Is This Statement True?

YoUDeeMan · Post by **YoUDeeMan** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:23 am

Panties. In. A. Bunch.

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:44 am

HI54UNI wrote:
kalm wrote:Is this statement true?

Are successful people and the others listed mutually exclusive?

Well, according to the myopic moron in the meme they are.

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:47 am

AZGrizFan wrote:
HI54UNI wrote:
Are successful people and the others listed mutually exclusive?
Well, according to the myopic moron in the meme they are.

Good lord...

He's making a point about our collective definition of success
you dense scornful literalists

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:48 am

Chizzang wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, according to the myopic moron in the meme they are.
Good lord...
He's making a point about our collective definition of success
you dense scornful literalists

Well then he should say that. Literally.

Post by **andy7171** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:06 pm

I sure am glad Cleets and kalmy are here to tell me what I should think.

89Hen · Post by **89Hen** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:00 pm

kalm wrote:
Chizzang wrote:Religion
like so many things with such a broad meaning and scope of purpose
gets a lot of credit where it does not deserve credit
and gets a lot of blame where it does not deserve blame

My issues with it are related to its group psychology
Assisting bad ideas in spanning the eons of time
and defending them with more bad ideas
"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups it is the rule." - Friederich Nietzsche

Individual accountability
Individual purpose in relation to your personal understanding of GOD
Group think is almost always (even at its most harmless) a form of mild neurosis...
ranging all the way to complete insanity

Thank you for the sincere response. Good stuff.

Get a room.

Post by **HI54UNI** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:43 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
Good lord...
He's making a point about our collective definition of success
you dense scornful literalists

Well then he should say that. Literally.

But then Kalm wouldn't have stupid shit to post.

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:54 pm

andy7171 wrote:I sure am glad Cleets and kalmy are here to tell me what I should think.

I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think...

Thinking is its own reward

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:22 pm

Chizzang wrote:
andy7171 wrote:I sure am glad Cleets and kalmy are here to tell me what I should think.
I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think...
Thinking is its own reward

CID1990 · Post by **CID1990** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:29 pm

Chizzang wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, according to the myopic moron in the meme they are.
Good lord...
He's making a point about our collective definition of success
you dense scornful literalists

Yeah but the quite is out of context because the last thing he said was edited out

It went like this-

"....and warriors with big scary weapons- the world needs more of those too. If Tibet had more I wouldn't be living in fvxkin Los Angeles"

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:23 pm

CID1990 wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
Good lord...
He's making a point about our collective definition of success
you dense scornful literalists

Yeah but the quite is out of context because the last thing he said was edited out

It went like this-

"....and warriors with big scary weapons- the world needs more of those too. If Tibet had more I wouldn't be living in fvxkin Los Angeles"

Tibet provides the world an example of how a group of oppressed peoples don't automatically turn into the Taliban or collective terrorists...

That takes an extra ingredient
A poorly written religion

Post by **kalm** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:30 pm

HI54UNI wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Well then he should say that. Literally.
But then Kalm wouldn't have stupid shit to post.

Exactly! And you wouldn't have stupid shit to reply to.

Wait...what?

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:59 pm

kalm wrote:
HI54UNI wrote:
But then Kalm wouldn't have stupid shit to post.
Exactly! And you wouldn't have stupid shit to reply to.

Wait...what?

Post by **HI54UNI** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:06 pm

kalm wrote:
HI54UNI wrote:
But then Kalm wouldn't have stupid shit to post.
Exactly! And you wouldn't have stupid shit to reply to.

Wait...what?

YoUDeeMan · Post by **YoUDeeMan** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:53 pm

CID1990 wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
Good lord...
He's making a point about our collective definition of success
you dense scornful literalists

Yeah but the quite is out of context because the last thing he said was edited out

It went like this-

"....and warriors with big scary weapons- the world needs more of those too. If Tibet had more I wouldn't be living in fvxkin Los Angeles"

CID!!!!!!

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:58 pm

It's true that you don't need to have religion to have morals. You can certainly have them if you want to.

However, as I've written many times before, if you take away the premise that there is something beyond us that sets the rules there is ultimately no right or wrong. Instead of being based on "empathy," for example, you could make your morals based purely on your own self gratification and to hell with everybody else as long as you can get away with what you do.

There would be nothing intrinsically "wrong" with not having any empathy for others.

Baldy · Post by **Baldy** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:52 am

Chizzang wrote:
kalm wrote:
Anybody who takes issue with this gentle assessment of our world today
is pretty much just a dick

If that statement by the Dalai Lama makes you uncomfortable or sets you off
That is TOTALLY ON YOU and has absolutely NOTHING to do with his observation of the world

The End...

I don't know about that Cleetus...

It's not that I disagree with Mr. Lama, but I tend to believe that if there are more successful people there will be less of a need for peacekeepers. The planet would most probably be much more healthy. There would be less of a need to restore anything. Successful people are more happy, and they would have great stories to tell, and happy people make better lovers.

With that said, yeah the Dalai Lama is pretty much full of shit on that one.

Post by **kalm** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:33 am

Is this statement true?

CID1990 · Post by **CID1990** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:08 am

kalm wrote:Is this statement true?

I dunno

He's wrong about war not begetting peace though- in theory it's an eloquent statement

But we skullfvcked Germany and Japan so hard that we literally changed their cultures

Maybe he should say "half measures don't beget peace- bring it all or not at all"

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:11 am

CID1990 wrote:
kalm wrote:Is this statement true?

I dunno

He's wrong about war not begetting peace though- in theory it's an eloquent statement

But we skullfvcked Germany and Japan so hard that we literally changed their cultures

Maybe he should say "half measures don't beget peace- bring it all or not at all"

Which is precisely what we should do to looters. Their culture needs a wakeup call.

Post by **ASUG8** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:28 pm

kalm wrote:Is this statement true?

Nice idea, brought to you by the guys who started the Crusades.

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 9:27 pm

ASUG8 wrote:
kalm wrote:Is this statement true?

Nice idea, brought to you by the guys who started the Crusades.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 9:49 pm

I'm not sure peace has left peace in its wake either. I think we're a pretty violent species and we've always been characterized by episodic violence. Probably always will be.

Problem is that if you're completely unwilling to use violence but someone else is willing to use violence on you you are going to lose. All you being peaceful will mean is that a violent approach prevails over a peaceful approach rather than over another violent approach.

Post by **kalm** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:17 am

Is this statement true?

Post by **andy7171** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:28 am

ASUG8 wrote:
kalm wrote:Is this statement true?

Nice idea, brought to you by the guys who started the Crusades.

Actually the Muslins...eh nevermind.

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?

Re: Is This Statement True?