the other hand, if you’re talking about “the way that power is distributed in a society” in actuality, I think you’d need to be able to talk about a system which can distribute (and part and parcel of that is the ability to define, regulate, and correct errors in the distribution of) that power. If that’s what you’re talking about, then I honestly don’t see how a claim that amounts to “well, everybody will just get along”
fits the bill. It’s not sophistry… I just believe that “political philosophies” have to be actual philosophies on how society is governed and how power should actually be divided rather than claims that once there’s no governance, equitable distribution of power will ‘just happen’.
I don’t think that’s so much of a stretch. From where I sit, anarchism is not a political philosophy (one which describes how a society will be governed and how power will be divided) but more like a political religion: one which holds a certain goal and a faith-based belief that it’ll ‘just happen’.
Meh, even **Shodan **concluded that **SmashTheState **is full of fail.
But you are demonstrating here that you unable to notice that I already said that I do not agree with the methods that FinnAgain uses (it depends on what ignorance he is attacking IMHO) So as to see what kind of user you are, can you please show how wrong **FinnAgain **was? I want to check if you are serious or if you are just another cartoon opponent.
I confess I have no idea what you’re driving at here, but I can tell by the use of such choice phrases as “cartoon opponent” that it is not meant to be flattering. I can only remonstrate that I am having a difficult time being offended by insults that I cannot make heads or tails of. Sorry.
Jesus Christ, are you the same guy I found on my side of a debate defending military actions in Afghanistan?
I like FinnAgain. He DOES argue rationally. He DOES provide citations for his assertations. I may not agree with everything he posts, but the dude can certainly argue his way out of a paper bag, which is more than I can say about Smashy. That guy may make valid points in general but it’s so couched in preening self-important rhetoric that it’s hard to swallow. Gibbler is an intellectual hanger-on, being contrary on purpose to always play Devil’s Advocate, which is fine, I suppose. I’m sure he/she/it will be glad at my approval.
Ivn1188, I can’t figure out your game yet. I don’t know where you stand, but I do think you have lashed out at Finn for unsubstantiated reasons.
Simple, what is the minor point you are talking about? Or do I have to assume that you can not differentiate or identify the mistakes made by FinnAgain?
Of course it is not flattering, you seem to have failed to notice that **ivn1188 **was insulting me in his last post, yes, the one that you told us that you “want to endorse this view in its entirety”
