|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Just MeJust Me Date: Jul 28, 2008 01:17
If some people are like, truly, actually, totally, or more like
basically a bunch of rattlesnakes under all the stupid looking
backward baseball caps, and the crumby looking tattoos, the vain
looking ear, eye, nose and belly-button rings; the flappy-ass, dumb
looking, too-long-to-be-shorts--too-short-to-be-long pants they got
hanging off their ass . . .
Okay, does this mean--it's a philosophical question--that on account
of the fact that some people really are just a bunch of nearly
mindless, cold-blooded rattlesnakes underneath a sometime facade of
warmth, sense and civility, then here's your proof, little did you
know, that if some are rattlesnakes, therefore that's what ALL people
are, bar none?
|
| Show full article (8.31Kb) |
|
| | 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Jul 28, 2008 02:21
That's a few of the reasons why we have laws,
and why the culture destroying liberals attacking
those laws are despicable criminals also.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: toolytooly Date: Jul 29, 2008 18:38
"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:th3r84psl0j0s90ihmup781g6bvbjm30eq@4ax.com...> That's a few of the reasons why we have laws,
> and why the culture destroying liberals attacking
> those laws are despicable criminals also.
Perhaps both of you are right.
Consider...rattlesnake is an equivalent to 'sinner'. We are all
_________-'fill in the blank'.
Actually we are 'potential'...and surely can fall back upon our rattlesnake
condition. But we can also become lesser rattlesnakes...and even discard
the rattles in time.
We need proof that we can be something other than a rattlesnake, and yet,
our brains are meant to decieve through rationalization.
|
| Show full article (1.59Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Jul 29, 2008 19:09
On Jul 28, 6:17Â pm, Just Me gmail.com> wrote:> If some people are like, truly, actually, totally, or more like
> basically a bunch of rattlesnakes under all the stupid looking
> backward baseball caps, and the crumby looking tattoos, the vain
> looking ear, eye, nose and belly-button rings; the flappy-ass, dumb
> looking, too-long-to-be-shorts--too-short-to-be-long pants they got
> hanging off their ass . . .
>
> Okay, does this mean--it's a philosophical question--that on account
> of the fact that some people really are just a bunch of nearly
> mindless, cold-blooded rattlesnakes underneath a sometime facade of
> warmth, sense and civility, then here's your proof, little did you
> know, that if some are rattlesnakes, therefore that's what ALL people
> are, bar none?
>
> Figure it out! Â People are people and rattlesnakes are rattlesnakes.
> BUT we all got that in our evolution, in our genes so that every damn
> one of you, way back in it, deep in the hoary past, baby, you got a
> reptile in your family for a great, great, great (exponentially great)
> grandmother. Yeah! Â You got a way-gone-great to the gadzillion power ...
|
| Show full article (9.03Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Jul 29, 2008 19:26
On Jul 30, 11:38Â am, "tooly" bellsouth.net> wrote:> "Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
>
> news:th3r84psl0j0s90ihmup781g6bvbjm30eq@4ax.com...
>>> That's a few of the reasons why we have laws,
>> and why the culture destroying liberals attacking
>> those laws are despicable criminals also.
>
> Perhaps both of you are right.
>
> Consider...rattlesnake is an equivalent to 'sinner'. Â We are all
> _________-'fill in the blank'.
> Actually we are 'potential'...and surely can fall back upon our rattlesnake
> condition. Â But we can also become lesser rattlesnakes...and even discard
> the rattles in time.
>
> We need proof that we can be something other than a rattlesnake, and yet,
> our brains are meant to decieve through rationalization.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.31Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Just MeJust Me Date: Jul 29, 2008 22:54
On Jul 29, 9:09 pm, "bigflet...@ gmail.com" gmail.com>
wrote:
> Plato didnt have a clue what Socrates was communicating to him.
In many respects I've often suspected as much, myself. But it's a
damned difficult thing to determine seeing it's Plato we must rely
upon almost exclusively for much of any account of him--unless you
want to take as your source that complete asshat, Aristophanes who
wanted only to see him ridiculed or poisoned to death.
I could be wrong in my estimation, but its been my impression that the
Socrates we find and may perchance greatly admire in Crito, Phaedo,
Giorgias, and the Apology, seems to bear little, if any resemblance to
that sort of Oscar Wilde of the Athenian salon we find spouting empty
sophisms and mundane political ideologies in most (or all) of the
later (or other) dialogues, including especially Symposium, the Laws
and Republic. I would regard the latter "Socrates" as a figment of
Plato's imagination, but the former as only so much of the actual,
living philosopher as Plato could to the best of his ability
understand and hence, remember.
|
| Show full article (1.54Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
