Board of education claims intellectual ownership of pupils' school work... ehh what??

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

What's next?

*gives Magic 8-Bob a shake*

[Dredd]

What's next?

Thread: "Ask the Magic 8-Blob"

Ask him anything! "Hey Blob, what should I make for dinner?" "Blob, should I wait for my gf to make parole before asking her to marry me?" "Blob, will Max Max: Fury Road be worth a ****?" "Uncle Blobby, how long does it take JM to write those novella-length posts?"

On-Topic: When I was in middle school, my English/Lit teacher assigned us to write short compilations of fiction and poetry (I forget the exact details - but I think we were to write two stories and eight poems). Pretty normal. What wasn't normal is that he told us we wouldn't be getting our projects back; he intended to keep them... forever. A few of us figured that if one of his students became a best-selling author, or just famous in general, he'd have a great supplement for his pension. I flat out refused to do the assignment, which naturally earned me an 'F' and a humiliating public chew-out session in front of my classmates.

To this day, I shudder at the thought of my juvenalia in the hands of anyone but me and my trusty paper shredder.

[BobCox2]

Ahem:

Fun is Fun and All that but.

1) I can not only pass, but randomly conduct, Turing tests in this forum.

2) Kegs? I drink them down. Spam? what is this flavor?

Learn something people - in spite of the environment.

Let's Play Calvinball!

"Other kids' games are all such a bore!
They've gotta have rules and they gotta keep score!
Calvinball is better by far!
It's never the same! It's always bizarre!
You don't need a team or a referee!
You know that it's great, 'cause it's named after me!"
(Backup-Singing "Rumma Tum Tums")

Edits:

"feel free to harmonize with Hobbes on the Rumma-tum-tums"

"No sport is less organized then Calvinball"

"Sooner or later, all our games turn into Calvinball."

"The score is still Q to 12!"

[BobCox2]

Thread: "Ask the Magic 8-Blob"

Ask him anything! "Hey Blob, what should I make for dinner?" "Blob, should I wait for my gf to make parole before asking her to marry me?" "Blob, will Max Max: Fury Road be worth a ****?" "Uncle Blobby, how long does it take JM to write those novella-length posts?"

On-Topic: When I was in middle school, my English/Lit teacher assigned us to write short compilations of fiction and poetry (I forget the exact details - but I think we were to write two stories and eight poems). Pretty normal. What wasn't normal is that he told us we wouldn't be getting our projects back; he intended to keep them... forever. A few of us figured that if one of his students became a best-selling author, or just famous in general, he'd have a great supplement for his pension. I flat out refused to do the assignment, which naturally earned me an 'F' and a humiliating public chew-out session in front of my classmates.

To this day, I shudder at the thought of my Juvenal in the hands of anyone but me and my trusty paper shredder.

I had a assignment like that got a A+ back in the day for essay with basically a direct quote from James Albert Micheners Alaska, sad really as his writing is so good and so long the teacher had no chance back then of matching it up.

Got a School district prize for basically plagiarism.

It taught me about the real world.

Then the internet came along.

and I became a copypastafarian.



But I joke...

My wife works at a school in LA

[jmervyn]

You must be very limber to fellate yourself like that, but you should really do it in private.

Oh, I thought you were the expert.

Your argument is underwhelming. If you want to debate the merits of anarchy, let's start with the basics: who have you read on the subject and how much?

I don't recall; it's been years since I actually bothered to research it.

I'm pretty much done with the "I've thought about this issue for at least 30 seconds now, so I can confidently say that I believe [insert inane statement here]" crowd, but you're a politically savvy guy and you seem to read a lot, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've studied up.

My disagreement is philosophical, not dogmatic. More below.

Leave it to jmerv to ruin a nice topic.

Thanks. Who the F are you, again? I thought for a moment you were Krembanan, but he's much wiser.

Saro's points stands true, no need to attack his person by calling him anarchist, he's just the messenger here.

Jmerv might consider "anarchist" a pejorative term, but I certainly don't; I am an anarchist.

So there's that. I don't consider "anarchist" a pejorative, but I think people who claim to be anarchists are sniveling, despicable little weasels. Here's why - a true anarchist believes one of two things, which I think are mutually exclusive. First, that a total lack of civil order and the enforcement of same is a good thing. I'm assuming that's the group Saro belief falls under. From my point of view and personal experience, that's nothing short of laughably stupid, since any organized group will promptly rape, conquer, and exploit the anarchist group - that was evidenced in even the American Indian experiences, and that's not considering the European settlers' behavior.

Second is the group which I could regard poorly. Those are people who think anarchy is great for them, yet are reliant upon the civil obedience of the larger body politic. It's those people who are nothing better than parasites (similar to my mention of Atheists as parasitic upon the moral standards of the larger society). This mindset speaks to the arrogance and selfishness of the individual professing the belief - their "evil", if you will.

You can't go nowhere without someone claiming to be your leader, no matter your opinion. Using arguments as the majority decides.

This is a falsehood, and indicative of the second category I refer to. There's plenty of places where you can let your freak flag fly, and nobody has the ability to push you around - many places in South & Central America, Africa, and Central Asia. What? Those places are hell-holes, and nobody would want to live there? Guess what, sunshine - those places are hell-holes BECAUSE of the very anarchy you claim is such a feckin' marvel.

The funny thing is that stuff like intellectual property only exists, because there's enough power behind supporting it. If a group, such as a country, with power beyond that of any realistic opposition, decided not to respect the intellectual property of John Doe, no mysterious force of nature would act upon this. There wouldn't suddenly be people suffering all over the world. Heck Mr. Doe wouldn't even have a way of noticing it without being informed by someone.

This, again, indicates to me the juvenile second philosophy. Intellectual Property? Who T.F. cares about intellectual property? I'm talking survival - and true anarchy doesn't have a long life expectancy.

The American colonies revolted over what we would today consider relatively minor tax burdens. Now 50%+ of our income is stolen by leviathan and the elites still debate how they might possibly squeeze more out of us at every turn. What did we get out of the deal? Well, they let us pretend that our wishes are important by allowing us to cast a meaningless ballot every couple years. God bless democracy: pacifying the tax cattle.

This claim has nothing to do with believing in anarchy. You already claimed to be an anarchist, so I'd love to hear you defend your belief in the first category without proving you're part of the second (despicable) category.

[jmervyn]

I gave it a bit and couldn't find the transcript, but one of the articles said he said it was wrong to try and benefit from racial polarization.

Sure. Point being, the Democrats have exploitation nearly being part of their Party platform, all the while shrieking about non-existent examples of it on the part of the GOP.

Then when the christian coalition found the GOP, the south flipped. I don't believe for a second that one election made the south suddenly stop being racist.

Patently untrue. This is part of your spectacular ignorance that I've referred to previously - not only did the South not "flip", not only did the Christian Coalition have nothing WHATSOFECKINEVER to do with it, but the South didn't suddenly 'stop' being Democrat any more than it suddenly stopped being racist.

I think it is clear that the GOP plays on fears of the other,

No, though it's clear your substantial ignorance is pretty much what the American public has had instilled for a couple of decades now. I know you'd tear your eyes out to read something by Coulter, so when I have a moment I'll see if I can't look up some other authors who basically discuss the same historical truth.

I also think that over time, the us vs them vote is becoming less and less of an issue and more and more the crazies are the religious folk.

I adore the way your vile bias seeps from every pore. Say, did you know that the Democrats are the ones who generally practice politics from the pulpit?

Anyway, the point is those old democrats aren't the same people as today's democrats.

The voice of ignorance speaks loudly yet again.

Heck, most of them are old or dead, but demographically, those people are voting republican now. I don't think it's fair to blame someone for their father's sins, but I think there is a little residual racial animosity out there. I've heard differing accounts of how much.

All the old racists are Democrats. Only one of them can even be remotely labeled conservative, and that was Zell Miller.

That's the one real law I can think of that actually treats people of different race differently. Is that enough to say the Dems are the party of racists? i don't think so. I know you think a lot of other positions are racist too, but i can't give you those.

Well, I can quote chapter & verse examples of ongoing Democrat racism, but there's not enough room in the thread. The link isn't handy, but one of my favorite recent examples was when some stupid mainstream Left media twat claimed that ethnicity was a social construct - that "feeling" black is as valid as "being" black.

It's not fair to say that welfare is racist because black people get trapped. I'm not sure I can agree with that.

It is fair, however, to say that welfare is racist because it was INTENDED to trap black people. Since it was, welfare IS racist.

Those people would not be better off without it. It's also annoying because we don't distribute welfare based on race, but on income.

False again - and I even have a fitting personal anecdote. My wife applied for welfare once, and not only was denied but got the stink-eye from the welfare queens plus the bureaucrats running the office.

I just don't buy it.

Of course you don't; you're a good little commie and don't want to do anything that might interfere with the ongoing mind-wipe process. Go watch the Kardashians; maybe there's a 'wardrobe malfunction' scheduled tonight.

Really? That's surprising.

Not at all, for those of us who actually have open minds.

They hinted at something in your video (her *** friends), but I felt like I didn't get the whole story.

Here's a sampler. Of course, people such as yourself like to remain ignorant of the heavy loading Google and Yahoo! do against "right"-leaning sites; I had to wade through four pages of Leftist pus before I found that extremely mild and nondescript personal blog entry.

Would i like him because he's a leftist, an ardent atheist or because of my fondness for tabbouleh? (probably spelling that wrong)

An Atheist, of course, and of course you did, and I prefer hummus anyway.

i don't get what she's saying either. is it a valid defense or not? If they're possessed is the appropriate justice death to the person possessed? I feel like he was right.

She was actually demonstrating the inconsistency of Leftist thought; the motivation doesn't matter whether it's a "hate crime" or whether "the Devil made you do it". Motivation should not be admissible regarding culpability, and frequently not even regarding the sentencing phase. If you killed a home invader, you won't be found guilty of the same crime as popping a cap in a bodega clerk, but as far as Leftists are concerned the former deserves a death sentence and the latter deserves dismissal of all charges.

Spoiler

I could see how the lack of being able to make a cogent argument might appeal to you. Birds of a feather and whatnot.

I should have realized you couldn't grasp any comedy other than that issued to you by the State. Here, I'm sure you think Chris Rock is hilarious.

Allowed to be? You can have any stance you want. Free country.

More fool you. Why do you think I throw out that disclaimer every so often? I can be jailed, or at least fired, if I don't openly support it.

And as far as letting women in the military, they're already there. i think they should have to meet the same physical standards as men if they're going to go into combat, but I don't have a problem with them going into combat. I oppose a quota.

Too much foolish for one thread to contain.

In short, women have been 'in combat' often, there's already an extensive quota regimen that is publicly denied (including extensive first-hand evidence), women do not and will not meet the same standard, and enlisted women generally weasel out of their responsibility using sex as an excuse. This issue is being pushed almost exclusively by the Leftist "feminazis" who want to destroy our military effectiveness in the name of social experimentation. Unlike the false comparison they generally make with civil rights, minorities were in front line combat for decades prior to changes in the U.S. Army's official position. OTOH, the foul N.O.W. types who are pushing this will ensure that it remains on an unequal footing, because if women become eligible for the draft then suddenly their gravy train screeches to a halt.

Did that "scandal" make it to the national media?

Barely, it was generally suppressed.

That link is forever thinking.

Try this one.

There were Republicans on my ballot this past November.

Dogcatchers don't count.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***********************

Something tells me the experiments in anarchy you mention aren't really examples of anarchy at all. Of course, if a switch was flicked tomorrow, it wouldn't work because there is nowhere near enough critical mass, and there never was. How can "safety in numbers" be disproved repeatedly if there were never high numbers, ever?

Not sure where you're going on that - I THINK you're pointing out that true anarchist groups, like most diseased bodies, can't survive in sunlight and open air.

[KrimLjubljana]

TL;DRBe short and to the point, without all those quotes, and I may read what you have to say. Right now it's a mess, and not worth anyone's time to be frank.

[jmervyn]

TL;DRBe short and to the point, without all those quotes, and I may read what you have to say. Right now it's a mess, and not worth anyone's time to be frank.

I'm sorry, did you think I was doing anything other than dismissing you as not being worth <MY> while?

[SaroDarksbane]

Here's why - a true anarchist believes one of two things, which I think are mutually exclusive. First, that a total lack of civil order and the enforcement of same is a good thing. I'm assuming that's the group Saro belief falls under.

Anarchy is against rulers, not rules. Anarcho-capitalists (of which I consider myself) still believe in rules and the enforcement of same, we just don't believe that a monopoly on violence should be given to an elite group of corrupt and well-connected sociopaths. If you're up for some reading, I recommend Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" (or the dead tree version, if you're so inclined).

[krischan]

Anarchy is against rulers, not rules.

Anarchy is against rules as well. It's more about acting out of a common conviction of a certain kind without the needs of rules. Rules are what's made by rulers, the term itself says it.

we just don't believe that a monopoly on violence should be given to an elite group of corrupt and well-connected sociopaths. If you're up for some reading, I recommend Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" (or the dead tree version, if you're so inclined).

I won't read these books, but which mechanisms are meant to assign leadership to certain people? I'm pretty sure that any working mechanism supports sociopaths to a greater extent than "good guys". Anarchy is a nice idea, but it will never happen, except humans evolve into something else then they are today and I'm not sure if that's desirable. The interesting thing about all the theories of anarchy and similar societies is how to achieve that evolution. How is it meant to be achieved in those books?