I can't turn up for a number of reasons:

- I have to go to the airport at the same time.

- I prefer to remain anonymous.

- I rather not risk an ambush by you extremists and terrorist sympathizers.

- Open mic? Don't tell me it's just another method by you extremists to gather up new members. I know what a witch's sabbath is and there's no need to risk curiosity over security.

Is this you're organization's rendition of the Brown Book? Conspiracy theories are most interesting when fictional.

Somehow, Palestinian militants making bombs to be detonated on Israelis civilians are considered acceptable? I'm sick of your double standards; they're worse than those of Bush.

Major EDIT:

They need people with opposing views, outnumbered for their enjoyment.

Oob, if you actually read the whole thread, you'd see it is not i who decided on discussing things in this manner. But minor detail. If Chiang came along, and spoke respectfully, i can assure you i would return the favour. Sadly, that is not the case with him. He seems to have a lot of built up frustrations.

But the point is, since you've treated him uncivilly on this forum (regardless of what reasons you might have), why should he expect otherwise at a rally with you and numerous like-minded individuals? If you turn up to a rally, all fired up for their protest, and give an opinion that is in direct contradiction to what the rest of the rally thinks, it is very unlikely that you will escape harassment, especially when this is a rally containing a lot of university students. For instance, I seem to recall John Banks had an egg thrown at him last time he was at Auckland Uni.

You can promise that you will treat him civilly, but you cannot make the same promise for others in the same location. That's part of why the internet is a popular forum for debate: you can say what you want without reprisal.

Oh, now you're resorting to personal attacks! I may have some frustrations in my life, but it doesn't mean that I have to take up protesting like a sporting activity. You're the one who's frustrated over something (the Arab-Israeli conflict) so far away in the world and is unlikely to be resolved in even in our grandchildren's generation.

Myself going to that rally would be like a Jew surrendering himself to the Gestapo after exiting a safehouse.


I'm long overdue for sleep, I'll deal with this mess either tomorrow or in the weekend.

As a newcomer to these forums with no ties to any of you I think I can unbiasly say that Chang, you need to get a reality check. You whine about not being engaged in proper debate, unfactual arguments, 'jeering' etc yet you spew all that crap out. Why should anyone engage you in proper debate when you say shit like 'terrorist sympathisers', why should anyone take you seriously?

I could call you a murder sympathiser, a genocide sympathiser, a war criminal sympathiser and also a terrorist sympathiser but what's the point? It's not that simple, and to try and make it so is stupid, which is what most of the things you've said in this post have been.

I take into account the reasons behind 'terrorism', I don't just accept the crap spewed about Islam being the cause, Islams been around for a lot longer than suicide bombers. Do I sympathise with them? I sympathise with the plight of the Palestinians certainly, a lot more than I do for the Israeli's. However I do not believe what the suicide bombers are doing is right. If that means you'll call me a terrorist sympathiser then go ahead, because to me that just makes you stupid as hell.

I

What's amazing is you support Oscmar- a company which supports military groups in inflicting terror on civilian populations, and somehow can speak of double standards? I don't condone violent acts against civilians. Nor do any of the groups i work with.

JPAR, he supports the IDF- Clearly a terrorist sympathiser himself.

I've treated him uncivilly?- i've been quite restrained considering the things he's said. So quit trying to make feeble excuses for the guy. He doesn't have to show up to the rally, and i knew he wouldn't in the first place. I know his type. With the way he carries his discussions, i don't blame anyone showing him a little hostility. It is well deserved.

Your sig is just asking for me to not reply to you, but I think you're being relatively serious. Regardless.

It's not self evident at all in my opinion. Again I stand by the fact that an act in which you gain nothing (but satisfaction from doing something for someone) and someone else gains something is not selfish by definition.

When I give to charity I generally don't feel better about myself, or about the condition of the world. It generally makes me feel guilty, yet I still do it. You could argue that i'm into self punishment, but that kinda shit could go back and forth for a long time. I'm incredibly cynical when it comes to the state of humanity, but my view differs on this. I guess it's just a point of view thing.

Exactly, you want him to turn up so that others will treat him with "a little hostility". You want him on your turf. Calling him a coward isn't fooling anyone.

I've given this a great deal of thought, and came to the conclusion that if people weren't motivated primarily by selfishness, we should expect that people would be performing a great number of altruistic acts as they go about their lives, due to them having other strong motivating factors. However, I find it difficult to think of even one altrustic act... behind virtually every action, there is selfishness, this is clearly no coincidence.

Bear in mind, I do not necessarily mean that everything you do is to get some kind of buzz or good feeling or whatever. There may be other things, such as a sense of duty or guilt, but in the end these motivations are self-serving, for instance someone who feels a sense of guilt over conditions in the third world may pay money to a charity in order to help alleviate this sense of guilt. Some charities capitalise on this factor (not that I blame them) by using photos of starving children and such, in order to heighten the sense of guilt the viewers feel.

It doesn't have to be on my "turf". It could be a neutral one. I honestly don't mind :)

Now consider that perhaps he prefers to argue on the internet (as do I, for numerous reasons), in which case we could consider the real world 'your turf' hmmm?

It's not as simple as 'people who argue on the internet are pussies'. It's simply more convenient, allows the more elloquient use of the written word rather than verbal (I rarely use the word 'elloquient' in real life for instance), allows quick access to online materials to support ones argument or refute an opponents, and so on.

Fair enough. The cyber world can be the sanctuary of the pseudo-tough guys.

Because the internet is argument in its purest form. No intimidation, violence, raising of the voice, etc. Even if he is a pussy, shouldn't he have the same right to a fair argument as a 'tough guy' like yourself would have? Or should only the strong have their say?

I don't know about you, but I don't like having angry people in my face. It was bad enough having them over the phone for three months at ihug.

Oob, i never said i was tough. I'm merely giving him an opportunity to discuss this with me in person. Not a big deal. He can obviously turn down the offer. It won't be violent, there won't be shouting etc. In fact, it will probably be far more productive. So no need to dramatise things.

A right to fair argument he lost when he instigated the hostility.

What do you gain by arguing in person that you lose by arguing on the internet?

From experience, a lot more can be discussed thoroughly, and more importantly- in a civil manner. You tend to lose that here.

So, what can be discussed more thoroughly in the real world, for instance?

As for the 'civil manner', if you want that here, I'd be happy to arrange a thread between you and Adolf where I will delete any posts I consider 'uncivil', I'd promise on all my gods to be objective.

Sitting at a computer to discuss these issues in length is painful.

Yeah, and the IDF don't commit acts of terrorism. Right. ;)

That's the nice thing about forums, you can have regular breaks if you like. You don't have to do all your arguing in one sitting.

The fairest way to do it would be to simply ban all use of the second person. It's difficult to insult someone when you have no means of referring to them.

I'd volunteer another moderator, but I doubt they can be bothered.

The theory sticks until you can provider a counter-example, which you have not.

No it does not stick. The theory is that all actions are motivated purely out of selfishness. That is flawed and i've proven it. If the theory was that there is no truely altruistic act, then I haven't disproven it, because there's no real way to disprove it, however i'd still disagree with it.

The internet really is the homeground for the pseudo tough guy oob, there's no arguing that. Everyones at least a little more arrogant on the net, where you generally don't have to suffer any real consequence for what you say.

Actually the theory that oob stated was:

He did not state that we act purely out of selfishness. Which of course you've admitted you can't disprove.

I invoke Godwin's law.

Seconded.

Yes, I should state here that I am of course aware of motivations other than selfishness, however I would postulate that selfishness is in some way behind virtually every action. Of course no rule is without exceptions, in this case that would be things such as actions made out of instinct, decisions made in the spur of the moment, etc. I would narrow it down to 'rational decisions', but then we would have a debate about what is considered to be 'rational'.

Oob, you're right to an extent. But, if someone does something to help another, s/he may have been driven by selfish motives for instance feeling good about themselves. But, you could see it another way; if a person feels good about himself, and thus, happy- his contribution to society would be positive. That way, society as a whole could benefit indirectly. It's the influence of the act is what matters.

I completely agree. Indeed, I would consider a 'good person' to be someone who acts in a way that is mutually beneficial to themselves and to others, whereas a 'greedy person' acts in a way that only benefits themselves. My philosophy doesn't necessarily mean being a bastard.

However, I draw this from the philosophy: if one is acting in ones own interests already, then accordingly one should act in the manner that most supports those interests. So for a person who is 'good natured' and takes great satisfaction from helping others, then the rational thing for them to do is help others; for someone who enjoys drowning puppies, the rational thing for them to do is drown puppies (provided they can escape being caught), etc.

I think that's fair enough oob.

Wow, everyone seems to agree. I do believe that's the first time that's ever happened on the internet.

Let us celebrate with the adding of chocolate to milk!

Removed by mrt because now seems like a good time to finish this thread on a happy note (no offence to the post you made, I have no problem with you expressing your views). I still have your original post in a txt file in case for some strange reason it needs to be restored.