Real News: Courts say its okay to discriminate against police candidates based on a HIGH IQ.

So it's the opposite? My soul remains young? Thank fucking gawd.

Your soul remains young and taunt.

so true.

my mind even made that into something dirty.

It was supposed to.

Well, he did run for office. Twice, I believe. But as a very young guy largely unknown by his constituents giving him little chance at a win, especially considering his platform. I'm suggesting he serve his community and get to know what they want before offering to represent them in office.

He denies it was his goal. I accept that. I was just thinking that in the original non-violence/civil disobedience movements (Gandhi through King), the goal was often to get arrested and clog the jails and courts. "I won't move and I won't fight back, but you are going to have to deal with me." It's effective.

Don't be an asshole and don't paint me as ignorant. If you want to bow to Gig's superior legal knowledge, go right ahead. I'm not willing to accept it until I see a reason to. The guy got busted for graffiti and had a bachelors in ... well, something. He hasn't said what, exactly, unless I've missed it. Criminal Justice, maybe? Which would qualify him to ... become a cop provided he can pass the psyche eval. Actually, a Criminal Justice degree would be disappointing from him. I'm hoping it's Civil Law (and not, God forbid, "Natural Law". There are a few small colleges that offer that). So, yeah, a chalk graffiti charge and he repped himself. Not terribly surprising that he won, okay?

People get what they earn. Giggan is the only actual fascist regularly posting on the Cult, so sure, I laugh harder at him. If I appear to believe myself superior by pointing it out, I don't care.

I speak my mind. Constantly. Loudly. Too often and at to great a length. I've got a fucking opinion on fucking everything. I don't know when to shut the hell up. Absofuckinglutely. If this makes me "an alpha", then welcome to the internets.

A non-achievement remains a non-achievement. The point of arresting him wasn't to find him guilty, it was to move him out of the way.

It isn't. See above.

Nor would disbanding the government and crossing your fingers.

It's really not his tactics. It's his attitude and his already-established behaviors.

I have to pee. I'm done arguing the Great Giggan Debat Of Ought-Twelve unless and until something actually interesting occurs. Or I get bored. Or he explains why he was talking about himself in the third-person. Seriously, what's up with that?

Wow, that's a lot of posts. Yes. You guys really should see a picture of my lawyer. Oof.

My bad.

Gig, you may consider That Cop Over There to be A Mindless Tool Of The Man...

Better?

Tuffy:

1. Well there you go. He's trying to do something other than being a "pain in the ass" as you seemed to try to convince me of earlier. There's knowing what people want and then there's knowing what society needs. The point isn't to be a lackey to the masses, but to specialize in something to bring to light new methods of running a small part of society, and applying them.

2. And yet you see those methods as annoying? What the hell?

3. If it was Criminal Law (I think it was), than it would be more of a "know thy enemy" sort of thing and what not, which is exactly what he talks about when discussing matters of law, sooo... yeah, I'm gonna go with he knows more about it than most do, considering it seems to envelope his life. You still come off as a pompous ass when you throw it out there that YOU might know just as much through "experience", discounting a college degree as well as experience in activism and actual court dealings.

4. Yeah, people get what they earn... despite the fact that you say you mock everyone and all beliefs. Nope. Haven't seen it. You may want to come off as humble, so you'll take a "jab" at yourself every so often, but it's a little obvious that it comes from a desire to appear humble. Yes, you come off as thinking of yourself as superior, especially when you don't seem to discuss with any harder thought beyond remedial philosophies and your own emotional inclinations, as if they should be able to dominate anyone's will.

5. I constantly speak my mind, too, but I at least try to keep it at a level where I have to prove what I say, and I distinguish between ideas presented, not the people presenting them. That's the difference between wanting to contribute and wanting to come off as superior. When it comes to discussing more serious issues, I don't represent me. I just present the idea I believe. I doubt you desire to contribute to the stupider qualities of the internet. If you do, well that's quite a lot more respect you've lost.

6. Yeah, it was to get him out of the way. First off, does that seems right to you? If not, that was the point. He won against some really, really obscure charges which are both easy to charge someone with as well as hard to defend against. I'd consider that an achievement. It just seems like more evidence of your pompousness and desire to appear as an alpha when you discredit such dealings you don't seem to know much about. Then again, you may just be trying to antagonize him specifically, because I imagine that if it was anyone else, you'd congratulate them. But no, his ideas are different, therefore that makes this a non-achievement.

7. What isn't what?

8. That's according to your ideas. According to his, no. So yeah, I still hope that entire paragraph was you just being facetious, because otherwise it seems like you really don't understand what's being discussed.

9. Right, except this whole time you've just been badmouthing his tactics. His attitude? So far, I've only seen standard activism from the guy. So you just don't like his personality. Well, then just say that. Otherwise, we wind up with this clusterfuck of figuring out what the actual issue is, and you muddy up your own opinions.

I certainly appreciate Gig's accomplishment, on a high respect level, for the simple fact that all I've ever wanted to do, aside from write, is "criminal" defense.

But aside from thanking me for my congratulations he again ignored my speaking to him after. And therein lies a problem, especially considering being ignored by him was specifically what my post to him was about. His personality invites antagonism. I separate my respect of his accomplishment from any respect for the way he chooses to interact here. I suspect everyone who flips him shit does so because he has irritated them in some way with his behavior on the forum, not because of his behavior off of it.

The reason I am writing this, is because I very much enjoy reading your arguments with others Lib, but right now you are amusing the hell out of me by your own antagonism as an argument for why a person shouldn't antagonize another. I am wondering if you are just having yourself a social experiment right now?

Tuffy humble? Where in god's name did you get that?

Nope, but that's precisely the point. I'm obviously not against antagonizing people. When someone claims that they don't target particular people, when they clearly do for reasons they care not to admit, then it's something they should be called out on. There was clearly something else going on with this antagonization of Giggan, and it wasn't what he does in his fits of activism, although that's the thing people are attacking. It's just that people don't like him. It's the lack of honesty and consistency that gets me. Self-deception just annoys me.

And Des, Tuffy calls Giggan out on his perceived undertones of superiority. That means the guy probably believes he has some belief in his humility.

Well, you are right. People shouldn't pick on other people to the point of malice.

One thing I have noticed about the way you argue, often, (and I have mentioned this before) is you have a tendency to pick out the person/people you perceive as being ruled my their emotions and then use that fact as a counterpoint against them, which really is mostly only a very good way to illicit more emotions from said person (if you are in fact correct about the emotional dominance).

Where is the victory of logic in that?

We're on a forum that's dominated by writers. You've only seen me argue against people who think emotionally and artistically. The victory is in pointing out that what one perceives as "logic" is only bias. The victory is obviously for logic's sake. However, I have had a few purely logical scuffles here. Not sure you remember, because they are rare. I recall one about educational reform and one about determinism. I think I've been able to logically defend my political leanings, however. I've only ever met one person that's truly been able to challenge my views with offhand "facts" (that later turned out to be lies) and really make me rethink my political views, however briefly. It's just more often that I find someone with an opinion based on emotion.

I was involved with that educational reform one, I think. Maybe.

Oh thank god, me too.

Anyway, the reason I brought that up was just because it is something I irksomely sensitive to noticing, being a female and all, people tend to discredit my own perfectly logical statements as being emotionally driven even when they are not in any way so.

I don't see it.

You're too young Jess!

You're one of the few that I don't see as emotionally bias. It's one of the reasons you're my favorite person ever.

Harsh. Do you ask them if it's in yet, too?

Well, if I reread that correctly, I think it was supposed to be "taut".... as in tight, not wrinkly... as in that sweet tight ass.

Did I get that right?

Whatever. It's your job to educate me. I need some sort of diagram in my inbox, ASAP.

Is my soul a vagina?

I may very well be completely lost in all this innuendo.

Is that rude?

Still need a diagram.

Don't worry. I'll forward any and all information to you.

HAHAHAHAHA!

You lot are so funny.

Ugh, thaaaaank you. I suck at talking dirty.

let me help you out:

"ooh baby. i'm gonna drag you through mud and put grease under your nails. that's right. yeah, yeah."

you're welcome.

Yes. I meant "taut", I had a spelling error. By the time I noticed it had already been quoted. So I ignored it.

Taunt could work too, as in feisty, as in overly firm, as in aggressive...

I reread Ritt's post. Apparently my soul's a PENIS. That's... better?

I totally get this.

I thought he was talking to me. I could live with that though, I think.

What the hell are you both talking about?

Their guilty filthy souls.

This has become a freeform convo.

He's really confused, I'm sorry.

Mostly from this thread I got tl;dr, pepper is always entertaining me, and Jessica and her gifs is he new Nate (in that aspect).

It's all my hyperbole isn't it?

Yeah, I'm lost in all that too.

To clarify:

• I am pompous.
• I have no truck with humility.
• Neither of the above make me wrong; not in this case. They may mean that I am an asshole (hint: I am), but I am fine with that.

But that is why we like you.

Right. It was just everything else.

You are all ridiculous anyway; this entire topic makes perfect lovely sense to me.

Passionate Logic.

He is kind of clueless sometimes, isn't he?

Jessica is much better than Nate.

Much better.

For obvious reasons.

My sense of humor changed a lot after I joined this forum and I place almost all of the blame on Nate for that.