@Zaryi

Zaryi · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:56 pm

Yuratuhl wrote:

So on one end, scripted debates with a moderator. Gotcha.

...wait.

That would have made sense if it had only included the bit about dive bars. But you've been old enough to go to bars for what, 4 months?

The people I go to bars with get really rowdy

(cram 20 cooks into a dive bar from 11am - 6pm and interesting things happen)

Aestu · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:06 pm

Zaryi wrote:

I did Y&G for 3 years and debate/speech teams in my brief time at Uni, and I've also been to dive bars. Both ends of the spectrum are more enjoyable than forum debates.

"Entertaining Ourselves To Death"

That's a talking-heads debate. No one truly wins or loses. It's a waste of time, and it never transcends the status quo.

Arguing in writing has the inherent advantage of marginalizing semantics and babble by an inherently rational format. Arguments must be expressed in coherent terms and can be picked apart at the opposing party's leisure. This has a way of being inconvenient for those who try to make arguments that aren't rational or internally consistent.

Mns · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:10 pm

Aestu wrote:

That's a talking-heads debate. No one truly wins or loses. It's a waste of time, and it never transcends the status quo.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:25 pm

I almost started a bar-fight a few years ago with a large and very loud man who was pontificating about how G.W. Bush was the worst president ever, because when he stopped for a breath I blurted out, "That's funny, he looks like he'd be old enough to remember Jimmy Carter." They ended up tossing him out and giving me the stink-eye, but honestly, it was a public service because the bar was enjoyable after that.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:15 am

Jubbergun wrote:

I almost started a bar-fight a few years ago with a large and very loud man who was pontificating about how G.W. Bush was the worst president ever, because when he stopped for a breath I blurted out, "That's funny, he looks like he'd be old enough to remember Jimmy Carter." They ended up tossing him out and giving me the stink-eye, but honestly, it was a public service because the bar was enjoyable after that.

So your claim was that Carter was worse than Bush?

Tehra · **Posted:** Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:24 am

Aestu wrote:

So your claim was that Carter was worse than Bush?

Aestu wrote:

That's a talking-heads debate. No one truly wins or loses. It's a waste of time, and it never transcends the status quo.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:49 am

Good to see great minds think alike.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Necrachilles · **Posted:** Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:11 pm

Mns wrote:

I'm pretty sure a bar is the absolute worst place to have any argument with anyone. Every time someone talks politics while I'm drinking I just want to leave and go hang out with people who are fun.

Pretty much how I feel about FUBU sometimes.

Yuratuhl · **Posted:** Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:58 pm

I thought we had something Necra.

Usdk · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:02 am

I do post on here drunk too often.

Or not often enough.

Fantastique · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:22 am

This is the best place to argue politics, imo, as long as you go into it knowing that you WILL NOT change anyone's minds. It's nice to get the other side of the story in a relatively calm manner, as opposed to knocking heads with some crazed extremist in person.

Battletard · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:16 am

Fantastique wrote:

This is the best place to argue politics, imo, as long as you go into it knowing that you WILL NOT change anyone's minds. It's nice to get the other side of the story in a relatively calm manner, as opposed to knocking heads with some crazed extremist in person.

I like when people talk about fighting back if the government ever tries to take their guns. Like the kind that say the 2nd Amendment is for armed resistance in the event the government becomes irreversibly corrupt.

Let the armed resistance begin already, then. It's corrupt as fuck. And you and your guns can't do shit about it.

Weena · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:43 am

lol

The 2nd amendment was meant to ensure a militia could easily form should one need to form.

The ability to wage armed conflict with the government is a side effect. We aren't oppressed in a martial fashion though, so the guns are pretty useless.

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:00 am

Weena wrote:

The 2nd amendment was meant to ensure a militia could easily form should one need to form.

Quote:

...It has been called "the greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms."...Forces...consisted of...three companies of volunteer riflemen...and hastily-drafted amalgamations of companies, without uniforms...a "Dandy" regiment of uniformed volunteers.

Yuratuhl · **Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:09 am

Weena wrote:

lol

The 2nd amendment was meant to ensure a militia could easily form should one need to form.

The ability to wage armed conflict with the government is a side effect. We aren't oppressed in a martial fashion though, so the guns are pretty useless.

Supreme Court actually says you can ignore the militia part and own all the guns you want. Isn't that great?

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

@Zaryi

Who is online