Huh? WTF?

[eye2i2hear]

(02-28-2012 09:51 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  ... To have the silly personal attacks, that I'm a hypocrite, mentally ill, incapable of rational thought, from people who could not extend even a little courtesy in the first place, is just not worth my time anymore.

And no, the word retard was not used on this forum as far as I know, but describing people as "mentally ill" and "incapable of rational thought" really means the same thing.

[emphasis, mine --eye2i]

Marc,
I genuinely and sincerely don't understand --what appears to me to be --your persistence in broad-brushing EVERYbody into saying of you, or being of the opinion regarding you, of what appears (taking your word on it) to have been possibly said somewhere on this forum. Is it not apparent from this that in your mind you've lumped us into a Box labeled "Divisive!!"?! And even if it was said specifically, do you genuinely think it wasn't said in some sense of hyperbole? And aren't any of us guilty of that at any given time? [see "forum TAKEN OVER"?]

But even more to point, how does one person having used those specific words (again, taking you at your "words") work out to EVERYONE ELSE thinking/believing such?!? Show me, where I've personally said such (including the crucial context aspect) and I'll apologize immediately. I for one certainly wouldn't invest my time here (or still recommend your book to others) if I thought you incapable of rational thought, much less mentally ill. [ignorant* or still delusional/con-fused in some aspects, sure --and i most likely, if not inherently, am one or more of those in other aspects]

OK, I get it that you don't believe the topic can or should be discussed here. Fine. Address a couple of my (f)actual issues and I'll purpose to ease back (again, as conscience and integrity allow --where if indeed, you don't care for it, or can't stand it, delete my account; it worked out for Stefban after all).

• One issue being the misuse of the word religion. Just stop saying it shouldn't be discussed here already, when it is being discussed here because The State-belief is religious. Or explain to me how it differs from most folks abusing the word anarchy and your personally persistently challenging such?
• Another issue is that of labeling us ALL as "atheists" and thereby ALL being intent on being DIVISIVE. It's just not being fair and lacks integrity --not to mention, it's divisive. I personally reject the label atheist for the same reason you reject the label tax protester: the foundational premise is bogus and fictional when only the facts are relevant.

Oh, and let's not forget, since you bring up "silly pettyrsonal attacks": just as some have time to explore and participate in blues jams, along side of No State matters, some have time to explore and participate in Faithist religion matters, along side of No State matters. [besides, we all know blues is for no-brainers!! you guys should be spending that time on rap real music, like prog!!! j/k]

One last admonition here: keep saying, repeating, and typing these types of things and you're sure to see and hear just that. I wish you'd just stop.

caveat: "no", I don't see or take any of my remarks as being "divisive"; rather, I see it as an attempt at gaining integrity~

sincerely,
--eye2i2hear


* [I personally wish the word ignorant would be used towards it's etymological, obvious origin, rather than how it's used popularly and/or insultingly; it's root is "ignore" which is "to willfully turn away from or to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to"; it's not like there aren't a plethora of other words to convey retard, stupid, idiot, etc]

---

(02-28-2012 11:30 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  He's frazzled. How many of you have your own websites? Forums?

Hey, it's not websites & forums that's frazzled him; it's the illusion that he's actually writing another book. (you have heard that rumor, for years now, right?!)








(I'm praying to the Invisible Pink UnidoG every nite that doGspeed is with the book...)

[NonEntity]

(02-28-2012 11:34 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  * [I personally wish the word ignorant would be used towards it's etymological, obvious origin, rather than how it's used popularly and/or insultingly; it's root is "ignore" which is "to willfully turn away from or to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to"; it's not like there aren't a plethora of other words to convey retard, stupid, idiot, etc]

Hmm. Never heard this perspective before.

I consider myself ignorant of things that I don't know about, not because I have CHOSEN to not know about them, but simply because I've not yet had the time, exposure or [corrected typo] inclination to come to know about them.

I take it you are saying that I'm wrong in this perspective on this word?

- NonE

---

(02-28-2012 11:34 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Hey, it's not websites & forums that's frazzled him; it's the illusion that he's actually writing another book. (you have heard that rumor, for years now, right?!)

Another book? WHAT? Where'd you hear this? I've never heard it. I think you're makin' stuff up again. Spreading nasty rumors. Leave the poor man alone.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

(02-28-2012 08:12 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  I FOUND IT!

Kudos!
(btw, I missed it apparently because I included Marc's username in the search, thinking it was said to him personally --rather than guilt by association? presumption? --where honestly, if Marc takes issue with that, as personal, he really should look at how he's wielding the "A"theist word, equally 'round here, imho.)

(01-17-2012 12:54 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 06:14 PM)boyntonstu Wrote:  I am fed up with Christians knocking on my door to tell me about their nonsense and mental illness.
Why are any Biblical quotes allowed?

Then deal with them when they are at your door and try not to paint with such a broad brush. As I have found with statists, it won't help you communicate effectively with people when you consider them mentally ill.

I would prefer to not have the biblical quotes also, I'm not going to start censoring and banning members though (there wouldn't be much left), there are plenty of other forums that do that. If personal attacks get out of hand and we have an obvious troll, that's different.

So far, so "good" (for me2, too). Non divisive, informative, and cordial.

Quote:This is not a religious forum ... . I'll leave it to all us to make use of the ignore button if there is a poster you'd rather not see. It's a pretty good feature.

So let's stick fairly close to the theme of the forum and keep personal attacks out of it.

[emphasis, mine -eye2i2]

Well, while it wrapped up nicely enuff, it sure didn't start out so much that way for some of us. Butti have covered that point already.
Whether Marc is actually sticking to those words consistently, might be a matter of debate tho? [see "The State is a religion"]

<I'll leave the exchange between NonE & Marc for them to sort out, seeing as how I don't consider either of them "retarded" nor "divisive" (well, by nature), and can trust 'em to work it out like potty trained big boys>

Quote:Having reviewed the thread again, I'm leaning towards Marc and two of his regulars are having some sort of communication breakdown.

And you may be on to something. Hopefully free dialog and exchange of ideas (along with some ribbing) will prevail!

Quote:Plus, in my opinion, it's actually arizona_logan and boyntonstu that are the actual drivers of this issue.

I'd have two questions on this: How does arizona_logan fit in, keeping it being relative to a total "TAKE OVER" of (thus creating "division" on) the forum, considering he's only posted 7 times, and only 4 of those were on, not to mention being, +for "god"?
Plus, did he post anything close to the likes of "retarded", "incapable of any reasoning", or "mindless" in his? And how about anything "divisive"? I found his style to be classical debate oriented and respectful. But eye's atheist divisive, so what do i nose.

Which if that first point is agreeable, can you help me out with seeing where a.) one poster can make a "divisive" "take over"?, and b.) did b'stu persist in (the alleged/guilt by assumption) "name-calling" after Marc replied, graciously, to him? [bonus query: would it be likely that Marc would indeed have no idea who the typical "Christian" b'stu has had at his door, and if he heard 'em he too would agree they are "mentally ill"? see "Christian Identity/British Israelism" for starters? noting, that many if not most mentally ill folks are quite capable of intelligent reasoning, it's just certain areas or to certain degrees that are a problem for 'em?]

Which is not to wish to be heard as saying that b'stu hasn't persisted in the pressing The Scarlet Topic --but Marc has left it such being his preference and asking, rather than Stating, that it not be discussed (even creating a sub-forum for it, which arguably should easily resolve any "take over", no?) [I've already mentioned the conscience aspect on this]
And kudos to Marc for leaving it at that! The heart of a voluntaryist!!

So where IS the "division"???
Alleged? Feared? Mongered? Mistaken?
(i didn't ask about where's Waldo the "take over", choosing to give Marc the benefit of the doubt of using such as hyperbole/sarcasm... you know, sort of like how "mentally ill" can be used...?)

Ok, nuff on this, I've got to get back to my '73 Custom Les Paul and my blues licks~
*poke*poke*

--voluntaryist-wanna-b2i

[NonEntity]

(02-28-2012 12:53 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Ok, nuff on this, I've got to get back to my '73 Custom Les Paul and my blues licks~
*poke*poke*

--voluntaryist-wanna-b2i

Sure, just ignore me. Just completely leave me in ignorance about my ignorance (or is that stoopidity, I get so easily confuzed?)

Iz it true, that Les is more?

- NonE

[boyntonstu]

IMO Divisiveness comes from name calling rather from presenting facts.

It has been my long experience that when I ask a critical question to a believer I get a response like "Casting pearls before swines".

My questions never get answered.

Case in point:

If you believe that there is a State, present facts to prove it.

If you believe that Jesus was a historical figure, present facts to prove it.

Why should the Jesus believers return more 'heat' than State believers?

My opinion is that they want to vigorously protect their hidden doubts and not face the non-evidence.

[NonEntity]

(02-28-2012 01:07 PM)boyntonstu Wrote:  IMO Divisiveness comes from name calling rather from presenting facts.

It haqs been my long experience that when I ask a critical question to a believer I get a response like "Casting pearls before swines".

My questions never get answered.

Case in point:

If you believe that there is a State, present facts to prove it.

If you believe that Jesus was a historical figure, present facts to prove it.

Why should the Jesus believers return more 'heat' than State believers?

My opinion is that they want to vigorously protect their hidden doubts and not face the non-evidence.

Quote:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Carl Sagan

Which is why Marc has developed his sophisticated method of dealings in court. He does not make claims, he asks questions. He lets THEM define THEIR terms, and then he reveals the inconsistencies, the contradictions, within those terms.

That is what I did with arizona-logan's (The proof of God) post. I did not attempt to prove there is no god. I don't believe there is one, but I cannot prove it, and (repeat repeat repeat) I don't CARE. What I pointed out was the contradictions within his claim of proof.

- NonE

P.S. But I will admit (and think, but am not sure, that I did so before) that I was quite rude in my delivery.

[Dionysus]

Marc:

I tried defending you, but it just didn’t take. As Homer Simpson is fond of saying: Eh, what ya gonna do????

[eye2i2hear]

(02-28-2012 11:59 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  Hmm. Never heard this perspective before.

I consider myself ignorant of things that I don't know about, not because I have CHOSEN to not know about them, but simply because I've not yet had the time, exposure or [corrected typo] inclination to come to know about them.

I take it you are saying that I'm wrong in this perspective on this word?

First, no, Jane, you ignorant slut. I don't wish to say you are "wrong". Rather, that you might value this usage higher!

While it's anecdotal, in my realm(s), I've never heard one said to be ignoring someone to simply be uninforming, or not-knowing themselves about something or someone.

Thus, as I hear it, to ignore indicates a willful intention. Think also of one "ignoring" and compare that with thinking of one "ignorant"? Thus, the gnosis (knowledge) is there, they are just, well, ignoring it.

Don't ignore this now, ok...

Quote:ignorant (adj.)
late 14c., from O.Fr. ignorant (14c.), from L. ignorantia, from ignorantem (nom. ignorans), prp. of ignorare "not to know, to be unacquainted; mistake, misunderstand; take no notice of, pay no attention to," from assimilated form of in- “not, opposite of” (see in- (1)) + Old Latin gnarus "aware, acquainted with" (cf. Classical L. noscere "to know," notus "known"), from Proto-Latin suffixed form *gno-ro-, related to gnoscere "to know" (see know). Form influenced by L. ignotus "unknown." Cf. also uncouth. Colloquial sense of "ill-mannered" first attested 1886. As a noun meaning "ignorant person" from mid-15c.

ignore (v.)
1610s, "not to know, to be ignorant of," from Fr. ignorer "be unaware of," from L. ignorare "not to know, . Sense of "pay no attention to" first recorded 1801 (Barnhart says "probably a dictionary word"), and not common until c.1850. Related: Ignored; ignoring.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sour...h=ignorant

Otay, first observation regarding the etymology is to note that the "pay no attention to" under ignore is said to be "late" circa 1800s. But one gets to ask if early on it became skewed and at the later date got more back on track? This isn't easily provable, for me, but looking at the earlier take under ignorance, it's gleanible that it could have easily had in it's origin the sense of not knowing + willful and intentional.

Regardless, in contemporary usage, to ignore and ignoring carries the willful, intentional sense (and seldom if ever the uninformed sense), thus supports my proposition for using ignorance and ignorant in the same sense. No? Cripes, eliminate as much cognitive dissonance/mental conflict as we can?! (mentally ill as sum are).
And as one all too familiar with the other end, how apropos is it to hear/think "ignore-rant"?! :@ [fingers in ears, saying "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LAH!!!" here optional]

(again noting, it's not like we don't have a well of other words to draw from in place of the word ignorant).

'Course, hell, we have the words anarchy and religion to contend with, why the hell would we tackle yet another...

We cool~kewel

[NonEntity]

(02-28-2012 01:35 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  fingers in ears, saying "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LAH!!!"

We cool~kewel

Well at least it got us away from talking about doGs!

- NonEvilSlut

[eye2i2hear]

(02-28-2012 09:05 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  Duly noted? Whutz duly noted? I see no referent.
- NonE

Damg it's tuff carrying you nonGodists!!!

Referrant (to my eyes to hear [sic])

Quote:Statists: We The People, In Congress Assembled.

Faithists: We The People, In Christ Assembled.

[in the Biblical Greek, the word translated in some places as "Church" (ie. when it's "Christians") is in other places translated "Assembly" (e.g. when it's Rome-ones)*; the word translated most often as "Christ" is literally "The Chosen (thus) Anointed One (King of kings)" --by "The One True God"; "Christ in us, Assembled/ChristOnes, the hope of Glory" yada yada --*oh, and ditto that class distinguishing based upon opinion "interpretation"/"inSpiration when it comes to whether it's "angel" or "ambassador"]

* [duly noting, that having "eyes to hear" is anglo-Xtian as well]

---

(02-28-2012 01:44 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Well at least it got us away from talking about doGs!
- NonEvilSlut

Attaboy, just IGNORE my divine, inspired word artistry (so you don't have to admit how sterling and eloquent -not2mention con'vincing- my etymological argument was, of course).



(and quit bringing up the "G" word; damG, just about the time I'd forgotten all about it, here you go again...)

---

(02-28-2012 01:30 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  Marc:
I tried defending you, but it just didn’t take. As Homer Simpson is fond of saying: Eh, what ya gonna do????

uh-oh.

seems its a tag-team time here...

Now it's Dionyzeus, Keeper Of The Forum!!!
(Jace tagged out for this round)

WTF!? WWF!!

ps: Dio, you're just not anointed... yet, keep trying disciple, maybe The Power will falleth upon thee and a miracle will cometh forth~

'sides, don't you2 have some blues scales (or slide) to practice instead of wasting this time??

:rolleyes:

[NonEntity]

(02-28-2012 01:51 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Attaboy, just IGNORE my divine, inspired word artistry (so you don't have to admit how sterling and eloquent -not2mention con'vincing- my etymological argument was, of course).

Artistry it was. True and fine artistry. A sight to behold and a verbal garden to refresh these tired and frayed olfactory nerves. A veritable pillow upon which to recline and savor the wonders of the human mind.

- NonEvangilizing

[eye2i2hear]

(02-28-2012 01:44 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Well at least it got us away from talking about doGs!

Actually, evo-pond scum, it is an insiders only fact, that when Adam ate of the fruit in the garden, the curse was dyslexia. Hence, Moses was dyslexic, and in being so, wrote "God" instead of "doG". (oh, and it was "Madam" and not "Adam", there Sesom)

~thus sayeth The Eno True doG (i heard heR, trust me)

This Spirited Moment brought to you by contributions from our fine sponsors.

[Dionysus]

(02-28-2012 01:35 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Otay, first observation regarding the etymology is to note that the "pay no attention to" under ignore is said to be "late" circa 1800s. But one gets to ask if early on it became skewed and at the later date got more back on track?

Me fail English??? That's unpossible!!!

[Dionysus]

So, is it the atheist crowd’s contention that, out of fear of facing freedom (in themselves and others), people seek solace and refuge in the state/collective, and out of fear of discovering that the universe is a cold, indifferent place, they seek solace and refuge in organized religion, and that these are of a piece? If so, I totally agree. I consider the state and organized religion together to be the Establishment, and I try to resist it as best I can (without getting myself killed; I have no desire to become a martyr— there’s no future in it). But I still fail to see how you can lump Marc into that. Marc seems pretty courageous to me. As far as I can tell, he’s only guilty of the horrible atrocity of saying “BS” to something NonE stated (and I’m still not clear on exactly what it was that Marc disagreed with). If NonE had a nickel for every time that happened, well, he’d be a rich man, that’s for sure. But I guess you guys will continue to rag on Marc. Have fun with that. I’m not doing it.

[eye2i2hear]

(02-29-2012 10:15 AM)Dionysus Wrote:  So, is it the atheist crowd’s contention...

Objection. No, wait, that's for Judges with their framing words of art. No, wait, that's what this "atheist" bit is...!?

OK, so you like it for convenience. I don't. I find it akin to one using the word racist for convenience (and you know not ALL racists are violent?). Except at least with race there's some factual evidence regarding such deep down enough (i.e. human race, where Statists are "racists"). With this "Theist" bit --not so much; no, scratch the convenience quote and make it: none at all. It's turtles all the way 'round (up or down). Ok, factually, it's the word(s) of men all the way 'round (aka hearsay evidence at best).

At least consider extending the courtesy to me/us and label us asantaists aeasterbunnyists abolitionists...? Or is that too much of a swat at your bias/divisiveness?
(you know, like those that sought to do away with the factually unsubstantiated and illogical religious doctrine called Slavery; where the fact was, it was a mere notion of some "special" old guys who conned a lot of others with their word(s)... for awhile)

Quote:... that, out of fear of facing freedom (in themselves and others), people seek solace and refuge in the state/collective, and out of fear of discovering that the universe is a cold, indifferent place, they seek solace and refuge in organized religion, and that these are of a piece?

Partly. But not quite. As Larken appears to be nailing it (to both Church and State 'doors'), it's about superstition (which I hear you touching on) and the greatest superstition is belief in Authority. Both of which are about (dealing with) fear. But you simply can't get any more Authorative and fearful than "God" ("Creator", "Omnipotent", "All Mighty" etal) for most. ANY allowance of credibility of the notion of "God" is to grant legitimacy to Authority-think.

The HUGE problem with The God Stamp (Authority Stamp of Approval) is that it's TOTALLY PERSONAL, ultimately. God says, ultimately, what one says He says. And God is (made) legit (it's just that Our version is the right one; see "Nations").

Including that well, we'll just have to die to find out who's "right" and who's "wrong". Sweet. (I personally think that's a reason so much of "modern/civilized" Nation-ing has both religions interwoven, either blatantly or subversively, but that's debatable; noting tho, that religion doesn't have to be "organized" to still, out of superstition, resort to violence)

Quote:But I still fail to see how you can lump Marc into that.

Objection! (ok, nuff of that play) Strawman!? (heck, my dyslexic self gets confused on all those fallacy labels)

Seriously and genuinely, I don't see many, if any of the posts of the recent "TAKE OVER" (<<=speaking of "ragging"? and ok, using HYPERBOLE, too) sort "lump"ing Marc into that.

Rather, what I see are challenges to Marc's appealing to fact based reasoning being the essence of both dissolving The State and bringing about a voluntary society*.

The idea I see beneath this all is some (if not most) are seeking/striving to be logically consistent, which is central to fact finding, and then abolish any thinking that isn't founded and grounded in it.

I find it a strawman to assert that this is "personal" (against Marc) and that it's about disrespectfully discussing Faithist religion.

Quote:Marc seems pretty courageous to me.

Perhaps one would be wise to ask for a qualifier here? Per which religion arena are you saying he seems courageous to you in?
If you mean the Statist one, I whole heartedly agree; hands down, easy enuff to agree.
If you mean the Faithist one, again, not so much. (he may be bold in his Faithist stance, but not courageous --as I value the term; duly noting again, that I've been there, done that, got the soul tattoo of Xtianity, and thus once thought/believed that Way as well)

I can only suggest that you re-read his opening post on the "Hardcore atheist" sub-forum. And then ask your self, where that ALL (or any of it) is backed up in posts on this forum (of voluntaryist). [see my post reply addressing it, or ask me about the "insanity" remark made in the initial post by b'stu]

I respect Marc immensely in his stance in the Statist arena.
I recommend his book. [i wish I could say i recommend his books]
I recommend his forum/website. I recommend his NSP broadcasts.
I admire (ok, I, my dyslexic self also envy!) his talents used in that regard as well.

Quote:As far as I can tell, he’s only guilty of the horrible atrocity of saying “BS” to something NonE stated (and I’m still not clear on exactly what it was that Marc disagreed with).

And (horrible) hyperbole aside, I would offer that that is either something like a rose-colored glasses, or prejudiced, or biased, or a just haven't been paying close enough attention perspective (noting that some of the options included in that list can affect how closely one can pay attention?).

It's my perspective that Marc sooo believes this topic has to be divisive, that by doG he's making it divisive!! [again, I can only suggest that you re-read that HcA subforum opening post, and ask who it applies to here?]

Quote: ... But I guess you guys will continue to rag on Marc. Have fun with that.

Define "rag on"? And clarify "have fun with that"? Is that akin to hearing me or others making fun of Marc? If it is, I just don't see it. Using some humor, akin to brevity, and "pokes" in order to gently provoke an otherwise potentially personally volatile/"divisive" topic? Sure. Again, just see his posts (and watch for deflection?).

Was Marc "ragging on" some of us with his "the forum was taken over" remarks (on the NSP broadcast)? Or his (insinuating?) that we all (obviously?) thought he's retarded, totally incapable of rational thought, delusional, and insane?

Was that ragging on... or was it being divisive (not to be confused with the topic being divisive)??

Quote:I’m not doing it.

Well, first hopefully it should go without saying, that is your prerogative-- at least until I get your definitions of what "it" is per "rag on".
But it also is interesting to consider whether you are ragging on some of us? And having fun at it?

bonus (not just for you, but others) query: Is this sort of dialog/exchange "divisive"? Or is it simply challenging? bonus check2: if some here genuinely and sincerely thought Marc was equivocating on (perish the thought!) The State religion and challenged it here, would that too be heralded as being "divisive"? Or simply challenging/debating?

Which lends to me thinking perhaps it needs to be brought out again:

The "slogan" of this forum has been: "Bringing about a voluntary society" --and NOT, "Bringing about a no-State society". (why that distinction is necessary now to be made is of course the proverbial million dollar question)

* [Whether all forms of religion (aka organized superstition) will need to go i.e. be abolished to the dust bin of other once thought valid notions, in order to have a truly voluntary society? Well, that's up to challenge, no? Unless like with The War Between The States, and well, That's just too divisive too even bring up --Abe2, NonTreasonisti.]