Brain-damaged woman sued by Wal-Mart

Originally Posted by Free.User

Skills, come on. Even if it's completely in the company's rights to do what it is their doing, it doesn't change the fact that they are heartless.

Complaining about a heartless company abiding by a contract? Just how stupid are you?

I take it you were one of those people who were horrified about those pictures of American soldiers sexually abusing muslim prisoners a few years ago. "Hey, I pay soldiers to murder people, not sexually harass them!"

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

A sound moral equivalency if I ever saw one.

The day anyone looks for you for a moral standing is hopefully the day they reply to your advice with a gun in their mouth.

(Obama supporter. Fucking JOKE.)

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Aardark

I'm not sure what pictures you're talking about, but are you saying that abuse of prisoners is okay?

Of course I am.

If you're expecting to find humanity in war, you need to come to your senses.

If you're giving a shit about people that you'll never meet who live on the other side of the world doing things that do not directly affect you, you need to rethink your life.

What it has to do with this case is that its the same stupid reaction. Someone is offended that a company sticks to its contract? How dare they! Someone strips a prisoner of war and sexually molests them instead of shooting them in the face? How awful they are!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bigblah

Yeah and we should also euthanize brain damaged people because they're a drain on our resources, I mean nobody really gives a shit about them anyway

I certainly don't.

I mean - what does a brain damaged person give back to society?

Originally Posted by Aardark

The treatment of POWs is covered by international treaties, and I'm pretty sure they don't say that prisoner rape is ok.

Yes, yes, yes thats all nice. Meanwhile, things like Attica happen and now prisoners have all these needless rights to cable television and therapy - but no one does anything about prison rape, do they?

Originally Posted by Aardark

I need to 'rethink my life' if I care about something I perceive as injustice?

The important word in that sentence is "perceive".

Originally Posted by Aardark

What's your opinion on the Nanking Massacre?

Using this is a cheap ploy - like that stupid rape question given to Michael Dukakis. Obviously, you aren't bothered by the Rape Of Nanking if you so easily cite it; its a stone's throw from Goodwin's Law.

Do I think it was terrible? Sure. Do I give a shit about it? Not especially. I mean, how many countless millions were killed, burned, maimed and raped through the Crusades. I don't care about that either - and anyone here who says they do is lying. The only difference between Nanking and the Crusades is the number of people dead and the time involved.

Burroughs once said something to the effect of "We now live in a nation where we are not allowed to mind our own business". We're seen as callous or bitter people if we don't care about some plight on the other side of the world or people starving or mass murder. Yeah, that shit is terrible - but I don't see the news media anchors giving up their salary to help starving people in Africa and I don't see people on GFF sending donations to needy families.

The difference here is that I don't put on airs to any of that. I don't give a shit about people I don't know. Why? Because this world would be a hell of a lot better off if we cared about people we knew instead of pretending to care about people we don't.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

What I'm saying is that if people here are so moved by these terrible things - go join the Peace Corps and actually do something about these horrors. Otherwise, you're just a joke.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Aardark

What exactly is the difference between thinking that something is terrible and giving a shit about it?

Thinking can be a passing thought, giving a shit about it means you actually care and plant a flag of opinion on the subject.

Originally Posted by Aardark

Don't act like you're better than everyone.

As anyone can tell you from the last two meets - I'm not acting. I am most assuredly better than the majority of everyone you have ever met.

Originally Posted by Aardark

Regardless, does that mean all message boards on the internet should be closed down?

It would most certainly lower the stupidity quotient. No more MySpace, no more memes, no more Political Palace. These things make people think together instead of thinking for themselves.

Originally Posted by Aardark

Do you also think there's no point in discussing politics if you aren't actively involved in a party?

I believe the proof is in the pudding. If you have a political slant, go out and soapbox it and do something with your ideas. I have no respect for armchair warriors and people who sit there dreaming about things. Complaining about an administration doesn't do shit, protesting doesn't do shit, writing songs and "raising awareness" doesn't do shit. These are things people do to make them feel like they're involved without actually doing anything.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bigblah

Oh yeah, now you're being all "real", huh? People can comment on concepts as they see fit. I certainly don't give a shit about you*, but I can damn well post about how you're a douchebag because you're trying to one-up everyone on e-cynicism. Or rather, instead of just condemning people for their opinion, you've assumed a lofty position from which you can condemn people for the very act of offering an opinion.

It's like going into a filesharing forum and telling them that filesharing is bad, and acting like some internet hero because you've reported someone to the RIAA.

"Its like"? It is.

The opinion is the single element of a person which *should* be attacked. Unlike any other trait, they're something you choose to have -- and they can be horribly wrong. My opinion is that fish can breathe oil! My opinion is that housecats should be crushed by pyramids! My opinion is that Star Wars is real! Those are bad, bad opinions -- and they should certainly be called stupid.

(Similarly, you must have a very low self esteem to complain with a straight face that you feel excluded because someone is smarter than you are. Buck up, pal.)

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bigblah

I'm against limiting the admissibility of opinions based on degree of connection, which you're doing a lot of since it gives you more targets.

I get that my broadening the playing field puts you at a disadvantage as I've own gone out of my way to point out that people are more likely stupid than smart - but asking me to limit the scope doesn't change what is there already. You obviously agree with me that people are commonly stupid - otherwise, you'd be disagreeing with what I'm saying and not the scope of what I'm saying.

(Is this a "we agree to disagree" on the idea of amount, and then agree on the basics? Or...)

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bigblah

No, I'm talking about this whole spiel about "armchair critics". You can basically go into every argument and apply a similar line of reasoning -- and spin it in whatever possible way to give it validity -- but it doesn't contribute a damned thing to the discussion, which means it's irrelevant and disruptive.

I'd agree with that - if people were still posting about the original topic.

(I'll gladly make this my last post in this thread if you really do think that this is disruptive.)

Originally Posted by Aardark

Haha, what? What's a 'flag of opinion'? How do you 'plant' it? Does it entail making a post on an internet message board?

Oh dear. I'm sorry if euphemism confuses you. I'll be sure to avoid them while talking to you in the future.

Originally Posted by Aardark

And what's a 'stupidity quotient'? How do you measure that?

If I was snarky, it would be 1 LeHah = 50,000,000,000 Aardarks but hey, thats just me and I'm trying to take this seriously.

Originally Posted by Aardark

Stopping discussion on the internet would most certainly increase overall intelligence is a pretty bold statement to make, do you perhaps have something to back that up, other than your personal opinion

I wrote something very long and uninteresting here, then deleted it for this lovely quote from Ray Bradbury - "We are multitudinous lemmings driven by wireless voices to hurl ourselves into the Internet seas where tides of mediocrity surge, pretending at wit and will but signifying nothing."

Originally Posted by Aardark

about the usefulness of MySpace or 4chan?

And I'm the bold one? The basic that either of them are useful at all is awful, considering that they're both based on people being willfully ignorant. The "shorthand" writing, the memes, the surveys... you're attempting to glob intelligence to something that has nothing like that at all.

Originally Posted by Aardark

Like, give me something other than I am a smart independent thinker, others are dum.

Prove your intellect like Blah has in the past and I can respond to this with a straight face.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

What of opinions people have that they don't necessarily wish they had?

I think the very idea that someone can have an opinion "forced on them" in that sense is a sign of serious ignorance. I don't particularly care for white wine - but I can see why some people would.

Jam it back in, in the dark.