Phioness said:
I had an idiot hippie pass me out a pamphlet once that stated this same 911 conspiracy crap. I read it, came back and leveled that c@#k sucker. One of the best, most satisfying, damn punches I have ever delivered too. Made that f*(&er eat some of his teeth, and told him the next time he's gonna be spreading worlthess f#$%ing garbage around, not to hand it out to someone who has friends getting blown to bits over in that f%^&ing shithole they call the Middle East.
So in short to all those who actually accept such garbage: F%^k you and your conspiracy.
So in short to all those who actually accept such garbage: F%^k you and your conspiracy.
And I suppose a simple disagreement with his concepts justifies your violence? You sir sound like a dangerous human being.
Why didn't you just throw the pamphlet away? People are allowed to feel or believe what they want to. Nobody is forcing you to conform or believe it yourself. Simply just a passed on message for you to examine yourself. If you don't like it, it's simply a piece of paper and nothing more. In no way shape or form does it's content constitute punching them in the face.
I can't help but find great irony that you would hit someone passing out a pamphlet containing an ideal that may or may not be true, which you had every right to believe, look into, ignore or otherwise disregard without use of violence. This makes you more alienating and condescending than the "hippie" handing out these paper pamphlets while you in turn use your fist to set your ideals into people's heads... Literally.
Jaerik said:
While I agree the "question everything" take is great on a theoretical and ideological basis, and sounds great in a forum post or college term paper, it is usually self-destructive out in the real world without a proper tolerance threshold.
If I assert that 2+2=4 and you're fine with that, but when an authority figure says the same, you start to doubt its veracity simply because always question authority, you're not a rugged nonconfirmist nor an irreverant social commentator -- you're a sociopath.
If I then assert that 2+2=3 and you believe me anyway because how can you really know, you're not commendably iconoclastic nor charmingly open-minded -- you're dangerously unstable, and/or you recently turned 14 and still haven't outgrown your first exciting foray into self-validating existential philosophy.
If I assert that 2+2=4 and you're fine with that, but when an authority figure says the same, you start to doubt its veracity simply because always question authority, you're not a rugged nonconfirmist nor an irreverant social commentator -- you're a sociopath.
If I then assert that 2+2=3 and you believe me anyway because how can you really know, you're not commendably iconoclastic nor charmingly open-minded -- you're dangerously unstable, and/or you recently turned 14 and still haven't outgrown your first exciting foray into self-validating existential philosophy.
Aye, my previous post was mostly made to suggest that one should think openly and freely for themselves rather than conforming and abiding by socially or politically set standards of what is truthful and is not when it goes against your natural gut instinct of what is and is not. If something doesn't sit right with you, by all means question it and speak freely.
Of course, to certain matters this distinguishes the difference between being an independent free thinking individual from a mentally unstable and troubled sociopath victim lol.
