...assdude.... 39702 07.04.2008 01:41 |
link Thats right Fred, you sang it. Is this the world we created when we fuck our own daughters, not once though, even though we get them pregnant and loose the first baby, we decide to sing" yes we'll keep on trying"...and fuck em again untill the next baby is born.. Now we need to explain to the baby that your grandad is your real dad. Wow... 2 for 1 deal. |
Winter Land Man 07.04.2008 03:20 |
That's perverted. Once when I was in HS one of my classmates was rubbing his own cousins vagina. Later on, after they knew I saw it, she went to the school and claimed he forced it upon her, but from what I saw, it wasn't forced. In fact, I didn't know they were cousins until after. |
john bodega 07.04.2008 04:29 |
Was the daughter hot? |
Sweetie 07.04.2008 08:16 |
Thats ew... like REALLY ew... Even Ew would say thats ew. |
Poo, again 07.04.2008 08:28 |
Haggis McShagPants wrote: Was the daughter hot? |
john bodega 07.04.2008 08:38 |
Just saw this on TV. The daughter was NOT hot. |
pittrek 07.04.2008 08:58 |
...ASSDUDE.... wrote: link Thats right Fred, you sang it. Is this the world we created when we fuck our own daughters, not once though, even though we get them pregnant and loose the first baby, we decide to sing" yes we'll keep on trying"...and fuck em again untill the next baby is born.. Now we need to explain to the baby that your grandad is your real dad. Wow... 2 for 1 deal.WE fuck our daughters ??? Maybe you, pal, but I don't |
Freya is quietly judging you. 07.04.2008 09:10 |
Hmmm. This genetic sexual attraction thing is interesting. Weird, but interesting. I watched a documentary about it a few weeks ago. It focused mainly on the Scottish couple that have a short interview in the video posted. They are half brother and sister, and I came out of it not feeling disgusted, I just felt sorry for them. They weren't trying to push it in anybody's face, they just loved each other. She was infertile, therefore, there were no baby dangers. That's what I find most difficult to understand with this - why people are willing to put their own child's health at risk. It's so unbelievably selfish. And even if that child is healthy, that child is going to suffer mentally. And then there's bullying, children are horrible to each other. It's just really selfish. So yes, my opinion is, do what you want, just don't make anybody else suffer. |
...assdude... 39830 07.04.2008 09:46 |
pittrek wrote:What??? Good on you, fucking moron. Obviously the sarcasim has gone right over your head. Figures......ASSDUDE.... wrote: link Thats right Fred, you sang it. Is this the world we created when we fuck our own daughters, not once though, even though we get them pregnant and loose the first baby, we decide to sing" yes we'll keep on trying"...and fuck em again untill the next baby is born.. Now we need to explain to the baby that your grandad is your real dad. Wow... 2 for 1 deal.WE fuck our daughters ??? Maybe you, pal, but I don't |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.04.2008 09:48 |
so they are not all in St Just then? and i thought the winters were long down here.. |
john bodega 07.04.2008 10:02 |
What about step-sisters? I don't mean ones you've known all your life, because in those cases you've grown up with them and they really are a sibling, regardless of DNA. I mean ones you might meet very late in life! I tell you what, if I suddenly had a step sister that looked like the Channel Nine weathergirl, I'd have to tell myself pretty hard not to sneak into her room at night. Fun for the whole family! |
pittrek 07.04.2008 10:10 |
...ASSDUDE... wrote:Do you know the meaning of the word "sarcasim" ?pittrek wrote:What??? Good on you, fucking moron. Obviously the sarcasim has gone right over your head. Figures......ASSDUDE.... wrote: link Thats right Fred, you sang it. Is this the world we created when we fuck our own daughters, not once though, even though we get them pregnant and loose the first baby, we decide to sing" yes we'll keep on trying"...and fuck em again untill the next baby is born.. Now we need to explain to the baby that your grandad is your real dad. Wow... 2 for 1 deal.WE fuck our daughters ??? Maybe you, pal, but I don't |
Erin 07.04.2008 10:19 |
That's effin' sick. :-S |
Poo, again 07.04.2008 10:30 |
<b><font color=007788> ?Freya? wrote: Hmmm. This genetic sexual attraction thing is interesting. Weird, but interesting. I watched a documentary about it a few weeks ago. It focused mainly on the Scottish couple that have a short interview in the video posted. They are half brother and sister, and I came out of it not feeling disgusted, I just felt sorry for them. They weren't trying to push it in anybody's face, they just loved each other. She was infertile, therefore, there were no baby dangers. That's what I find most difficult to understand with this - why people are willing to put their own child's health at risk. It's so unbelievably selfish. And even if that child is healthy, that child is going to suffer mentally. And then there's bullying, children are horrible to each other. It's just really selfish. So yes, my opinion is, do what you want, just don't make anybody else suffer.Exactly what I was thinking. Did they ever stop to think about the child? |
Micrówave 07.04.2008 11:06 |
Poo wrote: Did they ever stop to think about the child?(A) I'm sure Dad will, in about 13 years, when he's ready to have another!!! (B) The kid will be alright... probably end up posting his band's crap on Queenzone and giving us countless FACTS |
pittrek 07.04.2008 11:13 |
Micrówave wrote:You're cruel but I like it :)Poo wrote: Did they ever stop to think about the child?(A) I'm sure Dad will, in about 13 years, when he's ready to have another!!! (B) The kid will be alright... probably end up posting his band's crap on Queenzone and giving us countless FACTS |
FriedChicken 07.04.2008 11:31 |
This is sick! Look at that daughter, she's hidious! |
Micrówave 07.04.2008 11:49 |
(C) What's the big deal? The "Lord" said it was ok: link Yep, go ahead... fire up the Texas joke series. |
its_a_hard_life 26994 07.04.2008 11:50 |
Ah man. |
AspiringPhilosophe 07.04.2008 15:07 |
Micrówave wrote: (C) What's the big deal? The "Lord" said it was ok: link Yep, go ahead... fire up the Texas joke series.I've been following this since it broke. Have they found the girl yet? The last I knew they were trying to figure out who was who because so many people had the same names and were giving different names at different times to different interviewers. I don't think you can blame Texas on that...they are Fundamentalist Mormons, not rednecks. There is a difference. So I'll be nice and tell you that I won't fire up any Texas jokes because of that. But I will tell you that the other day I was looking for jobs on the Federal Jobs website and I found one that was perfect for me: An archivist with the Department of the Interior, working to make collections available to patrons, catalogue and collect them, care for them when needed, index them, this kind of thing. I was THISCLOSE to pushing on the button to apply, but then I read the last sentence: You will be working at the future George W. Bush Presidential Library in Lewisville, Texas (a suburb of Dallas) That's when I slowly backed away from the webpage. Not because it's Texas (I've never been there and wouldn't mind going sometime) but because it's George W. Bush's future library. That's a mess I want to stay FAR away from. As far as the story goes...EW!!!! And I totally agree with what was said before...do these people not care about their children? The chances of debilitating diseases increases dramatically with consanguinity (even 3 degrees seperated). And even if this kid wasn't physically screwed up, they would be mentally screwed up from the taunts and everything. How much do you want to bet this daughter he's been sleeping with has a couple psychological disorders and that's one of the reasons she's happily sleeping with the father? *shudder* |
Micrówave 07.04.2008 16:15 |
No, they're still trying to sort it out, almost to the point of hilarity. They've set up a hall to interrogate these kids, but they're having trouble with the whole "parental consent" issue. They can't figure out who's mommy is who's!! It's actually getting quite funny, despite the horrible conditions. Maggie, you need to not worry about the George Bush library. Actually the LBJ library is quite stunning! They put quite a lot of money into those deals. And remember, LBJ wanted to keep fighting a losing war, so he wasn't very popular at his exit either. Lewisville is actually quite nice. A bit pricey to live compared to other suburbs around here. |
AspiringPhilosophe 07.04.2008 18:42 |
^^LOL...that's not what I'm worried about. Trust me, those libraries have TONS of money and will probably survive a nuclear holocaust. And like I said, I wouldn't mind visiting Texas. And the reason I don't want to apply for the job has nothing to do with my feelings about George W. My concern is the position I'd be in. It would be my position to keep and care for all the documents that were in the library, and to get them for scholars who request them. You better believe that with his unpopularity scholars will be clamoring to look for the things. They aren't going to like it (or believe it) when I have to tell them that the records aren't here (they are kept confidential for 25 years after the President leaves office, and that time can be extended) or aren't available. Not to mention that his administration hasn't been the best about keeping records in the first place (see CIA being ordered to destroy records of the interrogations of suspects at Gitmo); I'd have to deal with all of the unhappy scholars and press wanting access to the stuff. Plus having my hands tied by Bush about what I could and could not allow access to. It's just a giant mess I don't want to get involved in...I don't need that much stress in my life! :-D Some of the profs in my department have worked (or tried to work) with the LBJ library, and believe me they've had their words about not being given access to things. And I understand the library completely; their hands are tied a lot of times. I'd rather not have to deal with that. I see that they've upped the number taken out of that polygamist ranch to 500+. Sheesh! |
sparrow 21754 07.04.2008 18:42 |
<b><font color=007788> ?Freya? wrote: Hmmm. This genetic sexual attraction thing is interesting. Weird, but interesting. I watched a documentary about it a few weeks ago. It focused mainly on the Scottish couple that have a short interview in the video posted. They are half brother and sister, and I came out of it not feeling disgusted, I just felt sorry for them. They weren't trying to push it in anybody's face, they just loved each other. She was infertile, therefore, there were no baby dangers. That's what I find most difficult to understand with this - why people are willing to put their own child's health at risk. It's so unbelievably selfish. And even if that child is healthy, that child is going to suffer mentally. And then there's bullying, children are horrible to each other. It's just really selfish. So yes, my opinion is, do what you want, just don't make anybody else suffer.i completely agree with you. huh, something sick and sad that i realized about this...isnt there a teensy bit of narssisicm? (im probably going to hell for this) if the dad loved his daughter in that way...isnt that kinda like saying 'oh god i love the 50% genetic material i created so much id tap that!'... jesus. i feel terrible for the child created. its lucky to be healthy, but theyll be lucky to get thru life without ridicule soaking them in so much that that alone wont mess them up. gross. i cant imagine... |
...assdude.... 39702 07.04.2008 19:16 |
pittrek wrote:give it a rest would you!...ASSDUDE... wrote:Do you know the meaning of the word "sarcasim" ?pittrek wrote:What??? Good on you, fucking moron. Obviously the sarcasim has gone right over your head. Figures......ASSDUDE.... wrote: link Thats right Fred, you sang it. Is this the world we created when we fuck our own daughters, not once though, even though we get them pregnant and loose the first baby, we decide to sing" yes we'll keep on trying"...and fuck em again untill the next baby is born.. Now we need to explain to the baby that your grandad is your real dad. Wow... 2 for 1 deal.WE fuck our daughters ??? Maybe you, pal, but I don't |
Sergei. 07.04.2008 19:43 |
I'm watching stuff on the news right now about this Warren Jeffs freak and the FLDS.... Jesus. XD |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.04.2008 19:59 |
i'm pissing myself with laughter here at the fact that this thread went from incest to George W Bush within half a page. good work all,keep it up LOL |
Micrówave 08.04.2008 15:12 |
...which seems to be a common theme here on Queenzone. |
Mab Meddows Mercury 08.04.2008 15:25 |
This is absolutely HORRID. The world has come to shit. :O I've said that so many times. And it's the truth. :( |
Freya is quietly judging you. 08.04.2008 15:50 |
What, so incest didn't exist before? |
Mab Meddows Mercury 08.04.2008 15:53 |
Yes, it did. I'm just saying the world has come to shit. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 08.04.2008 16:01 |
Bad things always happened. The world hasn't gone to shit, the world always was shit, if you look at it like that. Personally, I think the world is full of beauty. You just have to look for it. |
AspiringPhilosophe 08.04.2008 16:23 |
<b><font color=007788> ?Freya? wrote: Bad things always happened. The world hasn't gone to shit, the world always was shit, if you look at it like that. Personally, I think the world is full of beauty. You just have to look for it.Here Here Freya! I totally agree with you. I hate it when people say "The world is going to hell." I study history...the world has ALWAYS been hell. It's not any worse now than before. The important thing is to look for the good, and try to make good things happen around you to increase the beauty in the world. |
Mab Meddows Mercury 08.04.2008 16:43 |
You know what? Both of you are completely right. I just find it difficult to see anything good in this world. It could be the fact that I'm maturing and becoming more aware of things. Or, it could just be the fact that I've suffered a lot, and have become a pessimist. My world is painted black, yet there is still hope. Believe me. Even if it's a small little shred... :/ |
Ms. Rebel 09.04.2008 07:31 |
Drugged, all of them. |
john bodega 09.04.2008 09:59 |
Good news, I fucked your sister. |
The Real Wizard 11.04.2008 13:39 |
<b><font color=007788> ?Freya? wrote: Bad things always happened. The world hasn't gone to shit, the world always was shit, if you look at it like that. Personally, I think the world is full of beauty. You just have to look for it.Amen. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 11.04.2008 20:47 |
<b><font color=007788> ?Freya? wrote: Bad things always happened. The world hasn't gone to shit, the world always was shit, if you look at it like that. Personally, I think the world is full of beauty. You just have to look for it.unless you are listening to Treasure Moment on your ipod and thinking of George W Bush whilst shagging your sister and getting her preggers in the 11th dimension.. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 11.04.2008 21:19 |
*Looks for beauty* *Looks harder* *Kills self* |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 04:29 |
<b><font color=007788> ?Freya? wrote: Hmmm. This genetic sexual attraction thing is interesting. Weird, but interesting. I watched a documentary about it a few weeks ago. It focused mainly on the Scottish couple that have a short interview in the video posted. They are half brother and sister, and I came out of it not feeling disgusted, I just felt sorry for them. They weren't trying to push it in anybody's face, they just loved each other. She was infertile, therefore, there were no baby dangers. That's what I find most difficult to understand with this - why people are willing to put their own child's health at risk. It's so unbelievably selfish. And even if that child is healthy, that child is going to suffer mentally. And then there's bullying, children are horrible to each other. It's just really selfish. So yes, my opinion is, do what you want, just don't make anybody else suffer.yeah its a bad thing but EVERYONE is extremely selfish, you too! i want you to name one person who isnt extremely selfish |
john bodega 12.04.2008 05:07 |
Treasure Moment wrote: yeah its a bad thing but EVERYONE is extremely selfish, you too! i want you to name one person who isnt extremely selfishSanta Claus. |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 05:16 |
Haggis McShagPants wrote:even he is very selfishTreasure Moment wrote: yeah its a bad thing but EVERYONE is extremely selfish, you too! i want you to name one person who isnt extremely selfishSanta Claus. |
john bodega 12.04.2008 07:37 |
He makes toys for billions of children every year. I think he's paid his bloody dues. All he asks is milk and cookies. How is that selfish? |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 07:48 |
Haggis McShagPants wrote: He makes toys for billions of children every year. I think he's paid his bloody dues. All he asks is milk and cookies. How is that selfish?well you see everything a person ever does is selfish. There are 2 ways of being selfish, either by giving, being nice, generous, thinking of others all the time or by doing the opposite and just think of yourself, taking etc. You might ask how being generous and giving to things is selfish but it is because everything a person ever does is for him/herself. They think "how good I am, I am generous, I make people happy, people like ME" etc everything goes back to the person. Its all about gaining and some gain by giving and being nice and some gain by doing the opposite. I call it negative and positive selfishness. |
john bodega 12.04.2008 09:04 |
You almost have a point. How do you explain people like me then, who don't actually enjoy accolades for 'being nice'? Such outpourings make me feel awkward. I just give people their gifts/presents and tell them to shuddup. |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 09:19 |
Haggis McShagPants wrote: You almost have a point. How do you explain people like me then, who don't actually enjoy accolades for 'being nice'? Such outpourings make me feel awkward. I just give people their gifts/presents and tell them to shuddup.well you still do it because you would feel even more bad if you didnt. Its about making yourself feel good in the end no matter how you do it. |
The Real Wizard 12.04.2008 11:50 |
Treasure Moment wrote: You might ask how being generous and giving to things is selfish but it is because everything a person ever does is for him/herself.So you're a doctor of psychology now too? Your band is the second-best band ever (better than Mozart), you have the inside scoop on the "New World Order", and you are the first person to finally have the answer to the selflessness vs selfishness debate. We stand in awe. |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 11:54 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:of course, prove me wrong about the selfishness thing, im waiting :)Treasure Moment wrote: You might ask how being generous and giving to things is selfish but it is because everything a person ever does is for him/herself.Oh, so you're a doctor of psychology now too? Your band is the second-best band ever (better than Mozart), you have the inside scoop on the "New World Order", and you are the first person to finally have the answer to the selflessness vs selfishness debate. We stand in awe. |
The Real Wizard 12.04.2008 12:09 |
First present your biological/chemical research and of course, your published article in a scientific journal. You are the one who needs to prove you're right. Your personal opinions aren't "inherently right until they're proven wrong". Taking such a stance is called the "argument from ignorance". I invented spray sun-block. I am a lost son of Mick Jagger. I hold the key to your success and happiness. I am an illegal alien. Prove me wrong. I'm waiting. |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 12:11 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: First present your biological/chemical research and of course, your published article in a scientific journal. You are the one who needs to prove you're right. Your personal opinions aren't "inherently right until they're proven wrong". Taking such a stance is called the "argument from ignorance". I invented spray sun-block. I am a lost son of Mick Jagger. I hold the key to your success and happiness. I am an illegal alien. Prove me wrong. I'm waiting.wow was that a stupid answer or what? why dont you explain to me why not every single human is selfish? just answer the question. |
The Real Wizard 12.04.2008 12:13 |
No, I'm just playing at your level. I'm telling you some "facts" the same way you're telling me "facts". Why can't you in turn prove my propositions to be wrong? If you can write a song better than Imagine or Mozart's Requiem, then you can surely do that. |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 12:17 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: No, I'm just playing at your level. I'm telling you some "facts" the same way you're telling me "facts". Why can't you in turn prove my propositions to be wrong? If you can write a song better than Imagine or Mozart's Requiem, then you can surely do that.though those songs are good yes my band can write equally good or better songs yes, now back to the question, answer it |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 12:17 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: No, I'm just playing at your level. I'm telling you some "facts" the same way you're telling me "facts". Why can't you in turn prove my propositions to be wrong? If you can write a song better than Imagine or Mozart's Requiem, then you can surely do that.though those songs are good yes my band can write equally good or better songs, now back to the question, answer it |
The Real Wizard 12.04.2008 12:26 |
You don't get it. You're exposing your ignorance, arrogance, and downright idiocy with everything you say. Yes, most unprovable claims can't be proven wrong - but that doesn't make them inherently right. Your ability to debate at even a beginner level leaves much to be desired, and there is no point in continuing this conversation with you, like all the others. |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 12:30 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: You don't get it. You're exposing your ignorance, arrogance, and downright idiocy with everything you say. Yes, most unprovable claims can't be proven wrong - but that doesn't make them inherently right. Your ability to debate at even a beginner level leaves much to be desired, and there is no point in continuing this conversation with you, like all the others.its a simple answer, prove me wrong that every single human being isnt selfish, i think you cant. It does make it right because what im saying is logical, if its not give me an example how someone isnt selfish. This is logical thinking. It seems you know im right and you cant say anything against it. |
The Real Wizard 12.04.2008 12:32 |
Treasure Moment wrote: It does make it right because what im saying is logical, if its not give me an example how someone isnt selfish. This is logical thinking.Assuming that unprovable claims are right is not logical thinking. You will begin thinking logically the day you realize your opinions are not perpetual facts that the world must live by. Good day to you. |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 12:33 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:its unprovable? i just proved it and you cant prove me wrong. see if you thought i was wrong you would just give me a simple example of someone not being selfish and you couldnt! therfor i am right, simple logic.Treasure Moment wrote: It does make it right because what im saying is logical, if its not give me an example how someone isnt selfish. This is logical thinking.Assuming that unprovable claims are right is not logical thinking. You will begin thinking logically the day you realize your opinions are not perpetual facts that the world must live by. Good day to you. |
john bodega 12.04.2008 14:02 |
Treasure Moment wrote:You don't understand ; I have no guilt. Your scenario makes no sense, please try again? Explain to me again how this works.Haggis McShagPants wrote: You almost have a point. How do you explain people like me then, who don't actually enjoy accolades for 'being nice'? Such outpourings make me feel awkward. I just give people their gifts/presents and tell them to shuddup.well you still do it because you would feel even more bad if you didnt. Its about making yourself feel good in the end no matter how you do it. |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 14:16 |
Haggis McShagPants wrote:It must be something that makes you feel less bad otherwise why would you do it if you dont feel guilt or anything? ask yourself that and answer.Treasure Moment wrote:You don't understand ; I have no guilt. Your scenario makes no sense, please try again? Explain to me again how this works.Haggis McShagPants wrote: You almost have a point. How do you explain people like me then, who don't actually enjoy accolades for 'being nice'? Such outpourings make me feel awkward. I just give people their gifts/presents and tell them to shuddup.well you still do it because you would feel even more bad if you didnt. Its about making yourself feel good in the end no matter how you do it. What im saying is that everything a person ever does is selfish, wether its by being generous, giving, loving towards others or the opposite because by either of those 2 choices of behaviour you are gaining something for youself. f you give, are generous etc then you feel good because people like you and they think how good you are etc and you are gaining something for yourself and thats a selfish act. the same if you take, being rude to anyone and not caring, its also selfish but a different apporach and that depends on what kinda person you are, if you are going to be positively selfish or negatively. In the end everything you ever do is to make yourself feel better or less bad in situations which makes everything you ever do only for yourself. |
Janet 12.04.2008 14:21 |
The definition of "selfish" is 'concerned chiefly or only for oneself.' or 'taking care of oneself without thought for others.' So, even though say, giving to a charity might make me feel good inside, it hardly makes me selfish. As the 'feeling good' is merely a side affect of my giving, not the reason for my giving. My reason for giving is to make someone else happy or to make their life better and that is the complete opposite of selfishness. |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 14:34 |
Janet wrote: The definition of "selfish" is 'concerned chiefly or only for oneself.' or 'taking care of oneself without thought for others.' So, even though say, giving to a charity might make me feel good inside, it hardly makes me selfish. As the 'feeling good' is merely a side affect of my giving, not the reason for my giving. My reason for giving is to make someone else happy or to make their life better and that is the complete opposite of selfishness.you missed the point, its still being selfish. You feel better when you give, pay attention to the word YOU. Everything you ever do is for yourself and to feel better. Of course its better to be selfish like that rather than the opposite but in the end we are selfish no matter what we do, its built into the body. |
john bodega 12.04.2008 14:46 |
Sorry, this just doesn't work with me. I know you've put a lot of effort into this little thesis of yours, even going so far as to start a thread on the matter, but it doesn't work with me. Your argument is too simple (No surprises there) to cover all human emotional states and scenarios. What about shit that we do out of habit? And there are some pretty un-emotional people out there you know.. Often I do a nice thing 'because I can', and it has nothing to do with being nice or being thanked. Where exactly is the selfishness in that? I do x thing that costs me y money and I get ZERO enjoyment out of it. Then I go on with my life and forget that I've done the thing, and honestly don't care if I ever get thanked for it. Explain! |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 15:10 |
Haggis McShagPants wrote: Sorry, this just doesn't work with me. I know you've put a lot of effort into this little thesis of yours, even going so far as to start a thread on the matter, but it doesn't work with me. Your argument is too simple (No surprises there) to cover all human emotional states and scenarios. What about shit that we do out of habit? And there are some pretty un-emotional people out there you know.. Often I do a nice thing 'because I can', and it has nothing to do with being nice or being thanked. Where exactly is the selfishness in that? I do x thing that costs me y money and I get ZERO enjoyment out of it. Then I go on with my life and forget that I've done the thing, and honestly don't care if I ever get thanked for it. Explain!that doesnt make sense, you dont do anything without gaining something. Analyze yourself better. |
shoemanbundy 12.04.2008 15:33 |
TM: Can you explain WHY THE FUCK it's so important to prove to you people AREN'T selfish to be begin with? What it your obsession with trying to make it seem like you've figured out so much, and everyone else is ignorant? It seems you're the only one here who's ignorant. If you don't have a bunch of yes men at your side, you gotta turn it into a huge debate and then keep repeating the same question back at us without even considering that your own "fact" is just an opinion. You have no common sense of debate. Why can't you listen to others, why should we only listen to you? Is there a reason you want to appear to be the almighty knower of all? If you're this stubborn, I don't see any reason you can expect anyone to like you at all, not even in the real world outside of the internet. If you're this much of an ass with everyone you meet, they must immediately get a "WTF!?" expression on their face the instant you open your mouth to them. |
john bodega 12.04.2008 15:37 |
Treasure Moment wrote:No, you make no sense. Face it. Your flimsy, stupid theory will not work with everyone because (thank FUCK) we're not all like you.Haggis McShagPants wrote: Sorry, this just doesn't work with me. I know you've put a lot of effort into this little thesis of yours, even going so far as to start a thread on the matter, but it doesn't work with me. Your argument is too simple (No surprises there) to cover all human emotional states and scenarios. What about shit that we do out of habit? And there are some pretty un-emotional people out there you know.. Often I do a nice thing 'because I can', and it has nothing to do with being nice or being thanked. Where exactly is the selfishness in that? I do x thing that costs me y money and I get ZERO enjoyment out of it. Then I go on with my life and forget that I've done the thing, and honestly don't care if I ever get thanked for it. Explain!that doesnt make sense, you dont do anything without gaining something. Analyze yourself better. Your assertion is that everything we do in life is for some personal gain, and I'm telling you that for me, specifically, this isn't the case. So... you're wrong. About me, anyway, and I know your theory wasn't about me specifically but you did say 'the whole human race' and I felt I had to speak up. |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 15:44 |
Haggis McShagPants wrote:you do the things you do for a reason, dont kid yourself that you arent and that reason is to gain, feel good or feel less bad.Treasure Moment wrote:No, you make no sense. Face it. Your flimsy, stupid theory will not work with everyone because (thank FUCK) we're not all like you. Your assertion is that everything we do in life is for some personal gain, and I'm telling you that for me, specifically, this isn't the case. So... you're wrong. About me, anyway, and I know your theory wasn't about me specifically but you did say 'the whole human race' and I felt I had to speak up.Haggis McShagPants wrote: Sorry, this just doesn't work with me. I know you've put a lot of effort into this little thesis of yours, even going so far as to start a thread on the matter, but it doesn't work with me. Your argument is too simple (No surprises there) to cover all human emotional states and scenarios. What about shit that we do out of habit? And there are some pretty un-emotional people out there you know.. Often I do a nice thing 'because I can', and it has nothing to do with being nice or being thanked. Where exactly is the selfishness in that? I do x thing that costs me y money and I get ZERO enjoyment out of it. Then I go on with my life and forget that I've done the thing, and honestly don't care if I ever get thanked for it. Explain!that doesnt make sense, you dont do anything without gaining something. Analyze yourself better. |
Janet 12.04.2008 16:07 |
Treasure Moment wrote:This is simply your opinion. Thanks for sharing it, but my opinion is different than yours. And while you feel that you are right in this instance, I feel just as strongly that I am. So there is really nothing left for me to say.Janet wrote: The definition of "selfish" is 'concerned chiefly or only for oneself.' or 'taking care of oneself without thought for others.' So, even though say, giving to a charity might make me feel good inside, it hardly makes me selfish. As the 'feeling good' is merely a side affect of my giving, not the reason for my giving. My reason for giving is to make someone else happy or to make their life better and that is the complete opposite of selfishness.you missed the point, its still being selfish. You feel better when you give, pay attention to the word YOU. Everything you ever do is for yourself and to feel better. Of course its better to be selfish like that rather than the opposite but in the end we are selfish no matter what we do, its built into the body. Carry on. |
Treasure Moment 12.04.2008 16:23 |
Janet wrote:its not an opinion, its a fact and if you cant prove me wrong please try but dont say that it isnt selfish to give because YOU gain something from it first of all and THEN the others gain from your generousity.Treasure Moment wrote:This is simply your opinion. Thanks for sharing it, but my opinion is different than yours. And while you feel that you are right in this instance, I feel just as strongly that I am. So there is really nothing left for me to say. Carry on.Janet wrote: The definition of "selfish" is 'concerned chiefly or only for oneself.' or 'taking care of oneself without thought for others.' So, even though say, giving to a charity might make me feel good inside, it hardly makes me selfish. As the 'feeling good' is merely a side affect of my giving, not the reason for my giving. My reason for giving is to make someone else happy or to make their life better and that is the complete opposite of selfishness.you missed the point, its still being selfish. You feel better when you give, pay attention to the word YOU. Everything you ever do is for yourself and to feel better. Of course its better to be selfish like that rather than the opposite but in the end we are selfish no matter what we do, its built into the body. |
Janet 12.04.2008 16:32 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Prove it.Janet wrote:its not an opinion, its a fact and if you can prove me wrong please try but dont say that it isnt selfish to give because YOU gain something from it first of all and THEN the others gain from your generousity.Treasure Moment wrote:This is simply your opinion. Thanks for sharing it, but my opinion is different than yours. And while you feel that you are right in this instance, I feel just as strongly that I am. So there is really nothing left for me to say. Carry on.Janet wrote: The definition of "selfish" is 'concerned chiefly or only for oneself.' or 'taking care of oneself without thought for others.' So, even though say, giving to a charity might make me feel good inside, it hardly makes me selfish. As the 'feeling good' is merely a side affect of my giving, not the reason for my giving. My reason for giving is to make someone else happy or to make their life better and that is the complete opposite of selfishness.you missed the point, its still being selfish. You feel better when you give, pay attention to the word YOU. Everything you ever do is for yourself and to feel better. Of course its better to be selfish like that rather than the opposite but in the end we are selfish no matter what we do, its built into the body. edit* Actually I really don't want you to prove it, because you can't afterall. I just wanted you to see how rediculous you sound. |
Janet 12.04.2008 16:33 |
(sorry, double post) |
AspiringPhilosophe 12.04.2008 16:38 |
@ TM I hate to see someone so ignorant continuing to spew their ignorance when I can do something about it. I realize I'm probably railing against a brick wall, but call it a weakness of mine. I have to TRY to help you. Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric: * Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. * Argument from "authority". * Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision). * Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). * Special pleading (typically referring to god's will). * Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased). * Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses). * Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes). * Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!) * Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved"). * Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down. * Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect. * Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?). * Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is). * Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?"). * Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile). * Confusion of correlation and causation. * Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack. * Suppressed evidence or half-truths. * Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" . In this case you are using appeal to ignorance. Because it cannot be proven wrong does not make it true...it simply means that it cannot be proven. My suggestion is that you think about all of these things the next time you open your mouth, and work through it like a check list. You'd be surprised how quickly you will improve. |