The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

[Cassius]

Why are people so thin-skinned... Sigh

[Cassius]

White tears? Really? That's a pretty weak joke.

Anyway, to Mr. Cavaliere, it is sad that people lose their jobs over a few ill-chosen words. I don't really see what is so terribly controversial about that.

[Cassius]

Cassius is now literally supporting murdering black people.

Vile, awful, terrible, what other words are there to describe them? I would certainly have supported what the FBI did to Hampton and Clark. The worst...

Well, I would have supported executing them if they were white, but if you want to assign sinister motives to me then that's perfectly fine.

[Cassius]

Thanks for saving us the trouble

Look, I'm not a racist. I'm not going to add that I'm not a racist because I have black friends, as that would be a lie. I'm just not a racist. Now, if you give me a reasoned argument, as to why you personally think that I am a racist, then I will try, to the best of my ability, to answer you. But for now, all I can do is repeat that I am not a racist.

Anyway, I am honoured to have had this thread renamed after me. I would like to petition that it's title be changed to the Cassian deluge of absurdity, ignorance and bad posts.

[Cassius]

Look, I'm not a racist. I'm not going to add that I'm not a racist because I have black friends, as that would be a lie. I'm just not a racist

.................................................holy swear words this is one of the worst posts ever

Really. Because if I had lied and said I did have black friends, ergo, I'm not a racist, then you would probably have said something like 'o rly' or 'lol no'. So, I felt I avoided that trap pretty well.

[Cassius]

Look, I'm not a racist. I'm not going to add that I'm not a racist because I have black friends, as that would be a lie. I'm just not a racist

.................................................holy swear words this is one of the worst posts ever

Really. Because if I had lied and said I did have black friends, ergo, I'm not a racist, then you would probably have said something like 'o rly' or 'lol no'. So, I felt I avoided that trap pretty well.

Whether or not someone has black friends is one of the worst indicators of how racist or non-racist a person is.

I think it would be quite hard for me to make black friends since I don't know enough black people well enough to do so. This may be hard for you to grasp, for rural Britainshire doesn't contain very many black people. Come to think of it, I do have a friend who is Jewish, so is that enough to clear me of charges of racism? (sarcasm)

[Cassius]

The only thing he did wrong, was not permanent break the back of the state which had been greatest source of strife on the European continent since 1500; France.

...

Since the 1648 France had more or less started all major Europeans wars, through their agressive expansionist policy and attempt to dominate their neighbours. If Prussia had finally broken the French, we would have avoided the next war WWI, which would just have ended up a Austrian police action against a terror state if not for Russia and France backing the terrorists.

It seems as if Niall Ferguson is posting. Much as I love a nice bit of French-bashing, this is a largely incorrect statement as the ability of France to pursue an aggressive policy in Europe was pretty much non-existant after 1815. Germany was clearly the far more aggressive and expansionist power in the period 1871-1914. He is right about Princep and his ilk being terrorists, but World War I can be pinned far more on Russia and their 'pan-slavic' mania than it can on the French.

[Cassius]

Well, for one thing, I'm pretty sure that Smith very much did impose a South Africa-style apartheid system...

He didn't. What was in place was not South Africa style.

I guess that could, technically, be true, depending entirely on how you define 'South Africa-style', but it was obviously apartheid or comparable to apartheid.

I don't think so. Aparthied as a system is inseparable from the cultural insecurities of the Afrikaners (the government's that imposed the apartheid system were made up entirely of Afrikaners) that had built up over the decades leading up to the election of the National Party to power in 1948. Whilst you could say the aim of apartheid and the Rhodesian system of minority rule were similar, they were highly different in practice. Apartheid, as the name suggests, was designed to totally separate blacks from whites (though this often failed to work out in practice). Under the Rhodesian system, it was theoretically possible (though practically impossible) for a black man to become Prime Minister, as I believe they were entitled to representation in the Rhodesian Parliament, quite unlike South Africa. So, yes, the situation in Rhodesia was certainly far from ideal, but it was a hell of a lot better than the one in South Africa.

[Cassius]

...

In the 21st century, for me, democracy is almost entirely a means to an end. At the moment, a democratic system (at least in my country) seems to gurantee respect for private property, the rule of law and the nation state. But I have no sentimental attachment to democracy. If a government was to be democratically elected which pledged to nationalise banks permanently, promote atheism in schools, abolish the monarchy, attack the concept of private property and introduce other such policies, I would be perfectly prepared to drop the idea of democracy like a hot brick, and instead support a coup d'etat to remove that administration and replace it with a more agreeable one. As for foreign countries, I would not be averse to financing/effecting coup's against democratically-elected governments who pursued policies which were particularly dangerous to my country or to it's allies. So yes, democracy is a system which a majority of people will support in today's world, but if that system threatens me, or people that I'm close to or sympathise with, then, no, it is not important that it be maintained.

Weird to think he considers himself a member of the Constitution Party.

I don't, but it seems the easiest way of distinguishing my avatar. I originally had an 'other' one, but that was prone to confusion with Sibboleth's.

[Cassius]

Opebo is a delightful old rascal, world-weary after spending many years on this earth and experiencing life. Cassius is a naive child with mean-spirited and unpleasant views. There's a world of difference between the two.

Oof, that cuts. Can you give me an example of my naivety, and then I'll see what I can do to rectify it.

[Cassius]

Ah, maybe I am a bit naïve. Certainly there's a lot more out there in the world for me to discover. 18... I guess I could still be said to be a child

[Cassius]

Context:

I assume that the UK is involved in this pathetic display of innapropriate self-righteousness. If so, its a ridiculous thing to do.

'Tis a fair cop. I went over the top. Apologies.

[Cassius]

To be quite honest, I don't want this guy giving money to the poor voluntarily.  Not with his attitude.  It should be taken, pried from his fingers, and distributed to the poor.  And those poor people should shop at Lowes or Menards.

Hardly absurd, ignorant, or bad.  If this guy wants to complain, then we'll give him something to complain about!

My attitude exactly towards left-wing campaigners! Hear, hear!

[Cassius]

Some people care to much.

Honestly, you'd think that this forum was ancient Rome 44 BC, in the aftermath of Gaius Julius Caesar's (Opebo) brutal death at the hands of his Senatorial colleagues (the moderators).

(Sorry for the bullsh**t analogy, but I thought I throw one in since other people seem to be doing it )

[Cassius]

Until God, or perhaps more appropriately, Jesus, descends from the Heavens and nails to my door an exact definition of 'equality' and why it is an objectively good thing, I see no reason as to why I should acknowledge it as something that I should be helping society work towards.

That is the strangest argument I've heard all week.

Well, my point, if a little over-zealously expressed, was that I do not buy into your view that equality is something which is always good. Therefore, until an event occurred which could indisputably make clear that, in all cases, equality is an objectively good thing, there is no real reason for me to help society work towards your view of equality.

[Cassius]

Until God, or perhaps more appropriately, Jesus, descends from the Heavens and nails to my door an exact definition of 'equality' and why it is an objectively good thing, I see no reason as to why I should acknowledge it as something that I should be helping society work towards.

That is the strangest argument I've heard all week.

Well, my point, if a little over-zealously expressed, was that I do not buy into your view that equality is something which is always good. Therefore, until an event occurred which could indisputably make clear that, in all cases, equality is an objectively good thing, there is no real reason for me to help society work towards your view of equality.

Is it an objectively good thing that if you broke the law you would be given a trial like the man next to you, or would you prefer that such equalities didn't exist so that you could be thrown in jail and forgotten about?

That is equality before the law. In my criticisms, I've tried to include the terms objectively and 'in all cases' to qualify my position. I do not believe that equality is objectively a bad thing, things like simple equality in the courts are by and large good things. However, my beef is with this idea that equality is some kind of 'light upon the hill', a societal state that should be promoted and striven for. We are not all equal, we are rendered different by circumstances of our birth, abilities, and, yes, occasionally the patronage that we may have received in life. Its not just things like equality before the law that flow from the broader idea of 'equality', no, there is a whole stream of BS that flows from it, from 'equality of outcomes' to the use of the phrase 'because equality'. I take issue with this idea that all humans, by simple virtue of their humanity and nothing else, are automatically able to access a laundry list of 'rights'. No, no, no I say enough. What 'rights' we have, or as I might call them 'privileges', are the gift of the state, the Church, whatever organisational unit we happen to be dealing with. We should mold ourselves to these boundaries, not expect them to fit us perfectly.

[Cassius]

Until God, or perhaps more appropriately, Jesus, descends from the Heavens and nails to my door an exact definition of 'equality' and why it is an objectively good thing, I see no reason as to why I should acknowledge it as something that I should be helping society work towards.

That is the strangest argument I've heard all week.

Well, my point, if a little over-zealously expressed, was that I do not buy into your view that equality is something which is always good. Therefore, until an event occurred which could indisputably make clear that, in all cases, equality is an objectively good thing, there is no real reason for me to help society work towards your view of equality.

Is it an objectively good thing that if you broke the law you would be given a trial like the man next to you, or would you prefer that such equalities didn't exist so that you could be thrown in jail and forgotten about?

That is equality before the law. In my criticisms, I've tried to include the terms objectively and 'in all cases' to qualify my position. I do not believe that equality is objectively a bad thing, things like simple equality in the courts are by and large good things. However, my beef is with this idea that equality is some kind of 'light upon the hill', a societal state that should be promoted and striven for. We are not all equal, we are rendered different by circumstances of our birth, abilities, and, yes, occasionally the patronage that we may have received in life. Its not just things like equality before the law that flow from the broader idea of 'equality', no, there is a whole stream of BS that flows from it, from 'equality of outcomes' to the use of the phrase 'because equality'. I take issue with this idea that all humans, by simple virtue of their humanity and nothing else, are automatically able to access a laundry list of 'rights'. No, no, no I say enough. What 'rights' we have, or as I might call them 'privileges', are the gift of the state, the Church, whatever organisational unit we happen to be dealing with. We should mold ourselves to these boundaries, not expect them to fit us perfectly.

So then would you not complain about not being able to express your political views or to keep your property or worship openly if you lived in some sort of a totalitarian Stalinist state?

Ah, well this is where we get into murkier waters. The problem is, if the right people don't have power, then it inevitably falls into the hands of the wrong people (the Stalinists that you mentioned above). My political beliefs, such as they are, are largely shaped around preventing this from happening. I do not view Stalinism as a legitimate ideology of government, and thus I certainly would fight against it. Nevertheless, I would not be so naïve as not to expect resistance from the other side, which may view me and 'my sort' as being the wrong people. These things depend very much on your own point of view. Nonetheless, I believe that you should still fight your corner, and, if it has to come to that, get your hands dirty in the process.

[Cassius]

Well, not that I sympathise with this man a lot, but even so, wouldn't it be cheaper and quicker to simply use a wooden platform and a rope (preferably with a long drop to break the neck).

From what I'm told, breaking the neck is actually a more humane method of hanging than strangulation.

[Cassius]

Unsurprising but...

Considering how New York is the asshole of America, I agree with Cuomo-why would these good people want to waste their breath in a state that gave us Aaron Burr, Hillary Clinton, the Cuomos, Chuck Schumer, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Bloomberg, Bill DeBlasio, and Carlos Danger? I'd get the hell out of dodge and let the state fall on its own sword without taking me with it.

Perhaps should be cross-posted to the Irony Mine? Should be cross-posted to the Irony Mine...

He lives in Florida, doesn't he?

Yes Florida, a beautiful state mocked incessantly by Snowstalker, the leftist from Amish country and New Jersey. Florida is also a state that is bedeviled by out of staters moving south and doing harm. Take Charlie Crist, Rick Scott, and George Zimmerman for example.

Ummm dude, first off we are talking about the right to criticize New York. Say what you will about Lancaster and New Jersey, but New York? And if any state is the "asshole of America" it'd be Texas, not New York. I can't think of more stuck up assholes than Texas. Sure New Yorkers can be stuck up assholes, but here's the thing they have something to be proud of. Texans are stuck up assholes, because??

They have oil, Dallas, Sam Houston and no income tax. They've got a lot to be smug about

[Cassius]

What is politics but a succession of emotional diatribes...

[Cassius]

Haven't you got some picketing to do?

[Cassius]

This is just my 50 pence, but how accepted is the use of the term 'n' amongst black people. I mea, I understand that a few rapsters and other celebrities use it, but does the average black person really use the term?