birthday pony wrote:Everyone take note of this. I disagree and am therefore a liar, or at best a confused individual.
Strawman. I never said that. You just mis-interpreted. I never suggested that you were a liar, I said certain positions are lie-based. I never said disagreement makes someone a liar. You just cannot see the difference. But to disagree with simple Truth is always because of muddled thinking and/or desire to embrace comforting lies.
*******************************************************************************************************
Travis Truman :There are other elements at play, but none so much as the emotional needs of the protesters. Leftist types, for example, feel a need to be a part of something. But you can protest without violence and vandalism. That element does NOT come from any intellectual or reasoning.
You can protest without marching. You can protest without being outside. There are many different forms of protest. Does any variation come from the psychological needs of the protesters? No. People make conscious decisions about how they want to protest, including whether or not they'll vandalize things.
No. Your analogy is faulty. Vandalism is a separate act. These examples you give are not additional acts but the manner they are carried out. They are to do with how and where the single act of protest itself takes place, such as inside or outside.
Another example of a separate act is that of eating. You can eat and protest, but eating is NOT a form of protest. You can protest hungry inside or out. You can protest and eat inside or out.
There is no objective reason for any of the individuals involved to want to smash the windows of a franchise restruant or coffee shop. It is not going to make any difference to their cause. The owners of the restraunt are not going to launch a super-hero personal crusade or suddenly like your group because you break their windows.
I am not suggesting that many individuals dont really believe in what they are protesting in. I am not suggesting that they may wrongly see McDonalds as a target. But they personally are not involved in these matters. It does not directly effect them in any significant way.
Sometimes protesters are enraged over the issue itself. A protester might feel frustrated at his life, and deep down nearly all such leftist types just simply feel like they are "losers". They can never admit this to themselves, and their fragile egos though. However, the act of vandalizing a restraunt is not a logical and intellectual one. Its driven by emotional and psychological factors.
Of course, there are other reasons why anyone might protest at G20. But in general, they are enraged and self-deluding individuals.
****************************************************************************************************
No, you are wrong. Its because of psychological and emotional issues. Let Me explain.
These particular types of vandal are using the G20 protest as a psychological smoke-screen to deceive themselves about their True motivations. They dont want to think of themselves as violent vandals with deep-seated issues, so they simply deny this Truth and substitute their real and personal motivations with artificial group motivations.
They target McDonalds and like because it allows them to consciously delude themselves about their True Reality state. Targeting a struggling business would make the illusion slip for them.
This is proven because there can be protest without such destruction. You are not dissecting and analyzing the situation correctly.
Welcome to Tautology Club, where protesters vandalize out of their psychological motivations because they're psychologically motivated to vandalize.
Pathetic. I never introduced tautology, you did.
Like I said above, there can be protesting without marching. Does this mean protesters are psychologically motivated to march?
That is irrelevant. I never claimed anything about marching. I explain above why your counter-analogy is faulty. Read it. Or just continue on your pathetic path.
***************************************************************************
I dont waste time trying to change My posts to appeal to people's sensitivities. You get what you get from Me, the Truth. No bull, no compromises.
You : I don't want you to change your posts. I want you to leave. I'm not offended by your posts or what you think. I just think it is useless.
You are doing it again. Its not because of it being "useless" or you would joined a different thread. The fact that you want Me to leave when you came to Me first, yet you claim that you are not offended proves that you really cannot handle My posts and they are accurate. And you do want Me to change the style of My posts, you have also made that clear.
****************************************************************************************
Travis :
You know you are wrong, dont you? You are already starting the personal attacks and defamations.
You : I am completely aware that I am personally attacking you. Notice that the whole part about you started with "as a side note" implying that it was separate from my analysis of your ideas.
I know, but the fact you felt the need to start the personal attacks at all when you simply disagree proves you cannot handle yourself. There is just no need for it.
*****************************************************************************************
Travis : Your attack is what is too vague. And to suggest I would name individuals is stupid when the website is about societies.
You : You substitute society when it is just a easy to name people.
There is no substitution. I don't name people because individuals are not societies nor are they societal policies or cultural dictates. It is not because of ease or difficulty. If you cannot understand that, you are severely retarded.
There is no conspiracies involved with Forbidden Truth. I told you that already, and I notice that you did not answer to that part of the post.
"Society does this," is far too vague. Who in society? All of society?
Society. Culture. Don't you even know what these things are? If I say "society frowns upon x" and you want Me to name people instead? I take it you are on drugs, probably wacky-tabaccy.
I don't do half the shit you claim society does on your website. Does this mean I'm not a member of society?
You are not mentioned personally on the website. No, you are certainly a created victim of your society.
You cannot even tell the difference between you and an entire system of society, culture and law.
What society are you talking about?
Any society, really. Mainly western societies, because I live in one. But it applies in general to all societies, even many primitive ones.
*******************************************************************************************
You hate Truth, I can see that.
No, I just hate you.
You hate Me because you hate Truth, and I represent Truth. Pathetic.