Conquer Club

b.k. barunt wrote:I'm a redneck gun lover and a tree hugging hippy - does that mean i'm schizophrenic?

Ambidextrous?


Multifaceted Honibaz

jimboston wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:I'm a redneck gun lover and a tree hugging hippy - does that mean i'm schizophrenic?

Ambidextrous?


Multifaceted Honibaz

Trees are great... for target practice.

(kiddin')

nietzsche wrote:"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Phatscotty wrote:

nietzsche wrote:"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

In this case, it is how can an 18 year old Australian FORCE America to scrap it's Bill of Rights?

b.k. barunt wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
1) "The" dictionary? Which one?
2) What on earth is New Latin? Did you mean Neo-Latin?
3) It's still from Greek. Sorry, it just is.
4) You've misunderstood the history of schizophrenia. In the past, several diagnoses of dementia praecox have been suggested now to be actual cases of schizophrenia. Similar to female hysteria, however, it wasn't just the previous name for the problem. "A" previous name would marginally more accurate.
5) Feel free to share with us the Latin roots at literally any point.

If it helps, here's the OED etymology:

[ad. G. schizophrenie (E. Bleuler 1910, in Psychiatrisch-Neurol. Wochenschr. XII. 171), f. Gr. mind: see SCHIZO- and -IA1.]

Here

Use the link if you need to see the Greek characters, not supported here. The "f.Gr" means "from Greek".

Oh for fucksakes strap on your prosthetic nutlets and try and work up the nerve to admit you were wrong. Here, let me spoon feed you - i'll type out the quote from "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language":

schizophrenia n any of a group of psychotic reactions characterized by withdrawal from reality with highly variable accompanying affective, behavioral, and intellectual disturbances. Formerly called "dementia praecox." [New Latin, "split mind" : SCHIZO- + -PHRENIA.]

Now why don't you write to the publishers of the dictionary and inform them of the error of their ways. I'm done with your doodleyfuck nonsense - you're starting to bore the f*ck outa me and God knows how many others.

Honibaz

MarshalNey wrote:PYes the Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). It also includes the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and even the 10th Amendments- the most important being the 2nd, 9th and 10th imo, not the 1st (freedom of speech, assembly and religion) which is easily trampled without the protection of the 9th and 10th... and 2nd.

Frigidus wrote:

MarshalNey wrote:PYes the Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). It also includes the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and even the 10th Amendments- the most important being the 2nd, 9th and 10th imo, not the 1st (freedom of speech, assembly and religion) which is easily trampled without the protection of the 9th and 10th... and 2nd.

There are plenty of healthy democracies that don't need guns to remain democracies. Also, state lines are utterly arbitrary. I can see the desire for more local control, but most states are just as corrupt as the federal government.

jay_a2j wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

MarshalNey wrote:PYes the Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). It also includes the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and even the 10th Amendments- the most important being the 2nd, 9th and 10th imo, not the 1st (freedom of speech, assembly and religion) which is easily trampled without the protection of the 9th and 10th... and 2nd.

There are plenty of healthy democracies that don't need guns to remain democracies. Also, state lines are utterly arbitrary. I can see the desire for more local control, but most states are just as corrupt as the federal government.

Then move to one of them. Leave our rights alone.

jay_a2j wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

MarshalNey wrote:PYes the Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). It also includes the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and even the 10th Amendments- the most important being the 2nd, 9th and 10th imo, not the 1st (freedom of speech, assembly and religion) which is easily trampled without the protection of the 9th and 10th... and 2nd.

There are plenty of healthy democracies that don't need guns to remain democracies. Also, state lines are utterly arbitrary. I can see the desire for more local control, but most states are just as corrupt as the federal government.

Then move to one of them. Leave our rights alone.

notyou2 wrote:
What is it about god and guns that scares me? I don't know, do tell.

And why does it seem like an oxymoron? Hey, I'm non-violent, don't own a gun but I won't stop the next guy who wants to have a shoot out with the NWO.

Frigidus wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

MarshalNey wrote:PYes the Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). It also includes the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and even the 10th Amendments- the most important being the 2nd, 9th and 10th imo, not the 1st (freedom of speech, assembly and religion) which is easily trampled without the protection of the 9th and 10th... and 2nd.

There are plenty of healthy democracies that don't need guns to remain democracies. Also, state lines are utterly arbitrary. I can see the desire for more local control, but most states are just as corrupt as the federal government.

Then move to one of them. Leave our rights alone.

Again, I am not a lawmaker. I'm not threatening your rights, I'm debating their existence.

LikeYestrdaysJam wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

MarshalNey wrote:PYes the Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). It also includes the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and even the 10th Amendments- the most important being the 2nd, 9th and 10th imo, not the 1st (freedom of speech, assembly and religion) which is easily trampled without the protection of the 9th and 10th... and 2nd.

There are plenty of healthy democracies that don't need guns to remain democracies. Also, state lines are utterly arbitrary. I can see the desire for more local control, but most states are just as corrupt as the federal government.

Then move to one of them. Leave our rights alone.

Again, I am not a lawmaker. I'm not threatening your rights, I'm debating their existence.

Well said this is just freedom of speech part of you Bill of Rights

Frigidus wrote:
I don't attribute my ability to speak my mind to a document. I attribute it to a philosophy and way of living that has developed across the Western world, not just in America.

But yeah, freedom of speech and all that. Heh.

jay_a2j wrote:

Frigidus wrote:
I don't attribute my ability to speak my mind to a document. I attribute it to a philosophy and way of living that has developed across the Western world, not just in America.

But yeah, freedom of speech and all that. Heh.

Heh. Go "speak your mind" in China. You don't need any useless document anyways.

b.k. barunt wrote:Well umm, i've been band from here a few times . . . just sayin . . .
Honibaz

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Frigidus wrote:
I don't attribute my ability to speak my mind to a document. I attribute it to a philosophy and way of living that has developed across the Western world, not just in America.

But yeah, freedom of speech and all that. Heh.

Heh. Go "speak your mind" in China. You don't need any useless document anyways.

Are you implying that someone cannot speak their mind in China? That's absolutely not true at all. In fact, other than in a vacuum or in solitary confinement, I'm having difficulty thinking of places where one cannot speak their mind.

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Frigidus wrote:
I don't attribute my ability to speak my mind to a document. I attribute it to a philosophy and way of living that has developed across the Western world, not just in America.

But yeah, freedom of speech and all that. Heh.

Heh. Go "speak your mind" in China. You don't need any useless document anyways.

Are you implying that someone cannot speak their mind in China? That's absolutely not true at all. In fact, other than in a vacuum or in solitary confinement, I'm having difficulty thinking of places where one cannot speak their mind.

Depends on what you are speaking your mind about. Speaking your mind about how much you love small furry animals is far different from voicing your hatred of the Chinese government. Don't believe me? Grab a blow horn, head to China and prove that you can.

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Frigidus wrote:
I don't attribute my ability to speak my mind to a document. I attribute it to a philosophy and way of living that has developed across the Western world, not just in America.

But yeah, freedom of speech and all that. Heh.

Heh. Go "speak your mind" in China. You don't need any useless document anyways.

Are you implying that someone cannot speak their mind in China? That's absolutely not true at all. In fact, other than in a vacuum or in solitary confinement, I'm having difficulty thinking of places where one cannot speak their mind.

Depends on what you are speaking your mind about. Speaking your mind about how much you love small furry animals is far different from voicing your hatred of the Chinese government. Don't believe me? Grab a blow horn, head to China and prove that you can.

The massacre at Tienieman Square proves that individuals can speak their mind in China. Otherwise, it simply would not have been necessary.

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
Heh. Go "speak your mind" in China. You don't need any useless document anyways.

Are you implying that someone cannot speak their mind in China? That's absolutely not true at all. In fact, other than in a vacuum or in solitary confinement, I'm having difficulty thinking of places where one cannot speak their mind.

Depends on what you are speaking your mind about. Speaking your mind about how much you love small furry animals is far different from voicing your hatred of the Chinese government. Don't believe me? Grab a blow horn, head to China and prove that you can.

The massacre at Tienieman Square proves that individuals can speak their mind in China. Otherwise, it simply would not have been necessary.

Yeah, don't let the bodies lying in the square deter you.

Woodruff wrote: Roll your eyes all you want, but why were those people killed? For speaking their mind. You see...they could not be stopped from speaking their mind because they had the will to do so.