Burn After Reading

  1. xFamily
  2. » General
  3. » Burn After Reading

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 05:48 pm
Burn After Reading
Interesting: Burn After Reading vs. Burn After Reading.
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 08:43 am
The plot lines for both BARs seem a bit convoluted.

The Coen brothers' BAR is likely to be ironic & darkly humorous, whereas TFI's BAR (such as Liberty or Stumbling Block) is ironic, but only humorous in a sad, "geesh" kind of way. It is ironic that TFI currently uses Liberty or Stumbling Block to argue that they put an end to adult/child sex in 1986. However, LOSB's BAR status suggests that leadership saw that publication as an admission that pedophilia was taking place and condoned as a matter of practice.
 
Thorwald 1
 
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 07:12 pm
BE wrote:
It is ironic that TFI currently uses Liberty or Stumbling Block to argue that they put an end to adult/child sex in 1986.


They certainly did not put an end to adult/child sex in 1986. It was alive and well where I was until 1988 (for those considered adults at 12) and with teenagers until around 1991.
 
evanman
 
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 11:06 am
Berg would argue that as children were "willing" then it could not be "abuse!"

Reminds me of the Hadiths of Islam:

Quote:
"The Prophet said, 'A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.' 'O Apostle! How will the virgin express her consent.' He said, 'By remaining silent.'"
Bukhari:V9B86N98

Quote:
the Messenger married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine
Words of Aisha, Mohammed's child bride Tabari VII:7
 
Thorwald 1
 
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 10:12 pm
Nice find, evanman! I remember hearing about the child bride, I just never saw the actual "verse". The "by remaining silent" is way too creepy!!
 
winter 1
 
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 08:56 pm
That's some weird shiznit. Or something. I mean, woe. That is so primitive. For some reason I don't respect Islam quite as much as before. "Would you like some pizza?" "..." "I guess that means yes." These days doesn't that mean "no." It sort of like the way animals act. Maybe it's the future of mankind. After all isn't that what we are? Are we animals or humans? I guess some people believe in the baser instincts and it's desires. Yawn...
 
Thorwald 1
 
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 02:50 am
winter wrote:
Are we animals or humans?


Uh. Humans are animals.
 
winter 1
 
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 07:25 am
Thorwald wrote:
winter wrote:
Are we animals or humans?


Uh. Humans are animals.


Even a child could answer that question. Let me ask another question then: If a dog kills another animal, will it get arrested? Should we overhaul the legal system to match scientific definition? Maybe I shouldn't ask animals...
 
Thorwald 1
 
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 08:07 pm
winter wrote:
Even a child could answer that question.

Then why did you ask it? Or, was it rhetorical?

winter wrote:
Let me ask another question then: If a dog kills another animal, will it get arrested? Should we overhaul the legal system to match scientific definition?

Huh? Dude. Lay off the ganja for a day or two.
 
winter 1
 
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 08:25 pm
Thorwald wrote:
winter wrote:
Even a child could answer that question.

Then why did you ask it? Or, was it rhetorical?

winter wrote:
Let me ask another question then: If a dog kills another animal, will it get arrested? Should we overhaul the legal system to match scientific definition?

Huh? Dude. Lay off the ganja for a day or two.


I'm serious. Isn't there a difference between the scientific and social meaning of "animal?" Perhaps the point I was trying to make wasn't so clear.

And BTW, yes that was rhetorical. That's why it's seems to me that you, Thorwald, like to participate in arguments - aside from assumptions and personal attacks, which are not really much of an issue.
 
Thorwald 1
 
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 08:28 pm
winter wrote:
That's why it's seems to me that you, Thorwald, like to participate in arguments aside from assumptions and personal attacks


Well, now. That is an assumption on your part, isn't it? No. I do not like arguments (intellectual debates are nice).

Where in my posts do you find "personal attacks"?
 
winter 1
 
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 09:17 pm
Thorwald wrote:

Well, now. That is an assumption on your part, isn't it? No. I do not like arguments (intellectual debates are nice).

Where in my posts do you find "personal attacks"?


First of all, I think I'll need to define personal attacks: bringing in topics or arguments that are about the person arguing rather than the subject being discussed. What do you think? Is that a good definition.

In any case, I think the search function is adequate.

I hope that an argument is alright with you:
To put forth reasons for or against; debate: “It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them” (Paul Craig Roberts).
To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
To give evidence of; indicate: “Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent” (Isaac Asimov).
To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price

I was really trying to say something other than "animal/human". That wasn't my point. I was poking fun at the arguments some people use to justify their actions. Maybe I shouldn't use rhetoric.
 
Thorwald 1
 
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 09:35 pm
winter wrote:
First of all, I think I'll need to define personal attacks: bringing in topics or arguments that are about the person arguing rather than the subject being discussed. What do you think? Is that a good definition.


Sure. Now I know how you define "personal attacks".

winter wrote:
I was really trying to say something other than "animal/human". That wasn't my point. I was poking fun at the arguments some people use to justify their actions. Maybe I shouldn't use rhetoric.


No. Go for it . . . use, nay, abuse rhetoric! I think you misunderstood me . . . I, too, was poking fun (and I think you will find that they were not argumentum ad hominem).
 
 

 
  1. xFamily
  2. » General
  3. » Burn After Reading
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 10:22:15