• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Does Anyone Know if CGC Will Close?
4 4

Started by Foolkiller,

568 posts in this topic

lou_fine

lou_fine

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, god503 said:

my job is to watch the kids, cook and clean and give sex to the wife when she gets home from work...  :banana:

Well, I hope you are doing your job well then, otherwise she might start looking at getting some more on the side at work.  :gossip:

Or,maybe she already has been.  :baiting:  lol

 

 

Just kidding!!!  (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites
god503

god503

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Well, I hope you are doing your job well then, otherwise she might start looking at getting some more on the side at work.  :gossip:

Or,maybe she already has been.  :baiting:  lol

 

 

Just kidding!!!  (thumbsu

Lol. She works in a hospital... all of her options are most likely infected...  ;)

Edited by god503
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lou_fine

lou_fine

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, god503 said:
2 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Well, I hope you are doing your job well then, otherwise she might start looking at getting some more on the side at work.  :gossip:

Or, maybe she already has been.  :baiting:  lol

 

 

Just kidding!!!  (thumbsu

Lol. She works in a hospital... all of her options are most likely infected...  ;)

Aren't there a lot of young hunky doctors and hungry agressive interns at the hosptials like what we we say on the boob tube?  :whistle: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, VintageComics said:

Nor are they incorrect. We're all judged by our peers in any given arena.

You have not presented anything logical or supportive or convincing since the entire discussion began.

Just contradiction, abrasion and then playing the victim card.

You haven't articulated any points in a way that would reasonably explain what you believe and why you believe it to be OK.

It really is like having a discussion with an annoying teenager. You're evasive and abrasive but never persuasive.

In short: Immature.

That's not an attack. It's an observation based on your inability to form logical flowcharts and using your vocabulary to explain it.

I have - you simply disagree with it based on your personal perception.

Your 3rd sentence makes no sense. What are you basing this off of...?

Again - I can cook you a meal, but I cannot tell you how to discern its ingredients or flavors. You just don't get it , I guess. I cannot fix it for you.

Slapping labels that don't belong on something does not make it what you're trying to make it.

Edit: I'll make it easy for ya, buddy; If being incorrectly labelled "immature" by you is simply your idea of someone learning from history - I'll take it. Blind appeal to authority is fool's gold.

Edited by theCapraAegagrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, kav said:

Who said anything about loud?  I indicated many voices, not volume.  In my example I was indicating many voices pulling someone aside and quietly telling them they are having too much fun.

Accumulation of voices = louder than 1 voice.. I thought that was obvious.

The point stands. People can take someone aside and call them a failure, but ultimately, personal success determines that - not what other people said out of their own misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

I have - you simply disagree with it based on your personal perception.

Humor me and explain it for me again since I must have missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
Just now, theCapraAegagrus said:
13 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

Humor me and explain it for me again since I must have missed it.

Quote

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

 

That doesn't explain anything. It's just a vague but well known reference with no context.

Why does your 'freedom' allow you to endanger others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

That doesn't explain anything. It's just a vague but well known reference with no context.

Why does your 'freedom' allow you to endanger others?

It's your entire premise that doesn't allow you to accept differing actions or opinions.

If those in fear are in hiding, and I'm not invading their choice to hide, then how am I endangering anyone?

Any time you drive a car - there's a chance you get into an accident. Any time you own a house - there's a chance it catches fire, or floods, or there's an electrical problems. Any time you go out in public - there's a chance you get robbed, trip over your own feet, or get the flu. Sacrificing freedom over fear isn't the answer. It may be for some, but just because a minority suffers, doesn't mean you force your opinions unto others.

Edited by theCapraAegagrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

It's your entire premise that doesn't allow you to accept differing actions or opinions.

If those in fear are in hiding, and I'm not invading their choice to hide, then how am I endangering anyone?

It's your moving of the goal posts that doesn't allow you to have an exchange of logic.

Nobody said anything about hiding. People are not in hiding so you're creating a straw man.

People are self isolating to prevent the spread of a virus but also need to be outdoors for various reasons including exercise, shopping for necessities and work (and whatever else that I can't think of).

Your premise is that your freedom allows you to travel and act unfettered (meaning not respecting people's social distancing measures).

But science and the law specify that if you travel and act unfettered you are imposing a risk on innocents.

Everyone else's premise is that your freedom is reckless and endangers innocent others (which it does)

So how do you justify your personal freedom to be more important than the health of innocents who are working to preserve their health?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

It's your moving of the goal posts that doesn't allow you to have an exchange of logic.

Nobody said anything about hiding. People are not in hiding so you're creating a straw man.

People are self isolating to prevent the spread of a virus but also need to be outdoors for various reasons including exercise, shopping for necessities and work (and whatever else that I can't think of).

Your premise is that your freedom allows you to travel and act unfettered (meaning not respecting people's social distancing measures).

But science and the law specify that if you travel and act unfettered you are imposing a risk on innocents.

Everyone else's premise is that your freedom is reckless and endangers innocent others (which it does)

So how do you justify your personal freedom to be more important than the health of innocents who are working to preserve their health?

  1. I'm not moving any goal posts.
  2. Isolation is hiding. Not a straw-man.
  3. They're afraid of getting infected or being lectured/fined for expressing their freedom. Some are trying to stop the spread. Are they more afraid for themselves, or others...?
  4. I respect others' choices to do as they please. I'm not walking onto/into anyone's property without their permission.
  5. That's exactly where I apply 'learning from history'.
  6. That's your premise - and it's your free thought to consider it. It's still wrong. I don't have anything to knowingly spread.
  7. Freedom. That's how. I'm not relinquishing it. Those in fear can keep their distance and I will operate as usual.

Risk vs reward. Those who don't want the risk of infection can hide. All the power to 'em. I prefer taking the risk for fruit of the reward. Is commerce sanitizing everything for a week or two before providing it to the public? Nope. This thing is gonna play out how it wants to play out. I'm not gonna stop it alone and I'm not gonna allow it to stop me.

Edit: It comes down to the philosophical quote. Either you haven't considered the history of power - or don't think it will repeat itself. I am not interested in reliving that fight. I will, if I have to, though. It's worth fighting IMO. Just like you think it's worth fighting this virus by sacrificing freedom (I don't).

Edited by theCapraAegagrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

I respect others' choices to do as they please. I'm not walking onto/into anyone's property without their permission.

You just moved another goal post. It has nothing to do with anyone's 'property'. doh!

It has to do with access in public places.

So your last two replies are completely irrelevant to the discussion because you changed the discussion.

Your choice of 'freedom' to move in public places without respecting other people's rights to health is no different than someone choosing their 'freedom' to walk around with a 12 foot wide ball of invisible fire while saying you have the freedom to so and that it's on people who can't see it to hide inside.

In fact, it's worse because you may or may not be carrying that 12 foot wide ball of invisible fire but you still expect everyone to respect your choice to carry it.

Keep moving goal posts while you struggle with your own intellectual honesty.

Meanwhile your idea of freedom is selfish and impedes on the rights of others.

You still sound like a teenager full of an ideology that has no real practical place in the world. Nice idea, flawed execution.

 

Edited by VintageComics
Link to comment
Share on other sites
god503

god503

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Aren't there a lot of young hunky doctors and hungry agressive interns at the hosptials like what we we say on the boob tube?  :whistle: 

There all deseased right know...  :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites
god503

god503

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Transplant said:

I think my ignore list is infected.  It keeps growing exponentially. 

Intellectual conversation typicly is... :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

You just moved another goal post. It has nothing to do with anyone's 'property'. doh!

It has to do with access in public places.

So your last two replies are completely irrelevant to the discussion because you changed the discussion.

Your choice of 'freedom' to move in public places without respecting other people's rights to health is no different than someone choosing their 'freedom' to walk around with a 12 foot wide ball of invisible fire while saying you have the freedom to so and that it's on people who can't see it to hide inside.

In fact, it's worse because you may or may not be carrying that 12 foot wide ball of invisible fire but you still expect everyone to respect your choice to carry it.

Keep moving goal posts while you struggle with your own intellectual honesty.

Meanwhile your idea of freedom is selfish and impedes on the rights of others.

You still sound like a teenager full of ideology with no real practical place in the world.

No, I didn't. I respect freedom to govern one's property. You don't seem to understand the goal post(s). doh!

Again - No, I didn't. The discussion is freedom vs fear.

People can choose to hide or choose to express their freedom. It's all about choice. One person's choice should not infringe upon another. Using fear to relinquish that choice is bad. If you choose to go out in public then you are accepting a risk. You cannot choose to have COVID-19 (well, you can, but almost no one realistically would). You can simply choose whether or not you'd like to risk it. And, no, choosing to be free is not infringing on someone's choice to isolate.

I see, clearly now, that you do not understand me because you do not understand what I'm talking about. Again... Cooking a meal...

My idea of freedom is literal. Some people appreciate it; others don't. The forefathers fought for it for reasons.

Just to, again, be clear: We're discussing freedom vs fear.

Edit: "Selfish" is probably the only accurate label you've thrown out here. Take it and run if you feel complete. We're not going to see eye-to-eye. Apparently you don't understand this particular topic and we morally disagree. I can agree to disagree. Can you?

Edited by theCapraAegagrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
4 4
Go to topic listing