Am I My Brother's Keeper?

36 posts / 0 new

Am I My Brother's Keeper?

That's one of those "eternal" questions that EVERY free thinking, responsible person ponders every once and a while.

The "text" that asks this question NEVER really answers it. I believe that it's up to the individual and the individual's capabilities as to what extent that one becomes their "brothers keeper".

From the "talk" that goes on here at the message board... the "words" answer this eternal question with a "YES". I am my brothers keeper. I do have a responsibility for others. We are currently capable and therefore, have some responsibility to make an effort to do so.

But the "actions" that go on here at the message board tells another story.

---------------------

I tell you what... If "I" see someone MISQUOTING "YOU" or making FALSE SUMMATIONS about "YOUR" statements... I will "FLAG" them for you.

I will perform this task even if I disagree with your premise. If I see someone abusing your words, I will "FLAG" them for you. Regardless of "what" those words are. You have a RIGHT to say them. No one else has the RIGHT to purposefully misconstrue them and turn them into something else.

Would you do the same for me?

I will try to be my brother's keeper.

Will you?

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 11:49 am

Comments

Now you cry foul, after speaking foul about others, after twisting the truth, after blaming us for your ignorance and immaturity.

There are real things happening in America, but you don't know or appreciate what they are, or why they are happening.

Fletcher Christian, j'accuse mon ami, j'accuse

Jack Cruze

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am

I will not be silent while you call our sisters "chattels."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

anonymous green - I have NEVER mis quoted ANYONE on this site.

Don't sing it, bring it.

Show me where?

Can you say the same?

I am not a cobarde.

If you are not a coward, then SHOW where I have misquoted someone... ANYONE.

If you cannot... and you will not be able to... because I DON'T misquote people... then you have PROVEN my point.

You are not your brother's keeper.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 11:49 am

Anyone who hasn't listened to the the masterpiece Neville Brothers album "Brothers Keeper" I highly recommend it to all.

Gotta be my brother's keeper
Though he be strong or weaker
I gotta lend him a helpin' hand
No matter what his color
Through God he's still my brother
I gotta help him if I can

We all can do better.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Besides... I have not "cried" foul.

I stated that I will try to be my brother's keeper up to my abilities.

I then asked if YOU would do the same.

If I hit a nerve... it's because you have a guilty conscious.

A "GUILTY" CONSCIOUS is a sign that you actually DO know better. Therefore... you are capable of being your brother's keeper.

You "CHOOSE" not to be.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 11:49 am

Shielding my eyes from the bright sunlight... I watch ANOTHER one go over the fence and out of the yard...

BAM!

I DID IT AGAIN! SELF HI-FIVE!

Diamonds are FOREVER... and so is Fletcher Christian! WOOOOOOooooooo!!!

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 11:49 am

Chilidog, it is not funny. Neither "fag" nor "retarded" have any redeeming value in your post. It is just ugly and offensive. No more!

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Fletch,

little help here?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

chilidog - You should "flag" yourself. Do you want me to "help"?

I'm guessing that you meant "fag" like you said it in high school. To a teenage boy, "fag" means not masculine.

We're not in high school. I'm guessing you're not a teenager.

I would apologize.

It's just "not funny." It's lame. There's NO cleverness. It's stale.

Homosexual's are not "fags".

Unless you were saying that he was an English cigarette... I'd apologize.

Don't edit it out, either! Just be "masculine" and apologize.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 11:49 am

If you think that I offend you outside of the board rules then by all means, flag me but if you think that someone else has offended me based on your own judgement then you better keep your finger pushing to yourself. I have never been offended on this board. If you can't stand the heat then keep the hell out of the kitchen. It gets heated at times, it gets informative at times and it gets down right crazy at times but you don't have the right to decide for someone else what is offensive to them.

Cool?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Right on BW.

Fletch, you bring the heat upon yourself. You are not without sin brother.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Fletcher Christian:

To a teenage boy, "fag" means not masculine.

Thanks for giving permission to teenage boys to use homophobic language, as if it 'meant' something benign.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am

EDIT

I will strike the quote in this thread as it has no relevance.

It is from a move where an ordinary man wakes up in America 500 years in the future and he is the smartest person around, everyone else is an idiot. And anyone who can read and talk in complete sentences is called a fag.

I will never post it again.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

chilidog - WHY did you edit your post? Our constitution leaves the mistakes in... so should you.

What "gets" me is... WHY did you think that I would join in and wallow in the mud of calling someone a "fag" who is "retarded"?

Did you think it would be fun to gang up all "jock" like on a "nerd" and bully him around?

Here is what I do... anonymous green writes apocalyptic poems which are rancid and lame. Since they are apocalyptic... I use my extreme wit and intellect to "rib" on him in that vein. So... I say something like, "The Heaven's Gate cult left you behind and now you're so lonely that you have nothing else to do but to hound dog my balls."

Hound dogs are known to follow. Dogs will often sniff out a crotch. "Hound Doggin'" is from a rap song about groupies who follow stars around from club to club. Yeah... I just referred to myself as a star. Hee hee.

That is precisely what anonymous green does. He Hound Dog's my balls. He loves it. He's probably gushing like a school girl because I am mentioning him in my post.

See, I'm like one of those sharks swimming around and there's like 1 or 2 lil' feller's attached to him. anonymous green is one of those lil' feller's. He's more like a parasite and I am the "host". The parasite can't live on it's own. It literally "feeds" off of the host. Since anonymous green is unable to think of anything interesting to write... he leeches off of others to get noticed. That sounds like a parasite to me.

"THAT'S" what I do... I use wit and intellect. I don't have to resort to calling someone a "fag" or a "retard". It's so beneath me.

chilidog - You are in the basement of wit, sarcasm, cleverness and cool. I am in the penthouse. I like the view. I think I will be staying there for as long as I wish.

Did that offend you? Did anyone else become offended? GOOD! You SHOULD be offended and ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!

----------------------

It NEVER ceases to AMAZE me how incapable you dopes are of actually LISTENING to what someone says. It also NEVER ceases to AMAZE me how incapable you dopes are of NOT adding things into what people DON'T say.

When I wrote "you should 'flag' yourself"... it's obviously a bit of sarcasm. Because "flagging" ones self would be dumb. It would be just as dumb as those who can't make the connection.

MISQUOTES

Ok?

MISQUOTES

I NEVER said that someone should be "flagged" for offending someone. I'm offended ALL of the time! I have NEVER "flagged" someone for offending me.

I wrote this thread entitled, "Am I my brother's keeper?" because most people think that the bible directly answers this question. It does not. That's the MAIN topic.

The secondary topic is dealing with others who break the rule of purposefully MISQUOTING someone else. I am sorry if you dunces can't keep up.

WHAT IS SO F'ING INCREDIBLE IS... That you MORON'S can't even follow LOGIC and reasoning when the TOPIC is CLEARLY stated.

It's about MISQUOTING! Not OFFENDING! HOW DOES ANYONE CONFUSE THE TWO!?!

You idiot's don't deserve to smell my SHIT! This is truly "pearl's before swines"! Is it too much to ask for you to leave your dummy hat's outside the doors of this message board!?! Can you not at least PAY SOME ATTENTION to what someone else is saying!?! If you don't wish to pay attention... then at least have the COMMON COURTESY to NOT REPLY!!!

----------------------

Laborisgood - Do you see why I think your incredibly dim?

Bush_Wacker makes a FALSE SUMMATION of what was written. He's to dim himself to realize that he's added into a statement what is not there. He claims that I am somehow inferring that people "flag" others when they become offended... NOT misquoted as I had CLEARLY stated. Like I said, dim.

Then "tweedle-dee" chimes in right after "tweedle-dum" and says,

"Right on BW. Fletch, you bring the heat upon yourself. You are not without sin brother."

Duh... Which way did he go? Which way did he go? Ya' couple of Oompah-Loomps!

Laborisgood - Even if I were to take it that somehow you "meant" that Bush_Wacker was talking about purposefully MISQUOTING me... this would mark the 2nd time that you've stated it's somehow reasonable and justifiable to outright LIE on someone because you "don't like them". Make no mistake... when one purposefully MISQUOTES someone or makes a purposeful false summations of someone else's statements... that is a LIE.

I am now reaching DEEP into my pocket... and pulling out a offensive FINGER OF SHAME!

How dare you!?! How dare you!?! How can you on one hand claim to be some high minded, moral member of society... certainly not like those imaginary "Red Meanies on the RIGHT" and then endorse the actions of known LIARS! Even worse... become a LIAR yourself because... well, because you don't "like" them.

"Grunt... I'm MAD. I'm gonna LIE on you! Then I'm gonna poop my pants. Because that's what babies do. They poop their pants. And I'm a big baby. There... I just pooped."

I hope you're not raising any kids like this.

Did that offend you? I certainly HOPE SO!!! You SHOULD be offended!

---------------------

Then not to be out done... anonymous green.

Here's how you took my response to the DOPE chilidog:

"Thanks for giving permission to teenage boys to use homophobic language, as if it 'meant' something benign."

Really?

Is this a FORUM for teenage boys? Or are you just confused again?!? DO you wish it were a FORUM for teenage boys... But because it is NOT a teenage boys FORUM, I am NOT giving permission to ANYONE to say ANYTHING! GOT IT!?!

How much of a dullard must one be to make that connection between what was ACTUALLY written and what was ultimately synthesized into the naive with of an imbecile's pea sized brain?

anonymous green - I could take your brain... shove it up an ants rear end... and it would rattle around like a BB in a box car! That is how small your brain is.

---------------------

Again... this TOPIC header is about what does it mean to be your brothers keeper and it also broaches upon the topic of people breaking the ONE major rule here, and that rule is MISQUOTING someone else.

Because you troglodytes can't distinguish between OFFENDING someone or MISQUOTING someone... I am putting you ALL on the punishment!

GO TO YOUR ROOM! "THINK" about what you just did.

You are all grounded from your computer for a WEEK!

This message board is hosted by what I believe to be the most intelligent man on the radio.

ANYONE who purposefully misrepresents the truth is doing a HUGE disservice to this privilege to converse here. ANYONE who purposefully MISQUOTES is doing a HUGE disservice to the intellectual process.

-------------------------

I notice that at the bottom of the page here... it says "Mythical Intelligence". That about sums it up for the majority of you cretins. Any semblance of intelligent beings that are able to follow rudimentary conversations would certainly be a "myth".

It is ever increasingly so very rare.

I am completely ASHAMED that I am in the same room as you foul terds. Why don't all of you lame brains go hang out on Ocho Cinco's twitter page?

That way you will not infect the few here who can actually write and respond back and forth and exchange the knowledgeable fruits of their labors.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 11:49 am

Agian I say, you bring the heat upon yourself with your tireless bloated ego. Your need to explain your witicisms illustrates that.

I still highly recomment the Brother's Keeper album in spite of your seeming inability to make nice with your brothers. That's just the way I am. I guess you do not consider yourself your brother's keeper. You appear to consider yourself to be better than all your brothers and any brother can go to hell if they don't acknowledge your superiority. You exemplify the ME vs WE paradigm quite well, but there is hope for you Fletch. If you could just get out of your own way, you can shine like the star you think you are.

So it goes.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

So in one post you called me "dim", a "moron", and "tweedle dum". You should flag yourself for being offensive don't you think?

Oh, and a cretin. Thank you for the kind words.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Fletcher Christian:

Here is what I do... anonymous green writes apocalyptic poems which are rancid and lame. Since they are apocalyptic... I use my extreme wit and intellect to "rib" on him in that vein. So... I say something like, "The Heaven's Gate cult left you behind and now you're so lonely that you have nothing else to do but to hound dog my balls."

Hound dogs are known to follow. Dogs will often sniff out a crotch. "Hound Doggin'" is from a rap song about groupies who follow stars around from club to club. Yeah... I just referred to myself as a star. Hee hee.

That is precisely what anonymous green does. He Hound Dog's my balls. He loves it. He's probably gushing like a school girl because I am mentioning him in my post.

See, I'm like one of those sharks swimming around and there's like 1 or 2 lil' feller's attached to him. anonymous green is one of those lil' feller's. He's more like a parasite and I am the "host". The parasite can't live on it's own. It literally "feeds" off of the host. Since anonymous green is unable to think of anything interesting to write... he leeches off of others to get noticed. That sounds like a parasite to me.

"THAT'S" what I do... I use wit and intellect. I don't have to resort to calling someone a "fag" or a "retard". It's so beneath me.

Then not to be out done... anonymous green.

Here's how you took my response to the DOPE chilidog:

"Thanks for giving permission to teenage boys to use homophobic language, as if it 'meant' something benign."

Really?

Is this a FORUM for teenage boys? Or are you just confused again?!? DO you wish it were a FORUM for teenage boys... But because it is NOT a teenage boys FORUM, I am NOT giving permission to ANYONE to say ANYTHING! GOT IT!?!

How much of a dullard must one be to make that connection between what was ACTUALLY written and what was ultimately synthesized into the naive with of an imbecile's pea sized brain?

anonymous green - I could take your brain... shove it up an ants rear end... and it would rattle around like a BB in a box car! That is how small your brain is.

Hey, man, really, this, is, really, a dumb, way, to, start, every, day.

Solutions are what we need, not another question whore asking another false question with false choices for answers.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am

Fletch,

Is there anybody of value at this site? I'd like to see Fletch's list of approved posters at this site. My guess is that list would only include those have not in any way disagreed with him. That's a short list. When you conclude that everyone at given place is beneath you, what do you do?

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Listen to the feedback Fletch. You are acting out and it does you no credit. Get a grip.

The only interesting thing about this thread, and I don't include acting out as interesting, is how the question is heard and answered. Some think the biblical story leaves the answer ambiguous. I do not. Cain utters these words to avoid being responsible to God for killing Abel. It is a total lie. It is a total cop out. Of course we are responsible for each other. That fact drives everything about this story.

Being mutually responsible for one another is not about dominating others, of course. It does not give us the right to dominate another's conscience, for example. But, it is about keeping each others' backs and building cooperative means of caring and sharing. Human beings are interdependent, not autonomous. We are free together rather than apart.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Actually, since distortions abound with it, you have to watch out how politics plays out 'your brother's keeper's' role. As my brother is found of saying, 'There is no limit to the amount of good that I can do with other people's money'. Even the 'good' of 'health insurance for all' can be corrupted into a bigger take for those centralized money managers when combined with centralized political motives claiming to be about 'keeping (caring and/or loving) your brother' when it is neither their care nor their love (and especially not their money to do it with) that they are talking about. When, it's not directly asserted by the one intending it, all sorts of hypocritical options can claim one thing but do another...even if they say it is for 'the best of causes'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Being mutually responsible for one another is a good check and balance on that concern, Kerry. Providing for that reality in the Commons makes freedom something other than existential fear. Our interdependence needs to be expressed, and when it makes sense, structured and institutionalized. The basic needs of society are not priced commodities for Commerce, they are our base investment in democracy and the wealthy will not impoverish others to provide access to the Commons. They will fork it up as needed.

You know that about healthcare and insurance. Insurance is a bet we make against ourselves. If we don't get paid back, we win. If we need it, we have other problems we would rather we did not have. Medicine is not something we purchase in a market consumer reality. It is best organized as a system to provide medical care to all with public health priorites guiding the way instead of profits. What it takes to pay for this quality public health approach can be calculated and budgeted, but finance cannot run it.

What burdens us is not money made by honest providers or healthcare professionals. I know very few doctors who are in it for the money, and I avoid them. I would pay nurses more and be sure that the rest of the help got living wages instead of subsidizing the system with uncompensated work. The big money is going off the top in inflated salaries for managers and the costs of drugs and machines. Pressure to serve those who can pay the best rather than those who need healthcare the most is also a form of graft in this for profit mess.

Heathcare should be a birthright. We pay for our birthrights collectively. They are not "free" in the sense of unfunded, but they are "free" in the sense of belonging to human beings rather than to those who can pay. Your brother's metaphor misses the point. We are not talking about state funded ice cream for free. We are talking about basic social housekeeping. Having a bunch of sick people among us is not good for us, either. If you don't like the humanity of caring and sharing, how about the fear of microbes infiltrating our borders? If being for universal free healthcare in America means I get to take other people's money and use it for a good cause, FINE! I think the end justifies the means here. The "means" are not evil either. This is the type of moral balance taxes are supposed to help us get. How we treat one another is essential, and healthcare for all seems to be hard to debate economically or morally.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote drc2:

Being mutually responsible for one another is a good check and balance on that concern, Kerry.

Well, you see, drc2, this is where I see some of the problems that the 'anti-government' people have, how does government confirm that? Especially as a power implementation of government? The closest thing that I see government being able to do so is by securing and guaranteeing individual rights in as extensive a practical manner as politically possible....anything else is an imposition by government--even if it claims to be 'for the best of causes'....and, if those in government aren't, themselves, personally responsible for the results, they can even being lying about the 'cause'....something you don't seem to take note of often enough, drc2...

Quote drc2:

You know that about healthcare and insurance. Insurance is a bet we make against ourselves. If we don't get paid back, we win. If we need it, we have other problems we would rather we did not have.

Well, see, that prospect of including insurance into the analogy is not taking into account the very application of health care--and how that should be managed.--and it is part of my whole point about how, if the enacters aren't personally responsible for the results, everything can be just a lie--a set-up for political advantage. And, when it comes to what you think is appropriate in the management of health care, correlating it to 'health insurance' is just another prospect for that manipulation. If you follow your analogy of it 'being there if we need it' and, even, ' being there if we don't need it', how does health insurance prove that prospect with its health care that you are talking about? Does health insurance really answer the prospect of health care 'being there when we need it'? Is that to mean that anyone without health insurance 'doesn't get it'? Ignoring those prospects between health insurance and health care is a sure-fired way of that being used against your very premise, drc2. Health insurance is NOT the same thing as health care--and the 'right to health insurance' is NOT the same thing as 'the right to health care'. If you aren't requiring the enacter to be responsible, it's very possible you won't get what you proposed--and others will take that premise and abuse it....and, I do think you don't acknowledge that often enough, drc2...

Quote drc2:

What it takes to pay for this quality public health approach can be calculated and budgeted, but finance cannot run it.

But, finance does run it when it's a 'right to health insurance' instead of a 'right to health care'....that's the point, drc2...

Quote drc2:

.Heathcare should be a birthright. We pay for our birthrights collectively. They are not "free" in the sense of unfunded, but they are "free" in the sense of belonging to human beings rather than to those who can pay.

I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the 'right to health insurance' as being seen as accomplishing that. It doesn't--and it won't. And, it does so for the very point that I'm making--it's removes even further the enactors for being responsible for its results. Or, if you want to see it another way, the results desired by health insurance companies (even under Obamacare) are not in direct correlation or coordination with those most appropriate for health care. And, claiiming there is no distinction doesn't make that any different, either. But, ignoring that distinction does open up the prospect for more abuse to be done in the name of 'health care' when claiming the 'right' is 'health insurance'....

There is no limit to the amount of good that I can do with someone else's money--especially, if you aren't looking, for myself....and I can still call it 'good'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Ensuring that the poor are taken care of is the right thing to do, however that does not make it a function of the federal government. The states could setup a welfare system but it would work even better at a city level.
Taking care of the poor is a charity item not a government item.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

Taking care of the poor is a charity item not a government item.

Well, if it is a city or state doing it, it's still government....the problem is those who are in the financiing end of it aren't responsible for it covering all of what health care to all is.....especially as a 'private entity'--even supplemented by government....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I am glad you appreciate moral truths here, but you would have to make the charity approach work, not just work hard at it. Your antipathy for government rules out democracy as the way to do anything, so the idea that our tax dollars could be invested effectively to support your volunteer style, in-person charitiy is declared wrong. Gobamint cain't do charity. What could possibly be wrong with having localities get funding from the feds so there are not left out zones where the locals don't have money or resources to do charity? You do understand that these programs are already run through the states and have local implementation, don't you?

This anti-government dogma is stupid. You can oppose bad government without opposing the idea of government. There is no logical reason why government should not assist charity or provide social services that could even make the charity redundant. Think of all the other neglected needs charity could move to cover next. Why are the two so separate? Makes no sense.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote drc2:

I am glad you appreciate moral truths here, but you would have to make the charity approach work, not just work hard at it. Your antipathy for government rules out democracy as the way to do anything, so the idea that our tax dollars could be invested effectively to support your volunteer style, in-person charitiy is declared wrong. Gobamint cain't do charity. What could possibly be wrong with having localities get funding from the feds so there are not left out zones where the locals don't have money or resources to do charity? You do understand that these programs are already run through the states and have local implementation, don't you?

This anti-government dogma is stupid. You can oppose bad government without opposing the idea of government. There is no logical reason why government should not assist charity or provide social services that could even make the charity redundant. Think of all the other neglected needs charity could move to cover next. Why are the two so separate? Makes no sense.

The federal government under the consitution has no authority to provide any for of social safety net to any one for any reason. the states do under the tenth amendment.
Under you plan the states would send the tax dollars to the federal government. The federal government would chew up some of the money in administrative costs. Than it would send the money back to the state. Why cant the states just keep the money? Say michigan can not afford to pay for all of its promised care. The states near it could give up some surplus to help out. The same way the fire fighters from nevada help out utah when needed. The federal government does not need to be all up in everything.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Anyone ever watch domino's fall?

My angry "response" is just that... a response.

"IF" the guilty parties that willfully and purposefully MISQUOTE, not "offend"... MISQUOTE... did not do so... then there would be NO response, whatsoever. There wouldn't be an angry response or a kindler, gentler response. There would be NO response at all.

SO DON'T DO IT!

There's a little saying where I am from... "Don't START none... won't BE none."

I find it very interesting that the very same guilty parties who engage in the direct, purposeful act of MISQUOTING have such enormous egos that they cannot reverse themselves and admit to their wrong doing, mishaps, distortions, lies and not even have the common courtesy to APOLOGIZE when they do it.

Instead, they stick to their guns and reinforce the ignorance.

Bush_Wacker - You choose to ignore the FACT that you altered the topic towards "OFFENDING" someone and not what was stated. What was stated is the act of "MISQUOTING". Even after a thorough and substantial "whoopin'"... you AGAIN say that "You should flag yourself for being offensive don't you think."

AGAIN... not what the topic is actually about... which is MISQUOTING, not OFFENDING.

If you want a topic about people who are "offensive", here's an idea... WRITE ONE!

Laborisgood - You have repeatedly stated that you believe that LIES are OK... and "ego" is not. Really? Who is demonstrating a super ego? Someone who is so fragile that they cannot admit to wrong doing like yourself? Then in the same breath, claim to be a "brothers keeper". How is this possible?

AGAIN... this is all made possible by the 1st domino falling. That 1st domino that fell was "MISQUOTES". Or as normal people call them... "LIES"!

---------------------

I feel that the anger displayed is appropriate. When people LIE and then tell more LIES in response to being called out on said "lies"... anger is an appropriate response.

I believe that some of these ZOMBIES aren't consciously aware that "they" are in fact... habitual liars. They lie so much, and actually ADMIRE other folks who are good liars... that they desire to "mirror" their behaviors.

This problem is SO systemic, that we even offer this ability in our institutions of higher learning. We call this "SPIN". That's the ability to make a "lie"... which is inherently repulsive, somehow digestible.

--------------------

So a little "toilet talk" is needed to alert. That's why we have "SIRENS" folks! They're LOUD and ABRASIVE for a reason. It's to awaken us to a dangerous behavior.

---------------------

If we knew "others" like we know ourselves... we would be horrified. To deal with this "horror", we create this artificial world in which we "pretend". We "pretend" so much that some of us begin to think that this "pretending" is "reality". It is not reality. A "lie" is "real"... but a "lie" is not "reality". So many pretend not to distinguish between what is "real" and what is "reality".

I do not.

So I do not partake in SOME of the "social niceties" that are in fact, quite ugly.

If this OFFENDS you... good. That's the point. I'm offended all of the time. I should be. I am.

If there isn't some sort of "friction", then the pathway of the LIE will not be altered.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 11:49 am

I just "re-read" my initial post that started the thread.

I will admit... it's pretty GREAT!

I did not write the word "offensive" ANYWHERE.

I do offer to DEFEND your premise... EVEN if I disagree with it.

I then ask if YOU would do the same. (That is the line that sparked the brush fire.)

See... I state that I will "try" to be my brothers keeper. One of those ways to be a"brother's keeper" is to stand up for the rule of law. In this case... the "rule of law" is to NOT lie when representing someone else's statements. That is what the topic is about. If you want to espouse your belief's that being "offensive" is not being your brother's keeper... then WRITE a topic about it.

AMAZING how the guilty respond.

Look for yourself. It's right above... written for all to see.

----------------------

Laborisgood pondered what I would like to see on this message board? Does this QUESTION even NEED to be asked? The mere asking of the question speaks to astonishing ignorance behind it.

Is it too much to ask for ONLY people of honesty and integrity to be here?

Notice... I didn't ask for ONLY people to be "RIGHT". No one has a monopoly on knowledge. But... we all should be in pursuit of knowledge.

So what I would like to see is people in the pursuit of knowledge asking and answering questions. People engaged in the process who are genuinely attempting to do so.

Not phonies and fakes with hidden agendas. Not paid political hacks pushing "talking points" in the guise of something else.

Camouflage IS part of NATURE. It is also part of nature to be able to SPOT the camouflage.

I HATE FAKE AUTHORITY FIGURES.

So I would like to see folks be the opposite of a "fake authority figure" engaged in a truth finding process.

As if you didn't know.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 11:49 am

The "offending" that I was referring to was by misquoting someone. Most people find misquoting them to be very offensive. I'm sorry that you can't make the connection and therefore have to call me all kinds of names to prove your superiority even though you didn't understand the statements.

The "flag yourself" comment was a call for you to be your brother's keeper. If you are truly going to be your brother's keeper then you can't pick one offense such as misquoting to champion and just ignore all the other offenses.

One last time, misquoting IS VERY offending. Do you make the connection yet?

Thanks for the thorough whooping.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Fletcher Christian:

Laborisgood pondered what I would like to see on this message board? Does this QUESTION even NEED to be asked? The mere asking of the question speaks to astonishing ignorance behind it.

How dare you accuse me of doing something you approve of. I'm deeply offended. I put alot of effort into trying to rub you the wrong way. And clearly If you think I'm getting paid for my political giberish, then someone is really getting ripped off or else you are not as sharp as you claim to be.

I purposely try to push on things that don't seem kosher in hopes of reaching a greater truth. Sometimes it leads to answers and sometimes it doesn't. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm always seeking more answers. I find myself dissatisfied with you based upon a lack of answers. I find this site to have many wise people who provide many answers, but you are not one of them. At risk of putting words in your mouth, I'd say you find this site to be lacking in wisdom and answers.

My inability to see your superiority to others at this site might very well be that I am a dim-witted zombie, but it may also be that I'm reasonably perceptive. Perhaps it's just a personal bias towards what I perceive to be real lefties who actually take to heart my brother's keeper IMO.


Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote drc2:

I am glad you appreciate moral truths here, but you would have to make the charity approach work, not just work hard at it. Your antipathy for government rules out democracy as the way to do anything, so the idea that our tax dollars could be invested effectively to support your volunteer style, in-person charitiy is declared wrong. Gobamint cain't do charity. What could possibly be wrong with having localities get funding from the feds so there are not left out zones where the locals don't have money or resources to do charity? You do understand that these programs are already run through the states and have local implementation, don't you?

This anti-government dogma is stupid. You can oppose bad government without opposing the idea of government. There is no logical reason why government should not assist charity or provide social services that could even make the charity redundant. Think of all the other neglected needs charity could move to cover next. Why are the two so separate? Makes no sense.

The federal government under the consitution has no authority to provide any for of social safety net to any one for any reason. the states do under the tenth amendment. Under you plan the states would send the tax dollars to the federal government. The federal government would chew up some of the money in administrative costs. Than it would send the money back to the state. Why cant the states just keep the money? Say michigan can not afford to pay for all of its promised care. The states near it could give up some surplus to help out. The same way the fire fighters from nevada help out utah when needed. The federal government does not need to be all up in everything.

The federal govt has the constitutional authority to tax, and to spend. And states do not send money to the feds. American citizens pay taxes to the feds, and American citizens receive those benefits.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

Phaedrus76 - Glad to see that you took some time away from your busy schedule at The Bohemian Grove. That of being Al Gore's personal "man massager"! Is his company called, "Blood and Gore" still raking in the money while he "offsets" his pollution by sending money BACK to himself? (You know what... even I have to admire the cajones it takes to pull that off! Now... the sheeple that "buy" into this, that's another one.)

The Federal Government does have the authority to TAX and spend "OUR" money. American citizens do receive those benefits. American citizens also receive TONS of abuses through the use of OUR money. The abuses under the guise of benefits is the lowest of the low. "LOW" to the point of being evil.

Bush_Wacker - I QUOTE, "The 'offending' that I was referring to was by misquoting someone". How does that jive with what you wrote earlier? I QUOTE, "If you can't stand the heat then keep the hell out of the kitchen." "Offending" someone is NOT breaking the rules. "Misquoting" someone IS breaking the rules. So you clearly were NOT talking about "misquoting", because "misquoting" is RULE BREAKING. I know that you're not advocating RULE BREAKING. So what did you mean by saying "If I can't stand the heat then keep the hell out of the kitchen"? With logic and reason, one can easily deduce that you weren't talking about RULE BREAKING... you were talking about what you ACTUALLY wrote... being "offensive".

Again... One of the many reasons what I do here is so GREAT is that my premise of being your brother's keeper by keeping an eye out for others abusing someone else's words takes any emotional response, like being "offended" OUT of the equation. MISQUOTING is "just that"... MISQUOTING. Something "offensive" is by it's nature, subjective. Spotting someone MISQUOTING is NOT subjective... it's EVIDENT!!! You know this, but because of your fragile, HUGE ego... you can't come to logical terms with your illogical and emotional behavior habits. Because of this, you deflect and shield what is actually said and try to "shift" it towards that of what you perceived was said.

So with the power of "revisionist history"... You can now claim that you were talking about the actual rule breaking method of "MISQUOTES" when you wrote the word "offensive" 4 times! If you were talking about "MISQUOTES" (or "lies" as normal people call them), then why did you NOT type it in? Are the "M" "Q" "U" "T" buttons broke on your computer?

Now if you were a "Slick Willy Bubba" politician with a BILLION dollar media using propaganda psy ops in your laughable defense... maybe some folks could buy what you're selling. But you're not... and you don't... so nobody is buying your Bull Shit.

There's always a silver lining behind every cloud. Sometimes they are hard to find... but they are there. The "silver lining" behind your Bull Shit is that it openly displays a human condition to squirm like a maggot in hot ashes when confronted with the "truth". Do you ever wonder where the phrase "the truth hurts" comes from? It's a rudimentary self defense mechanism that you haven't fully evolved from. If you were to play this scenario all the way back to it's emotional origin... you will arrive at the basis that you have a FEAR of your own mortality.

You can do the following exercise for many different levels of anxiety or just for a general emotional benefit.

Try this little exercise whenever you are conscious of one of your mistakes. Ask yourself, "WHY" did I tell a little lie? To avoid a noxious situation. Why did I want to avoid a noxious situation? Because it would have hurt peoples feelings? Why did I not want to hurt peoples feelings? Because... and so on, and so on... It will take you to the ORIGIN of your actions. WHY it is that you're doing what you are doing. If you do that with some sort of regularity... I promise that you will make changes in your behavior that are for the better.

It operates on the belief that if one is conscious of a said behavior... then it can effectively be changed. One has to recognize the behavior exist before one can consciously act on changing it.

Laborisgood - I have asked you many times to show me an example where I am being vague. You haven't done so. Yet... you continue to say that I am vague. So you claim something to be... repeatedly so. Then you don't show "why" you think something is the way that you perceive it to be! Where's the credibility? How are you to be taken in any modicum of believability?

You suffer from what I call, a "self imposed myopia". You don't see things that are CLEARLY presented and then you "add" in things that aren't, and NEVER were, there.

Show me ANYWHERE on this very thread, where I have left room for vagueness.

Show me HOW I was to blame for you chiming in after Bush_Wacker and his claims that I was talking about people being "flagged" for being OFFENSIVE when I was CLEARLY talking about MISQUOTES. You can tell that I was talking about MISQUOTES, because that is what I wrote. I didn't write the word OFFENSIVE anywhere. So if ANY confusion ensued... it was on the part of YOU! Get it!?! You are the weakest link in this information chain.

I will add that this is not the 1st time that you have done this. Look up Sacremento Dave's idiotic post about Ted Nugent.

Basically it comes down to this... if you can't back up what you say, then you should "probably" stop saying it. It makes you look dumb. You've also stated on multiple occasions that you have deliberately MISQUOTED my words in the past. It's pretty obvious WHO is the one lacking morals.

I want MY brother's keeper to be have a certain level of intelligence and morality (at the very least, not to tell lies and when outed, not apologize)... don't you? So until you do... you are NO ONE'S "real" keeper.

Because of the "lying" part... it's hard to accept what you say is true.

D'UH!

--------------------

WARNING! This next couple of paragraphs will use EXPLICIT/GRAPHIC language! IT'S NASTY!

---------------------

Why I deserve an incredible pat on the back (one of the MANY reasons) is that this thread exposes quite thoroughly the hypocrisy of folks who are self identified to be part of a "group dynamic".

This particular group is engaged in a "Circle Jerk" of delusion.

So many of the self identified are lined up in a circle and one starts the "Circle Jerk" process by envoking some LIE that gets put out there. It then gets picked up by the next freak in the circle and they "join in". They "add" something to the process. The next freak in the circle "adds" something else. This continues until this circle is producing a concentric energy of mental masturbation until the spasm ejaculates into a sick puddle of "spoodge" that the produces of, now call... progress. They "created" something.

This is true of the fake LEFT/RIGHT paradigm. This is true of the Penn State horror. To a very small extent... it's true of what has happened to this thread. It started off great. Then some "freaks" got a hold of it and soiled it to what it is now...

----------------------

Again... re-read what I ACTUALLY wrote in the top header. Then take a look at how it got bastardized.

Sometimes this technique is done on purpose. I don't think this is the case here. It's just done by a group of dummies.

Thanks a lot, dopes!

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 11:49 am

Yes I was advocating rule breaking. I've been breaking the damn rules my whole damn life. Misquoting is offensive is it not? Do you know algebra?

If you don't like misquoting get the hell out of the kitchen. Is that clearer. Nobody misquotes on purpose as far as I can see on this forum. So if human error is not allowed here then what's the point. We are all human, I think.

I don't hear others going ape poo over being misquoted. It happens all of the time and at least I don't want anyone keeping score on my accord. OK?

I've wasted way too much time and effort on this subject already.

Hang in there sunshine, the sun will come out tomorrow.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Bush_Wacker - Yes you advocate rule breaking.

You're a REAL "Rebel Without A Pause". Hee hee! Taping a MLB game without the express written consent of MLB is being such a rebel rouser!

You're trying to tell me that you think it's OK to misquote (lie). I do not believe you. You are lying.

Yes. I know Algebra. Have you READ the rules of the message board?

MISQUOTING someone is breaking the rules. It's NOT acceptable. So it is YOU who would be out of line with this rule... not ME... tough guy. Hee hee!

You don't hear others being misquoted because they aren't saying anything that a PAID talking point hack would feel the need to LIE about. Go back and look it up. Not that FACTS matter to you... because telling LIES is OK, right? You are ALL FOR the act of rule breaking by the act of lying!

No... it doesn't happen all of the time. SHOW me where it happens ALL OF THE TIME. If it is happening ALL OF THE TIME... it should be VERY easy to prove.

You won't prove it. Because you CAN'T prove it.

It DOES NOT happen all of the time.

It started... and I STOPPED it.

You're welcome.

---------------------

SHEEPLE - "What are you rebelling against?"

Bush_Wacker - "What do you got?"

(Girls faint in the back ground. Men cower in fear and tremble with respect.)

Bush_Wacker = The Wild One

--------------------

Also... using your Bull Shit line of thought... then your answer to that of being your brother's keeper is a rebel rousing and clear, "NO!" No. You are not your brother's keeper.

That's nice to know.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 11:49 am

Fletch,

Maybe someday I'll find the time to illustrate what I perceive as vagueness in your other threads, but today I'll stick to just this thread. Perhaps what I interpret as vagueness, you see as provocative questioning. Either way it leads to the same place ….. the drama of Fletch where others fill in the blanks from their perspective while Fletch whines about not filling them in correctly.

It’s interesting how this thread immediately wandered off into FletchWorld as the subject matter of the thread (My Brother’s Keeper) took a back seat to the drama that always follows in your wake. One particular post directly addressed your supposed subject and hit it out of the park, but somehow the FletchShow was far too focused on itself to even acknowledge such a succinct response to your provocative question:

Quote drc2:

Listen to the feedback Fletch. You are acting out and it does you no credit. Get a grip.

The only interesting thing about this thread, and I don't include acting out as interesting, is how the question is heard and answered. Some think the biblical story leaves the answer ambiguous. I do not. Cain utters these words to avoid being responsible to God for killing Abel. It is a total lie. It is a total cop out. Of course we are responsible for each other. That fact drives everything about this story.

Being mutually responsible for one another is not about dominating others, of course. It does not give us the right to dominate another's conscience, for example. But, it is about keeping each others' backs and building cooperative means of caring and sharing. Human beings are interdependent, not autonomous. We are free together rather than apart.

Your lack of concern for actual comments directly related to your subject gives me the impression that you’re more concerned with sowing seeds of discord than actually engaging in a dialogue. Your original post alluded to the ambiguity of Cain’s question, but this particular response was quite direct. Perhaps you interpret Cain's question differently?

Quote Fletcher Christian:

I want MY brother's keeper to be have a certain level of intelligence and morality (at the very least, not to tell lies and when outed, not apologize)... don't you? So until you do... you are NO ONE'S "real" keeper.

You placing your specific restrictions on your brother’s keeper sums it up. It’s not about you Fletch. We are all in this together brother and we are all capable of doing better. It’s a choice we have to make on a daily basis.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system