They all looked like stuffed animals
They all looked like stuffed animals
there's a Sonic in there :S
i just love it how their outfit is always smiling and so happy ^___^
but they're dead on the inside.
uly-22-10
8:14 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: sel
8:14 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: its not Flimz
8:14 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: lol
8:14 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: its butters.
8:14 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: Hense budders
8:14 PM - Selentic: wow what the fuck
8:14 PM - Selentic: I thought that was some shitty clan
8:14 PM - Selentic: are you still 12
8:15 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: no
8:15 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: lol
8:15 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: im 15.
8:15 PM - Selentic: oh
8:15 PM - Selentic: cute :>
8:15 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: LOL
8:15 PM - Selentic: what happened to flimz then
8:15 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: He lets me use
8:15 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: his steam
8:15 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: or well
8:15 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: Python lets me use it
8:15 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: LOl
8:15 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: w,e. i just rage gungame
8:15 PM - Selentic: are you cute now
8:15 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: Very.
8:15 PM - Selentic: can I date you
8:16 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: i have a hot girlfriend
8:16 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: ask flimzyy
8:16 PM - Selentic: ok I will ask flimz permission to date you
8:16 PM - Selentic: you cutie
8:16 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: LOL
8:16 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: Homosapianserpant
8:16 PM - Selentic: I'm gay butters
8:16 PM - Selentic: In case you
8:16 PM - Selentic: didn't realize that
8:16 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: LOl
8:16 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: Nig.
8:17 PM - Selentic: would you let me dominate you
8:17 PM - Selentic: butters
8:17 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: LOL
8:17 PM - Selentic: answer the question
8:17 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: No
8:17 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: LOL
8:18 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: ur obviously not gay
8:18 PM - Selentic: would you dominate me?
8:18 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: u fucking douchenigger
8:18 PM - Selentic: butters you wanna play tf2
8:18 PM - Selentic: sometime
8:18 PM - Selentic: to get to know each other better.
8:18 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: l0L
8:18 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: LoL_@s3lentic
8:18 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: Smoke trainwreck
8:18 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: and sour d
8:19 PM - Selentic: what
8:19 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: Ur probably a jahova
8:19 PM - Selentic: I'm agnostic
8:19 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: What?
8:19 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: Does that mean u have downs?
8:19 PM - Selentic: that means I'm gay for you
8:20 PM - Selentic: that's what it mean
8:20 PM - Selentic: s
8:20 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: Well uhmm
8:20 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: Ur a snake
8:20 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: Bye.
8:20 PM - Selentic: bye
8:20 PM - Selentic: nice talking to you again
8:20 PM - Selentic: butters
8:20 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: nuh uh
8:20 PM - Selentic:
8:21 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: L0L
8:21 PM - [BUD]DERS | BoNgRip!: p3n island
He's still 12.
I've got a snake
In my pants.
And it shoots poison
.Me: Do you think that violence is wrong?
You: Yes, violence is wrong except in self defense.
Me: Agreed, except in self defense. So tell me, how do you think the problems in society should be solved if we should not use violence.
You: Well, I think people should become more active in government and that government should do...(insert whatever it is you want government to do)
Me: So how do you reconcile your objection to violence with your support of government programs since government programs are paid for through taxation which is coersion backed by violence?
You: What? Taxation isn't coersive.
Me: Yes taxation IS coersive since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gun point and thrown in jail and if you attempt to defend yourself against this or escape, you will be shot and killed.
You: But this is a democracy, we choose our own governments.
Me: Being offered the choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which mafia he pays protection money to, can it really be argued that he is making a free choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands but will be forced to marry one of them, can it really be argued that she is choosing marriage? The only way we can know that people are freely choosing government is if they were given the option to choose not to have a government.
You: Well, there's a social contract that binds people to governments.
Me: There is in fact no such thing as a social contract. Unless they have been granted power of attourney, people cannot justly agree to contracts on behalf of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a contract, then logically one could rape a woman and call it love making.
You: But I accept the social contract and so do you if you drive on the roads
Me: First of all, your choice to honor a contract does not give you the right to force me to honor it. You can buy a house but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honor the contract. And I have never agreed to any social contract of any kind. Yes, it is true that I use government services but that is irrelevant to the central question of coersion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he thus condoning slavery?
You: No, but you still implicitly accept the contract by continuing to live in the country.
Me: Do you think it would be just for me to create a social contract which states that I can rob anyone in my neighbourhood I want to and by continuing to live in my neighbourhood, they agree to this?
You: Well no but we're talking about governments, not individuals.
Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is the government not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others? A right they define as evil for those they initiate violence against? In other words, if you take away all the individuals in government, do you still have a government?
You: I suppose not but that's all beside the point. You say taxation is violence but I've paid taxes all my life and no one's ever pointed a gun at my head.
Me: Sure and a slave may not be beaten if he obeys his master. The definition of slavery is not to be beaten but by the right to beat. If the slave stays out of fear of violence and conforms to his master's wishes as a direct result of the threat of violence, the situation is still immoral even if no violence actually occurs. Many women are raped with knives to their throats but their throats not being cut doesn't mean it's not rape.
You: True but I still don't accept the premise that the government uses violence to extract taxation from citizens.
Me: All right, is there anything that the government does which you do not agree with? Do you agree for instance with the invasion of Iraq? (if you do agree with the invasion, fill this in with anything the government does that you disagree with. We both know there's gotta be something)
You: No, I think the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.
Me: You do understand that the war in Iraq was only possible through your tax dollars?
You: Well, to some degree, of course.
Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong but only possible because you pay your taxes and your taxes are NOT extracted from you by force, then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain why you are doing that?
You: I do that because I am a citizen of this country, if I disagree with the war then I should run for office and try to stop it.
Me: That doesn't follow at all. For instance, if you are against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund an organization dedicated to abusing children?
You: Of course not!
Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children and I said you should stop doing that and you replied that you would not but if someone was against this abusive group, that they should try to infiltrate it and change it to stop abusing children, would that make any sense at all?
You: I guess not.
Me: would you agree that if you were against the war in Iraq but volunteered for the war and agreed to fight without a salary and used your own money to cover your expenses, that your position would be utterly incomprehensible, that you would claim to be against something yet spend enourmous amounts of your time and money supporting it?
You: Yes, that would make little sense.
Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil yet you are voluntarily funding it through you taxes makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil but is only possible through your funding, then continuing to fund it voluntarily is to admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq, then you can maintain that it is a moral evil because it is the initiation of the use of force. However the taxation which is also an initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil because you are forced to fund the initiation of the use of force against others. Thus either taxation IS coersion or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite by voluntarily funding that which you call evil. Does that make sense?
You: I can certainly see that position...
Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?
You: No but I still think that you're wrong.
Me: Then I'm glad I just copy pasted this rather than debating directly because after all, life is too short to waste time arguing with fools...
Wait were you arguing with yourself?
you need to check out sovereignty bro
also his guy.
That argument sounds like something Socrates would say, and Socrates was an antagonistic troll famous for his technically valid but still unsound arguments. I'm irritated to have read that.
^ and so were his students. Not to mention elitist.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks