Take It Elsewhere!

[ezzdx]

Originally Posted by touriquet2001

since you are unarmed and not likely to become armed any time soon ... i'll leave you to the "fun" you're having .

I haven't and I don't need to have.

[touriquet2001]

Originally Posted by ezzdx

I haven't and I don't need to have.

oooohhhhh , look at all the pretty colors !!!!!!!!!!!

[ezzdx]

Originally Posted by spazmo

that ASS dosent belive in human rights

This is a personal insult,and as we aren't in the rowdy room I think you should take an official warning from the mods.
remember that until now I didn't give you any personal insult.

[ChiTownHoney]

Just out of curiousity ezzdx, where are you from?

Hey....what wrong with a little nationalism? Its not all bad.

I actually use to be somewhat of a nationalist, but decided after about a year that the crap I was listening to was complete BS. Now, my views are completely different.

I still believe that homosexuality is an abomination of human nature. I'm not going to go try to cure gays or kill them or anything like that...I dont care about them, but I'm not going to go hold hands with them and march with their rainbow colors either.

[ezzdx]

Originally Posted by ChiTownHoney

Just out of curiousity ezzdx, where are you from?

Egypt

And I share this in my profile here,I haven't any problems to share that like some members,and I'm proud of being Egyptian and I'll still proud of that forever.

[touriquet2001]

whoever did this good job and thank you

[somedude]

Spazmo gets a warning for personal insult for ass comment!
Ezzdx let's drop the threats...it's really pretty silly!
And finaly I spun this thread off because it was totaly distracting from the original thread which was about raping lesbian. You can have your fight here or if you wanna go no holds barred I can move it to the Rowdy Room.

[MADDOGMCMANAMAN]

WOW its only after reading ur post somedude that i understand what the fuck is going on !!

LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i dont care about gays at all - in fact i wish there were more !!!!!!!!!!!! beacuse that means MORE WOMEN FOR ME LMAO !!!

[ezzdx]

Thanks Somedude,this is the fair and for me this discussion is over.
I want the others to know that I like to make a friendly discussion with any one as he respect me and my culture,I don't like the gays but I can accept the others views about that but the thing that I can't accept is insulting me,my country and culture because I respect the other countries and culture.although all countries have some negative things.

And I know many foreigners in my country" most of them are Germans,Italians,French,Russians and few Americans" and they are happy in my country and we treat them well,and their view about the Middle East aren't like most of you.

And for Stern,some members thought that I insulted her by way or another but I didn't intend to really insult her and I she know this,maybe she have a long tongue but I respect her so much.

[ego]

Originally Posted by ezzdx

some kinds of them should be treated by the hard or the physical ways and I'm very good in this.

CZ. The modern Colt.

Originally Posted by touriquet2001

as i've stated before nobody should feel , (or be made to feel) , like they need to be cured or ashamed ... if they are doing what makes them happy and they are not hurting anyone .

Actually, this is exactly the reason of the misunderstanding between you two. He believes they are hurting someone; you dont. Your disagreement lies on very primal level; you have different world views ( weltanschauung?) and so i believe the "communication" between you about that matter wont yield results.

Originally Posted by ezzdx

So he is a gay and maybe he want to be cured,good turn.

Witty!

Originally Posted by spazmo

give me a break !

Not yet.

Originally Posted by spazmo

that ASS dosent belive in human rights , dosent belive in democracey, he just called a female member who disagreed with him a "street girl" !

I noticed he accepted their right in health....he even volunteered to treat them!
Democracy?* Hmm... and you believe in it? You even know what it is? That cheep trick called democracy demands minorities to submit and follow the will of the majority. Given the numbers of gays, why even mentionning that word?


*= Four wolves and a sheep voting for food....

So what? What is your problem with "street girls"? Are they less of a person? You dont like them hmm? Political correctness of your mind does not allow to "street girls" to exist? Tell us, what you find bad in being a "street girl"?

Originally Posted by spazmo

yet someone still searching for a point in his bull ?

No, i think his point was clear since the begginning.

Originally Posted by ezzdx

This is a personal insult,and as we aren't in the rowdy room I think you should take an official warning from the mods.
remember that until now I didn't give you any personal insult.

Boys dont cry...

Originally Posted by Phantom

Did you read the rest of ChiTown's post? She was not attacking you at all, she simply asked a question. Not everyone is out to get you Ezzdx, some of us are trying to have a friendly discussion with you because we all have different views. It is not an attack.

I doubt he felt that an attack. How you came to that conclusion? He didnt even counter, just stated a few things about himself.
Perhaps he is right about the muscles in his avatar...

[misterbirdie]

well you are what you hate hehehe

[spazmo]

Democracy?* Hmm... and you believe in it?

yes ego i do consider it one of my principles

You even know what it is? That cheep trick called democracy

u can describe it as a cheap trick while less smarter guys than u describing it as a civil contract between two parties !

*= Four wolves and a sheep voting for food....

aha , i see now your philosophy !!
and its depends on your look to the systems , right ?
the whole idea of democracy in your opinion is depending on the authoritys nothing more nothing less !?
r u neo-liberal or what

democracy demands minorities to submit and follow the will of the majority.

wrong , its not that case , democracy is not just a greek word that describes a VOTE ends with YES or No, in my opinion its bigger , its an exprince of common living more than a VOTE !!
its not just a Majority VS Minority warfare !
democracy itself is not the purpose , its a necessary tool that leads u to the purpose !

So what? What is your problem with "street girls"? Are they less of a person? You dont like them hmm? Political correctness of your mind does not allow to "street girls" to exist? Tell us, what you find bad in being a "street girl"?

hehe , good one
u one of those folks who invent a fictional problem & volunteer to analyze it for free ?
first of all: i am not discussing anything related to "street girls" here & i guess everyone understanded that.. everyone except u !
which is your own problem to deal with , i suppose
Second : u wanna have a separate thread about "street girls" go ahead make a new one,be my guest , but until now i am not gonna have any more Dumb & Dumber Discussions , one is enough already

[ezzdx]

I don't know who opened this thread again but in any way are it good now,Spazmo.are it satisfied now.
I think you know really what I mean by "it".

[Sternenlied]

Originally Posted by Spazmo

hehe , good one
u one of those folks who invent a fictional problem & volunteer to analyze it for free ?
first of all: i am not discussing anything related to "street girls" here & i guess everyone understanded that.. everyone except u !
which is your own problem to deal with , i suppose
Second : u wanna have a separate thread about "street girls" go ahead make a new one,be my guest , but until now i am not gonna have any more Dumb & Dumber Discussions , one is enough already

What exactly is your business with this?
The term "street girl" was used by ezzdx while referring to me ...

[ezzdx]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

The term "street girl" was used by ezzdx while referring to me ...

Right,but I was referring to your tongue only not you personaly.

[ego]

Originally Posted by spazmo

u can describe it as a cheap trick while less smarter guys than u describing it as a civil contract between two parties !


aha , i see now your philosophy !!
and its depends on your look to the systems , right ?
the whole idea of democracy in your opinion is depending on the authoritys nothing more nothing less !?
r u neo-liberal or what


wrong , its not that case , democracy is not just a greek word that describes a VOTE ends with YES or No, in my opinion its bigger , its an exprince of common living more than a VOTE !!
its not just a Majority VS Minority warfare !
democracy itself is not the purpose , its a necessary tool that leads u to the purpose !

I see, you wanna speak about applied democracy... the one that people are called now and then to "decide" which party is gonna rule them for the next period...but do people really affect (not to say determine) the decisions?

That "civil contract between two parties" has been a rather common term during centuries... predictable but.. could you name that two parties?


Btw, i dont know what the term neo-liberal describes, but why should i have a label anyway? I am ego man.

[Ace_McGuire]

Originally Posted by ego

I see, you wanna speak about applied democracy... the one that people are called now and then to "decide" which party is gonna rule them for the next period...but do people really affect (not to say determine) the decisions?

That "civil contract between two parties" has been a rather common term during centuries... predictable but.. could you name that two parties?


Btw, i dont know what the term neo-liberal describes, but why should i have a label anyway? I am ego man.

Neo-liberal generally refers to people who support a global economy among other ideas. They believe free commerce is the most important form of "liberty" and believe in using military force when necessary. They're almost exactly the same thing as a neocon, much like a classical liberal is almost the same thing as a paleoconservative. The only difference between the two classes is that conservatives tend to be nationalistic and liberals tend to be universal.

But, those four groups deal with laissez-fair economics. There's still the issue with democratic groups who do not support open markets and are globalist and those who are nationalist. But, in the end it's pointless to argue. Labels are meant to make the universe easier to understand, but lose all meaning when they confuse matters further. So, I wouldn't worry about being called a "neo-liberal" if I were you.

[Ace_McGuire]

Originally Posted by spazmo

wrong , its not that case , democracy is not just a greek word that describes a VOTE ends with YES or No, in my opinion its bigger , its an exprince of common living more than a VOTE !!
its not just a Majority VS Minority warfare !
democracy itself is not the purpose , its a necessary tool that leads u to the purpose !

I agree with spazmo on this topic. Only thing is, that it really depends on the meaning of the word "democracy" that is in discussion. Ego views democracy in the literal sense as it was originally meant to imply, and spazmo views it in the sense as many of Democracies supporters see it today. However, it's necessary to define what you mean by "democracy" before going into something like this.

In the English dictionary, the word "democracy" has multiple definitions so they're really multiple words with the same spelling. This is a problem with human language vs. machine language because ambiguity leads to pointless argument.

Personally, I generally view "Democracy" (note the capital "D") to refer to Liberal Democracy which is NOT synonymous with mobocracy. I think this is what spazmo meant and this is what many people view this as. Majority Rule is supported only until universal, equal, individual as well as group liberty is in danger. True Democracy is where the minority is protected from the tyranny of the mob.

Protection of the minority was written in the US Constitution when it was first engineered by our Founding Fathers, though wasn't applied as it is today. It might have been put in place by some to protect the rich from the poor in case they ever get a situation similar to the two revolts during the time of the Articles of Confederation. The worst-case scenario that those Founding Fathers envisioned would be similar to what we see with the French Revolution where the aristocrats were decapitated by the angry peasantry. Yet, there were Founding Fathers who envisioned a better world.

In spite of its original intent by some scared rich people, protection of minority and individual rights has been applied to the emancipation of slaves, giving corporations the same rights as human beings (a good and a bad thing), and in allowing women to vote. Integration was made mandatory against the support of the majority during the middle of the 20th century in the United States of America. On the other hand, the same was true with Prohibition during the 1920's, where a powerful minority chose to "protect" the majority from the dangers of alcohol. But, the application of the ideals concerning Liberal Democracy has usually been kept true to the intent behind them.

So, in regards to Ego and spazmo's argument, in a Liberal Democracy the "Vote" only goes as far as it is certain to be the "true" intent of the people. Even if the majority may vote for something detrimental to them, there are safeguards that prevent the people from making a collective decision that they really don't want. This can still guarantee that everybody gets what they want when you believe that a person [i]thinks[\i] they want really isn't what they truly want. This notion delves into topics such as Consent Theory and the definition of Free Will.

Because, of the ideas concerning "Consent" we have laws where a person cannot be considered to have consented to sexual intercourse if they cannot make a sound decision resulting of their own free will. For instance, individuals who are either under the influence of substance that inhibit their rational thought, are too young to have free will, or are mentally handicapped are all victims of sex crimes when individuals who are capable of consent coerce those who are not into sexual intercourse. Of course, if both parties are incapable of consent and have sexual intercourse, then neither can and shouldn't be punished.

Maybe the term "Democracy" would be less confusing if people all either called them "Liberal Democracies" or made up a new word (like "Libocracy") since the names might better imply the values in which those types of societies hold the as the most important.

[ego]

Ace, thanks for the information.

Personally, I generally view "Democracy" (note the capital "D") to refer to Liberal Democracy which is NOT synonymous with mobocracy. I think this is what spazmo meant and this is what many people view this as. Majority Rule is supported only until universal, equal, individual as well as group liberty is in danger. True Democracy is where the minority is protected from the tyranny of the mob.

Just a moment. If spazmo meant that, and to the way you analyze it further....then....hmm...let me see..... conclusion is that Ezzdx is not capable of having free will and spazmo is the safety valve that quarantees that even him will have what he wants, even if he doesnt REALLY know what he wants!
Hmm, why not, makes perfect sence!

*thinks about if that could stand in a court*
-"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury! Lets all rise to our feet and applaud that bright young man, who gave to the so called victim what she always wanted but never dared to say!....."
I dont know. I wouldnt risk it..


Not to say about protecting minorities. Ezzdx is one for sure. Who of you even thought of what his background is? Who considered how silly him would sound to Ezzdx's world? Spazmo declares he believes in his Democracy, but joins the mob that bashes that minority, he actually demanded Ezzdx's head on a plate!

Btw, you are right Ace about terms, they are confusing. Actually thats the reason they exist, to make people believe that this is not this but something else, that has a different name and it works to a different way, while the central point is always the same.
I mean, that:

... in a Liberal Democracy the "Vote" only goes as far as it is certain to be the "true" intent of the people. Even if the majority may vote for something detrimental to them, there are safeguards that prevent the people from making a collective decision that they really don't want. This can still guarantee that everybody gets what they want when you believe that a person [i]thinks[\i] they want really isn't what they truly want. This notion delves into topics such as Consent Theory and the definition of Free Will.

sounds to me as the old good "oligarchy" term, only difference "oligarchy" avows de novo what it is about, while the above... well, it could be rather confusing!

[ezzdx]

Originally Posted by ego

Not to say about protecting minorities. Ezzdx is one for sure. Who of you even thought of what his background is? Who considered how silly him would sound to Ezzdx's world?

Wait a minute,what's you mean by "minorities" here?