It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 10:07 PM
Well St. and witch, since it seems you'll be reading this, I don't encourage you to defend my opinions, my opinions are my own.

But I would like to see somewhere there, it stressed that instead of insulting someone's opinions...educate them.

Notice I asked Dearest Candice after realizing I'd been a bit offensive with my "shut-up" comment, to please educate me about how the indians had not been equally unmoral and brutal at times, in fighting settlers and such. I got no intelligent response, at least, not before I was banned.

So I'd like to see it urged, to only contradict peoples opinions with facts, as you say educate your childrend and such. If I actually cared, and maybe I still will just to prove myself right, I'd show you historical resources that show that indians were such things. And that's not to be generalized, on both sides it was just the minority.

And I had also said something very important about that, since I'm writing about it I'll tell you again. The important thing to look at was the evolution of the brutality, from east to west. I've never seen this in writing so feel free to find something that contradicts it, this is just my deduction. But in the East, and consequently earlier times, the Indians being more dominant, were the more vicious and brutal ones. They didn't realize that there was a continent of these "whites" that were ready to come and force them into agreements that would make the whites money and such and gain land. This would haunt the indians.

Because today, we see indians as a proud people with a heritage that is very interesting, back then, they saw what the indians had done a hundred years earlier, in the 16 and 1700s, and they used this to justify their masacares and genocidal tendencies, brought on by lack of restraint.

That is my veiw of how this whole indian thing happend. And I also believe that the government omitts the way the indians treated us in the early going (Because it is in writing in historical books) as to be "politically correct" which is the greatest evil of all.

Instead of recieving volleys of insults, here someone would find SOMETHING that would either support that view, or disagree with it. And my opinion would be better refined because of the added information.

My opinions are rarely made up ONLY of what I feel, they are usually made up of stuff I've seen, stuff I've read, and what others say about my opinions. I'm a very evolving person when it comes to ideas. But your forumz did little to "evolve" my way of thought, and now it has banned me.

Ironically, I feel that goes against all your forumz ideals, since you all seem to believe in teaching the truth and such.

no signature

posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 10:13 PM
I disagree Byrd, I think above is moderated in a "Benevolent Dictator" style...As the threads about "Mob rule and Tyler's banning" shows.

Let me explain:

The moderators here excersise extreme power, but they don't use it. We as posters have NO way of contradicting their decisions so we know that it is not democratic

So it is more dictatoral, but the moderaters here are very alert, and GOOD leaders...just as my Sgt. Major would always say, "lead, don't command". But I guess I never thought of liberality or conservative....

I suppose they would be liberal "benevolent dictators"? heh...for a conservative one wouldn't want to see so much discussion.

So in explaining myself, I realize I have kinda confused two peices, a liberal dicatorship
(that sounds bad heh...)

Oh whatever, I've said what first came to mind, it is just that much more for anyone reading it to think about it.

Yes @forumz seems much like Anarchy, the whole, jump in and fend for yourself thing. But I guess, that is only when you give them reason for you to be bickering

no signature

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 04:51 PM
It just looks a real mess to me.I would of liked to have checked out where they are discussing your banning but I can't find it.Nor can I find M-Freakout.A pointer would be good.

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 05:58 PM
That's because there are so many people and so many threads, there's a lot of sifting to do.

The Marijuana thread:

The Freemason ban thread:

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 06:09 PM
Ok, here's the deal, Freemason. They warned you to stop insulting other people and you didn't and that was their basis for banning you. HOWEVER, I think their warnings were hypocritical. I have never received any warnings about any of my posts, and I certainly don't sugar-coat.

They consider you a troll. I disagree. By my definition, a troll is purposely trying to be annoying, with no regard for the topics in which he posts. You were topical. You didn't chase after people. You chased topics.

But I'm really a nobody on the forumz and I've already given my opinion on this issue, so that's as far as I can take it. I gave up authority a long time ago when pissed off with something.

While we have a lot of younger people on the forumz (some, too young for my tastes), we have a great many adults...straight ones, too!
I'm 36, myself, and involved with another member who', older than me. But you catch my drift.

I also have to come to the defense of Bratboy. He's young, but he's VERY intelligent and, IMO, one of the most interesting people there. Just because you disagree with his points does not make him unintelligent.

But you'll learn that one day. old are you again?

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 04:49 AM
It is a great experience not to be flamed - especially in a place where disagreements are encouraged to happen, er, I mean in the search for the truth.

Stay here, Freemason. You may be a hypocritical, block-headed, scruffy-headed nerf-herder... but you're a hell of a lot of fun to bug!


posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 11:17 AM
Tess,Just read that banning thread.

You kickass.I'm glad I'm not the religeous homophobe you refered to.

It seems to me that you've had your own issues there over time.

You have a number decent people on that board.Perhaps I was judgemental to begin with.

I still think it's a mess.It's far too difficult for someone who stumbles on it to navigate around.Before you posted the thread links I had tried twice and given up after getting dizzy.

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Savonarola
Stay here, Freemason. You may be a hypocritical, block-headed, scruffy-headed nerf-herder... but you're a hell of a lot of fun to bug!


That's exactly how I felt about him at @forumz.

*kicks @ss*

[Edited on 16-12-2002 by St. Theresa]

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 08:39 PM

Originally posted by St. Theresa
He's young, but he's VERY intelligent and, IMO, one of the most interesting people there. Just because you disagree with his points does not make him unintelligent.

Yeah, I shouldn't confuse intelligence with rashness, I find bratboy to be very rash, over-looking the harmful addictions of drugs, for the seemingly less problematic marijuana, which as I pointed out to him, is a link to paranoid-skitsofrenia, but he seemed to shrug that off well, by saying that the drug war still is worse. So I than pointed out to him that the drug war costs us about 60 dollars per person per year, which is by far a fair trade, and he seemed to ignore that fact.

I'm not 36
but I'm not a youngin either
, and I've had my share of crap in life, so I'm don't base my thoughts on unseen experiences. I may not be the most tollerable person, but that is because I veiw this world as falling apart because of too MUCH tollerance, but I am also not a biggot. Because I am always willing to change an opinion, with sufficient proof. A biggot hates or is untollerant of something, and will not change his mind, I will, but I've yet to seen sufficient proof for almost anything. And now, I'm not sure the stuff most people want to be tollerated, can even be proven to not be harmful, until the next 50 years.

I just don't want America to fall, because that will be a dark age worse than after Rome, no one has the guts to take up the scepter after us. Definately not Europe.

Back to my age
I don't like giving it out just like my name, it is a pet-peeve of mine. But I'm between 20-30

And regaurdless of some of the things I've been noted to say, which sometimes can be a bit "unmasonic" (It's online, I've said before, the interenet allows you to be more extreme
) I am a mason, so since until Nov. 17th the age req. to be a mason here was 21, so that should further prove my age

But! I by far do not have the age under my belt as say you at 36, and I know my maturity doesn't match my age
But A lot of what I complain about has happend to family members, and usually in the worse of ways. My Aunt is a single mom, great person, but they needed their dad to stay off of Drugs and Alcohol. They respect their dad even though he really is a sleeze bag as a father, but they don't dare do drugs or drink when he's coming for a visit. But my cousins will smoke away behind their mother's back as much as anyone could dare!

Anyways...too bad I can't view those posts, but some butt IP banned me

And St. Theresa, that "Troll" observation was a good one, not even I thought to look at it that way. Especially since I thought the definition of a Troll was a "user on a new name to just bug people".

Hmm back to Bratboy, I never told him but he'd probably love to know that one of the smartest people I knew at college and in high school, smoked probably a ton of pot when he was in high school. 4.0 student through college and was a junior after 1 semester. He stopped pot, because he knew it was slowing him down, but still, shows that pot is not as destructive as some other stuff

Savonarola you're surely new here to be calling me block-headed, you're the one who is so anti-masonic because of some...reason, I'm not sure you have reasons?
And that's all we really debated on, except for that history thing which I made it seem I hated you
which I do not :p

What kick @ss thing? What? Help me I'm blinded by IP blockage!

Heh....well, back to finding something controversial to bury my thoughts in....too much chem today! AHhh....gas *passes out*

no signature

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 11:03 PM

Originally posted by FreeMason
Heh....well, back to finding something controversial to bury my thoughts in....too much chem today! AHhh....gas *passes out*

Ah ha! I think that might explain a lot!

I'm not going to get into everything issue by issue but let me just say this (which has nothing to do with this thread and everything to do with other discussions you've indulged):

I have realized that the more we experience and learn, the less we really know. That is to say that as your range of vision widens, you realize there's so much more out there than you could possibly grasp in a lifetime. You begin to realize that you have to really stop and put yourself in someone's shoes before you make a judgment. You may even find yourself in a situation or an emotional state you never thought was possible before. You begin to see there are exceptions to every rule, especially the rules you make in your own sphere of consciousness.

I think most people (not necessarily in this thread, although it's possible), cannot separate the people from the sex. Honestly, as a woman, the idea of a sexual encounter with another woman does nothing for me. And trust me, coming from the Tori forums, and being a little jaded by divorce and a couple of bad relationships, I looked at that possibility. Did I have any "tendencies?" Would that be so bad, I thought? I mean, birth control wouldn't be a problem and who can relate to a woman better than another woman?

But the fact is, I cannot choose it. As far as I can see, it's not happening. I often make a joke on the Tori forums: I'm straight. I can't help it. I was born that way. But just because I can't relate to the idea of being aroused by another female doesn't mean I can't, for one second, put myself in a lesbian's shoes and realize that her desires are not in her control. Mine certainly aren't. Going further down the road to insight, I also realize that her sexuality has no bearing on my life. Her only "fault" lies in the fact that MOST people are straight and MOST people can't relate to same-sex arousal and they have no use for it.

And frankly, most of these people are scared that somewhere inside of them, that "evil" is lurking.

Yes, that was quite a tangent, but I was here and it struck me so....

Try to apply that logic to all your favorite issues. Try to break it down into its most basic components. Look at it without the clutter of religion or tradition or ancient Greek society or Masonic values or what your grandmother said.

I think that in your arguing style, you draw from too many irrelevant concepts, or harp on one negative in an attempt to nullify all the positives being tossed at you and, in the end, you rarely prove a point. You argue it, but you don't prove it.

Nothing is as simple as "should" or "shouldn't" be.

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 11:19 PM

Originally posted by St. Theresa
You begin to realize that you have to really stop and put yourself in someone's shoes before you make a judgment.

I do that whether you previously thought so or not. When I post my comments about Gay adoption for instance, those pain me more than gay marriages. It is easy to say they can't marry, due to the exact definition of marriage.

But as individuals, there is also no reason they should not Adopt. When I think of the gay person individually it saddens me that society as a whole outweighs such a simple request. But the more I think about EVERYONE that is involved, the kid, the neighbors, the students at school, the more it strengthens my resolve to their not allowed to adoption.

Hence why I did say there surely is a compromise, most things have one, because it is too sad to deny them out-right, and too destructive to allow it completely or should I say, to encourage it, which is what complete tollerance does, encourages things.

Homosexuals should be able to adopt children, while no one in our nation is brought up thinking that it is completely ok, or normal. So on....

Originally posted by St. Theresa
You begin to see there are exceptions to every rule

While that is true, not all exceptions are strong, or healthy paths. Drugs for example.

Hmm for instance, most shout about the rights of individuals, but what of the rights of society? Society is a breathing organism, made up of individuals, but the beliefs of those individuals can be harmful, or healthful to society. Too liberal and the individuals are too different for there to be a healthy society, too conservative and they are so similar, that it is like strangling yourself, until you die. Compromise helps fairness to be acceptable without compromising society. But how do you compromise with Homosexual adoption or marriage? You either can't allow it, or can...there are no exceptions. All that remains, is what damage will either cause? Not allowing it does not harms society in any way, so that is not debatable, but does allowing it harm society or not? We can't just yet see...there should be more time involved before jumping to a decision.

Greek values, masonic values, they are not restrictive, but they wish that you be good. It really doesn't apply to homosexuality, my feelings on that come from myself, people I know (gay and straight) and so forth. I just don't want to see millions of gay parents. I don't think it can help society in any way. In fact, I do believe it can help to harm it, though I do not see how, I just believe that that is a good possibility.

And in conclusion, I never harp, or draw from negative concepts
I just expect my opponent if you truly can call them that, to come up with the other half of the argument, and we all end half-way in between with a well rounded view of things.

Sometimes in order to find all the good, you have to find all the bad.

no signature

posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 02:52 AM

I may be new, but I'm here to raise some hell... in a debate/chess/D&D/astrononly-club sorta way...


new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in