9/11 - 10 Year Anniversary

[Concord]

0.) Morality stops at borders.

No. Why should it? It's natural and unavoidable that compassion dilutes with distance, but moral choices should not. There is no sensible justification for weighing benefits of people on the other end of the world any lower than your own morally. You can do so anyway, of course, but you can't claim it's right by any moral standard.

It's certainly not right, but it's true. We cannot expect states to simply be moral because it's the right thing to do.

1.) In the case of Iraq, the Americans of the time did not benefit from the war, but those of the future might well.

Please clarify the future benefits for Americans. Wealth? Cheaper oil? In that case, you're trading lives of Americans and foreigners alike for economic benefits, which is just wrong. Safety? There's no evidence for that, not a little bit. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not hoard weapons of mass destruction.

Again, never said it's right, but future Americans could benefit through the two ways you mention: wealth and oil, and greater presence in the region, which allows for greater safety. In Afghanistan, which sure did have to with 9/11, the US needed the support of neighbors Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in order to enter the country. The US at the time did not have pretty much any relationship with those countries at all. It's no guarantee they lend support for foreign troops to base out of their country; fortunately Putin spoke on the US's behalf and the US was able to get the support it needed. Having bases in Iraq gives the US much more security in the region.

2.) Environmental protections are essentially investing in the future at the cost of the present

True. In this case however, the present cost in industrialized countries is just a slightly lowered standard of living, and the future benefit is better health for everyone. That's different from taking lives now in the hope it will improve your own life in the future, I hope you see that.

Naturally.
I support environmental policy, but there's a serious marketing problem.

3.) It naturally is easier to do [vote with the future in mind] when one has a job, and a house, and some food, and whose children getting a real education.

What are you even trying to say with that?

That people tend prioritize their current interests ahead of the future. I was illustrating a challenge to gaining support for environmental policies.

4.) Men killing one another is the rule in our history not the exception.

As are slavery, child labor, no voting rights for women, heck, even no voting rights at all. No justification.

I don't understand the analogy. Unlike those things, murder has been illegal in most every civilization. Wars are not legal entities at all. What's your point?

5.) I also believe that the goal of a man or woman elected to some position of federal government in the United States of America is morally beholden to serve the interests of the citizens of the United States of America.

True. But, going back to 0), if you think your own personal interests should be served no matter the cost for the rest of the world, you are THAT American. The American those people who hate America think all Americans are like. The "We take it because we can" American. The Bully. It is your right to hold that opinion, but don't even try to pretend it's morally right.

Again, never claimed it was morally right. It's not morally right. It's a truth of the state system. Governors serve their electorate- actually, serving other electorates is good way to be called a traitor- if their electorate is smaller than the globe, their interest is to benefit one part of the globe, and, if their electorate allows them moral leeway, at the expense of another. There's a fairly obvious conclusion, a single global state, but I'm not so optimistic that I believe that is likely to come about any time soon.

[Word]

Note that many of the world's richest people feel endangered the whole time and isolate themselves for the rest of their lives. The same applies for certain countries.

[Phytotron]

As an end, try not to name me from now on, because you don't know me, so let me be as I left you alone since that sarcastic posts couple months ago.

Right back atcha, slick. As to the rest of your blubbering, you clearly have a reading comprehension problem, something you've demonstrated many times in the past, and that's after allowances for the language barrier.

If [someone] has an opinion on something you are no one to tell him he's wrong. You can disagree, but you can never claim he's wrong.

What's the point of a disagreement if not to contend another opinion is wrong? Isn't that the very definition of "disagree?" And what's the point of having an opinion if you don't think it's right, or more right, even provisionally, than others? You ninnies. More muddleheaded, postmodernist rubbish.


Anyway....

The next point I'm going to illustrate rather than explain—yet. What's your take on the structure of the following sentence, ItzAcid (et al)?

There's something similarly predatory in searching out these troubled people, these drunks and narcissists, these self-centered, superficial plastic surgery junkies, these screechers and whiners and perpetual adolescents with daddy, esteem or anger management issues, and paying them to let us watch as they implode.

So, no one's going to take that up, eh? Fine. That sentence was quoted from a column by Pulitzer Prize-winning, nationally syndicated columnist, journalist, and novelist Leonard Pitts. The point being that stringing together related words and descriptions (even negative, "pessimistic" ones ) in a sentence, separated by commas, is a common and effective device used by even the most serious and esteemed of writers—from columnists to nonfiction authors to novelists to poets. It's not some personal quirk unique to Phytotron. Those of you who have a problem with it may as well criticise the use of alliteration, analogy, metaphor, anaphora, imagery, onomatopoeia, bullet points, block quotation, footnotes, em-dashes, parentheticals, perhaps even paragraphs and basic punctuation (well, we see that's true of 2020, and Concord used to do that crap, too). That's how truly absurd and petty you guys and your complaints are.


Another point I wanted to make is this: When I read or listen to someone using a more advanced vocabulary—or, more broadly, writing better prose or being more articulate, or is more knowledgeable or informed, or has more education or expertise than I—you know how I respond? I enjoy it, respect it. I find it enriching, like great music or art, or whatever else. I admire it and try to learn from it and better myself. Or, as Christopher Hitchens put it, "the essential thing for being a writer is being a good reader. The main thing...is to keep testing yourself against other writers who are better than you. That's what qualifies one as a writer...is permanently running the risk of saying 'I don't know why I bother,'" yet to take that as motivation to be better, to strive for that excellence. Even if you don't attain it, you improve yourself (and usually those around you) on the way. And that's true of any endeavor, or even everyday activity. That's not elitism or arrogance, quite the opposite.

Now, what I don't do is get all reactionary and think, "they're just using those words to be pretentious and elitist...she thinks she's better than me...he's trying to make a fool of me," culminating in petty, resentful spite. That's not only self-destructive, it's socially regressive.

Let me ask you something. Do you kids truly believe that people who exhibit mastery in something (not even necessarily mastery, but are just better at it than you)—be it in writing, musical composition or performance, painting or any of the other arts, in mathematics, engineering, or architecture, or anything else—are such because they're motivated by a sense of arrogance and elitism? That they only do it to be better than others, to show you up?

Now let me tell you something. That's not populism; it's not egalitarianism. It's certainly not rebellion or righteousness. That, in fact, is not only a recognition of, but an acquiescence to the elitism and statism of which you claim to disapprove. You actively buttress its foundation with your anti-intellectualism, your vulgarity (in the classic meaning of the word). To reject even an attempt at excellence in yourself and your fellows, bring the masses down to a lowest common denominator, wallow proudly in your own mediocrity (or worse).

Enter the Tea Party (who are led by, and would only strengthen the power of, the elite).

[Concord]

your vulgarity (in the classic meaning of the word)

This is a perfect example of vocabulary weakening writing. Phytotron uses a word which popularly has a meaning other than the meaning he intends. He assumes that his audience will misunderstand what he meant, and it's a good assumption in this case. He then needs to explain his word usage in a parenthetical unrelated to his argument.

Furthermore, in adding the explanation, he disproves his own position:

to expect more of people

Anyway, I'm still awaiting an explanation for why you think the following points are wrong.

1.) In the case of Iraq, the Americans of the time did not benefit from the war, but those of the future might well.
2.) Environmental protections are essentially investing in the future at the cost of the present
3.) It naturally is easier to do [vote with the future in mind] when one has a job, and a house, and some food, and whose children getting a real education.
4.) Men killing one another is the rule in our history not the exception.
5.) I also believe that the goal of a man or woman elected to some position of federal government in the United States of America is morally beholden to serve the interests of the citizens of the United States of America.

[ItzAcid]

Anyway....

The next point I'm going to illustrate rather than explain—yet. What's your take on the structure of the following sentence, ItzAcid (et al)?

There's something similarly predatory in searching out these troubled people, these drunks and narcissists, these self-centered, superficial plastic surgery junkies, these screechers and whiners and perpetual adolescents with daddy, esteem or anger management issues, and paying them to let us watch as they implode.

So, no one's going to take that up, eh? Fine. That sentence was quoted from a column by Pulitzer Prize-winning, nationally syndicated columnist, journalist, and novelist Leonard Pitts. The point being that stringing together related words and descriptions (even negative, "pessimistic" ones ) in a sentence, separated by commas, is a common and effective device used by even the most serious and esteemed of writers—from columnists to nonfiction authors to novelists to poets.

Another point I wanted to make is this: When I read or listen to someone using a more advanced vocabulary—or, more broadly, writing better prose or being more articulate, or is more knowledgeable or informed, or has more education or expertise than I—you know how I respond?
Let me ask you something. Do you kids truly believe that people who exhibit mastery in something (not even necessarily mastery, but are just better at it than you)—be it in writing, musical composition or performance, painting or any of the other arts, in mathematics, engineering, or architecture, or anything else—are such because they're motivated by a sense of arrogance and elitism? That they only do it to be better than others, to show you up?

I said I wouldn't reply to any more topics here, but I lied . Things don't seem too harsh. It's like I said, Phytotron. I would, and still do on some things, enjoy listening to what you have to say. A lot of your information is very enlightening, but it's just the way you present it in certain situations. It's not necessarily the pessism, which I said earlier, but it is the belittling of others that bothers me. Intentional or not, it comes off that way sometimes. I feel like some people are afraid to post now at the risk of being criticized, which is very different from enlightening. Also, the primary reason I say that it seems "bombastic" when you string the vocabulary together is because of the audience you're directing it too. You're vocabulary and sentence composition is very scholarly, easily at the level of most English majors and doctorates. I'm not saying this isn't an intellectual community, we have many very smart people , but compared to how others talk in posts, that's just how it comes off to me. Were it an online community focusing on literary analysis or some other related topic, even scientific information, I might feel different. I might be wrong anyways, but this is just how I feel. This again is my opinion which might result in a debate, which is okay, as long as we keep it on good terms. I would never criticise the use of literary "strategies" either. I'm a big fan of literature, grammar, and basic composition. Like i've said, it'd be good if the delivery was a little more delicate



edit: Scaled down on some of the quotes, didn't want to make a massive page.

[Word]

Acid, I recommend you go back to our replies to your last post and read those first.

[Z-Man]

0.) Morality stops at borders.

No. Why should it? It's natural and unavoidable that compassion dilutes with distance, but moral choices should not. There is no sensible justification for weighing benefits of people on the other end of the world any lower than your own morally. You can do so anyway, of course, but you can't claim it's right by any moral standard.

It's certainly not right, but it's true. We cannot expect states to simply be moral because it's the right thing to do.

Then what are you saying? Your post was an explicit answer to the question of what you think, what you believe. Are you just saying 'shit happens'? Or 'shit happens, but at least I have chicken?', or '1=1'? In addition to "I say exactly what I mean, nothing more", do we have to take "Sometimes what I say is not what I mean at all, and not just when I'm joking/being sarcastic" into account?

Having bases in Iraq gives the US much more security in the region.

Locally and short tern, yes. But long term and for all US citizens? Doubt it, considering the West's meddling in the region is one of the reasons international Islamic terrorism exists in the first place. And at best, it's solving a problem you wouldn't have without those bases.

4.) Men killing one another is the rule in our history not the exception.

As are slavery, child labor, no voting rights for women, heck, even no voting rights at all. No justification.

I don't understand the analogy. Unlike those things, murder has been illegal in most every civilization. Wars are not legal entities at all. What's your point?

Why does it matter whether something is governed by laws? I thought you were talking about ethics, and specifically ethics of war. I thought you were trying to justify it by saying 'it's been that way all along, why change?', which is BS. But is your statement just 'shit happens' again? If so, well, you're right, but again, what are you trying to say?

5.) I also believe that the goal of a man or woman elected to some position of federal government in the United States of America is morally beholden to serve the interests of the citizens of the United States of America.

True. But, going back to 0), if you think your own personal interests should be served no matter the cost for the rest of the world, you are THAT American. The American those people who hate America think all Americans are like. The "We take it because we can" American. The Bully. It is your right to hold that opinion, but don't even try to pretend it's morally right.

Again, never claimed it was morally right. It's not morally right. It's a truth of the state system. Governors serve their electorate- actually, serving other electorates is good way to be called a traitor- if their electorate is smaller than the globe, their interest is to benefit one part of the globe, and, if their electorate allows them moral leeway, at the expense of another. There's a fairly obvious conclusion, a single global state, but I'm not so optimistic that I believe that is likely to come about any time soon.

Oh no, you're not getting out of this one. It's the inverse of the "I was just following orders" justification for war crimes. Yes, it is the duty of the elected to serve the interest of the people who elected them, the people of his county. But that includes following the moral codex they subscribe to. You can't shift the responsibility away from humans into the system and make it vanish in a puff of smoke. If a state is doing amoral things, either the governor is responsible for not following the electorate's wish to respect their moral codex, or the electorate is responsible for explicitly demanding their moral codex does not apply when foreigners or minorities are harmed. By accepting your government's actions with an argument like that, you make them your own, and that even applies if you did not vote for them. And no, you can't blame your "One party system with two right wings" either to get out of responsibility as a voter. If all the established parties violate your moral code to such an extent that you can't support them, it's your duty to vote for a non-established party that doesn't, even if that won't result in any practical change. And if none exist, consider founding one.

[Word]

somewhat related:
Jonathan Hobin - In The Playroom

[Concord]

Then what are you saying? Your post was an explicit answer to the question of what you think, what you believe. Are you just saying 'shit happens'? Or 'shit happens, but at least I have chicken?', or '1=1'? In addition to "I say exactly what I mean, nothing more", do we have to take "Sometimes what I say is not what I mean at all, and not just when I'm joking/being sarcastic" into account?

I'm saying what I said; that we cannot expect states to simply be moral because it's the right thing to do. We need international laws enforced by international government, or better yet, global laws enforced by a global federal government.

Having bases in Iraq gives the US much more security in the region.

Locally and short tern, yes. But long term and for all US citizens? Doubt it, considering the West's meddling in the region is one of the reasons international Islamic terrorism exists in the first place. And at best, it's solving a problem you wouldn't have without those bases.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The information we need to judge that is probably above our security clearance.

again, what are you trying to say?

I was saying that, "Men killing one another is the rule in our history not the exception."

Oh no, you're not getting out of this one. It's the inverse of the "I was just following orders" justification for war crimes. Yes, it is the duty of the elected to serve the interest of the people who elected them, the people of his county. But that includes following the moral codex they subscribe to. You can't shift the responsibility away from humans into the system and make it vanish in a puff of smoke. If a state is doing amoral things, either the governor is responsible for not following the electorate's wish to respect their moral codex, or the electorate is responsible for explicitly demanding their moral codex does not apply when foreigners or minorities are harmed. By accepting your government's actions with an argument like that, you make them your own, and that even applies if you did not vote for them. And no, you can't blame your "One party system with two right wings" either to get out of responsibility as a voter.

It includes the moral code they hold him to. It's generally lower in the US than it is in Europe, mostly because the population is much more diverse and has a wider variety of moral codes, making it easier for a governor to find some majority that will let his foreign policy slide.

If all the established parties violate your moral code to such an extent that you can't support them, it's your duty to vote for a non-established party that doesn't, even if that won't result in any practical change.

This is unethical. In America, only two parties can win a presidential election. If one believes that both candidates will or both parties do violate one's moral code to such an extent that one cannot support either, one's duty is to vote for what one judges to be the lesser evil, and thus improving the moral quality of the government.

To clarify, I find both of the parties morally suitable, but vote for one of their candidates only when I prefer him over everyone else in the field, including those without a chance of winning.

Another clarification, most people disliked the decision to go to war in Iraq. Not all those people thought it was immoral.

[Z-Man]

Then what are you saying? Your post was an explicit answer to the question of what you think, what you believe. Are you just saying 'shit happens'? Or 'shit happens, but at least I have chicken?', or '1=1'? In addition to "I say exactly what I mean, nothing more", do we have to take "Sometimes what I say is not what I mean at all, and not just when I'm joking/being sarcastic" into account?

I'm saying what I said; that we cannot expect states to simply be moral because it's the right thing to do. We need international laws enforced by international government, or better yet, global laws enforced by a global federal government.

I disagree. We can sure expect states to act according to basic moral principles on their own even without fully functional international law (we do have some, you surely realize, it's just not worth much if it's getting ignored), just like we can expect humans to act morally without fear of punishment. Not to mention that global law enforcement comes with its own set of moral dilemmas, like whether it is right to punish the population of a state for the transgressions of its leaders.

again, what are you trying to say?

I was saying that, "Men killing one another is the rule in our history not the exception."

So "1=1". Near tautology. You were saying this in a challenge, awaiting a response. What kind of response were you expecting then? "Well spotted, here's a cookie"?

It includes the moral code they hold him to. It's generally lower in the US than it is in Europe, mostly because the population is much more diverse and has a wider variety of moral codes, making it easier for a governor to find some majority that will let his foreign policy slide.

The spread of moral code is probably narrower than you think. Why else would your leaders back then, umm, let's say easily swayed by flimsy evidence Iraq was posing a real threat?

If all the established parties violate your moral code to such an extent that you can't support them, it's your duty to vote for a non-established party that doesn't, even if that won't result in any practical change.

This is unethical. In America, only two parties can win a presidential election. If one believes that both candidates will or both parties do violate one's moral code to such an extent that one cannot support either, one's duty is to vote for what one judges to be the lesser evil, and thus improving the moral quality of the government.

I can understand that. Basic Utilitarianism. But thinking only in the short term and without taking the actions of others into account. If the two parties hypothetically would degrade further and further, you'd continue voting for them anyway, whereas if you voted third party early, more and more people would follow as the two main parties slip off their tolerance zone, and they'd win eventually (or the two main parties would feel the thread and get sensible again). Potential short term disadvantage (potential only since the party you despise less may win anyway), long term gain. I see where you're coming from, but I would act differently.

[Concord]

We can sure expect states to act according to basic moral principles on their own even without fully functional international law (we do have some, you surely realize, it's just not worth much if it's getting ignored), just like we can expect humans to act morally without fear of punishment.

Certainly, but we should not rely on it. A system that does is bound to fail. Power tends to corrupt. Men win elections, not angels.

So "1=1". Near tautology. You were saying this in a challenge, awaiting a response. What kind of response were you expecting then? "Well spotted, here's a cookie"?

Here's the original context:

It's a valid method of normalizing 9/11. Men killing one another is the rule in our history not the exception.

It wasn't said as a challenge, rather as support for a point. The second time I reprinted it was in response to Phytotron's statement that I was wrong on every point in the post that originally included this. It was re-posted as a challenge to Phytotron to dispute. Anyone who has read the thread, knows he has not yet explained why I was wrong on any of those points, including this.
It's not quite 1=1; calling it 1=1 is equating killing and human history. History is a lot more than killing. If I were to mathematically express that sentence, it would be some like, x=2+|y|, when x>1. Or something.

The spread of moral code is probably narrower than you think. Why else would your leaders back then, umm, let's say easily swayed by flimsy evidence Iraq was posing a real threat?

I don't catch your meaning. I'd prefer if you clarify, re-wording might be all that's needed, rather than I respond to assumed meaning.

I can understand that. Basic Utilitarianism. But thinking only in the short term and without taking the actions of others into account. If the two parties hypothetically would degrade further and further, you'd continue voting for them anyway, whereas if you voted third party early, more and more people would follow as the two main parties slip off their tolerance zone, and they'd win eventually (or the two main parties would feel the thread and get sensible again). Potential short term disadvantage (potential only since the party you despise less may win anyway), long term gain. I see where you're coming from, but I would act differently.

Valid, though this an impossible scenario unless the voter has obscure morals. In single member district pluralities, candidates present platforms that tend towards the median voter, strategically aligning themselves to garner as many votes as possible. Therefore, if a voter feels the two major parties are not only wrong but immoral, that voter is on the fringe, not the parties. The parties are almost always at the median, or at least pretend to be.

[Z-Man]

It's a valid method of normalizing 9/11. Men killing one another is the rule in our history not the exception.

Ah, I missed that. I still don't see how the second sentence has anything to do with the first, though; I don't see how general frequency of happening makes it a valid measurement tool. I say it can be used, but one has to be extremely careful; one should not make a ranking list of tragedies based off it, or in fact a ranking list of tragedies at all. One should not dismiss one tragedy because some other tragedy had a higher death toll, which is how it was used in this thread. Merely counting them is disrespectful and beside the point. (Not to mention it's comparing apples and oranges, the civilians killed on 9/11 were the explicit targets, those in Afghanistan and Iraq were not. Yes, yes, many of them were killed by smart bombs which, despite being smart and hitting their intended military target precisely most of the time, are still bombs, but that's still different.) Going into Iraq was not wrong because the civilian death toll of that operation exceeds that of 9/11.

The spread of moral code is probably narrower than you think. Why else would your leaders back then, umm, let's say easily swayed by flimsy evidence Iraq was posing a real threat?

I don't catch your meaning. I'd prefer if you clarify, re-wording might be all that's needed, rather than I respond to assumed meaning.

Ok, less diplomatic: I'm saying that the moral code is uniform enough that your leaders knew they had to make up false reasons (WMDs, ties to Al Qaeda) for Iraq's invasion to gain popular support. Support would have been even lower had they stuck to the true reasons; "There's Oil there", "We want more presence and control in the area" and "We don't want all this expensive military hardware and training for our troops to go to waste". (And yeah, I give you that Afghanistan was a bit different; still a disaster, mind you.)

[Concord]

oh I see what you mean. It's not so clear that the person making the decision was given all the facts, at least that's what he claims.

[Phytotron]

You're [sic] vocabulary and sentence composition is very scholarly, easily at the level of most English majors and doctorates.

Not even close. That was the main point. It's like saying Algebra I is advanced mathematics, or Led Zeppelin represents advanced musical composition. Again, that you think it is says more about you.

And you need to get the hell over it. I will not dumb it down any further than I already do, or be a phony, just for you or your notion of conformity. A high schooler, probably even an Advanced Program middle schooler (ever heard of Word Clues?), should be able to follow me just fine, even if you have to look up a word now and then. Take that as an opportunity to learn a new word and absorb it into your own vocabulary, rather than an excuse to be all insecure, resentful, spiteful, and complaining.

And why am I defending myself for using normal words in a proper manner, anyway? You kids have never felt any need to apologise for the way you "speak," yours surely being the more abusive and abnormal; in fact, you're usually rather insolent about it. Yet, whenever I make a comment or criticism of the caveman-like grunts and other nearly incomprehensible junk that gets spewed all over this forum, including all your webkid slang, and chat and texting abbreviations and whatnot (omg @itzacid teh lulz)—or just by my very manner of speaking itself—I'm a mean, old, arrogant bad guy. But you lot are free to complain about me, and often quite snottily. Yah, ok.

Same principle seems to apply to the matter of the content of what's said (e.g., statement of opinion). It seems you guys can dish it out but you can't take it. I say that makes you a bunch of self-centered, hypocritical, unreasoned, illiterate, witless, lifeless, insipid, crude, petty, trite, selectively pollyannaish, snotty, spoiled brats. How's that for a string of non-synonymous adjectives?

*****

If one believes that both candidates will or both parties do violate one's moral code to such an extent that one cannot support either, one's duty is to vote for what one judges to be the lesser evil, and thus improving the moral quality of the government.

Choosing the lesser of two evils still leaves one with evil. And then the lesser of that evil, and so on, indefinitely. Kinda like the "eye for an eye leaves us all blind" adage. And this is exactly what we've seen as both major parties haven't found some happy, compromising, median "center," but have degraded further to the right, the debased, the corrupt, and the stupid. The LCD.

...whereas if you voted third party early, more and more people would follow as the two main parties slip off their tolerance zone, and they'd win eventually (or the two main parties would feel the thread and get sensible again).

Indeed, and this is not just theoretical. This rather accurately describes the empirical history of US politics and political parties. I won't give a full, thorough history here; I'll leave Concord to do his own research. But, a few broad points:

• Originally, the "founders" largely discouraged the creation of political parties, out of concern for social factionalism and political stagnation. Go figure. George Washington didn't belong to any party (and didn't want his face on money, either).
• The emergence of the Democrats and Republicans as the two main players on the national level was preceded by the Federalist and Democratic-Republican Parties.
• Those two were then succeeded by the Whig and Democratic Parties as the dominant national parties.
• The Whigs were supplanted by an upstart third party in 1854: The Republicans.
• Teddy Roosevelt found place in the Republican party, then later the Bull-Moose/Progressive party.
• Several third parties have been elected to office at not only the state and local level (where it has been very prevalent), but on the national level as well.
• Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have gone through several ideological permutations over the years. Why? In large part because...

Numerous third parties of all sorts have not only existed, but thrived and carried strong influence in US history. Even where they haven't won elected office (though, again, they have won many—hundreds on the national level, thousands on the state and local—at times controlling entire regions), they have served to push the major parties in significant manner. Indeed, most of the major ideas of each of the major parties have originated with smaller third parties, to be later co-opted by the major parties—along with oftentimes absorbing membership and votes from those third-party supporters, if the major party sufficiently appeals to their platform. Just look at the platform of the Progressive Party, and how much to which they are owed.

This phenomenon, the existence and influence of third parties, is the norm in US social and political history, not the obscure fringe. They were especially vibrant around the turn and early part of the 20th century. It is only in the last few decades that the Democrats and Republicans have so heavily rigged the system to consolidate money and power and erect unreasonable and sometimes insurmountable obstacles to third parties. (It's not only the similarity in ideas and practice between the Republicans and Democrats, but this duopoly that produces the description of "a one-party system masquerading as a two-party system").

Nevertheless, third parties still have managed to exert influence over candidates and elections. A couple prominent examples: On the national level, Ross Perot and the Reform Party not only influenced the outcome of two Presidential elections, but the Republicans ended up adopting several of their ideas (for awhile, anyway). (Unfortunately, Nader and the Green Party failed to produce the same influence over the spiteful, short-sighted, deaf, money/power-hungry, spineless Democrats.) Even more recently, just look at the damnable Tea Party—albeit, not an official, independent party, more of a wing of the GOP, but has operated in a similar fashion as third parties—and how it has flung the GOP so dramatically over just a couple years, to where the Republicans won't even accept policies they themselves were proposing just a few years ago.

Not only is it ethical to support third parties, it is necessary for a viable democracy.

[Mecca]

You're [sic] vocabulary and sentence composition is very scholarly, easily at the level of most English majors and doctorates.

Not even close. That was the main point. It's like saying Algebra I is advanced mathematics, or Led Zeppelin represents advanced musical composition. Again, that you think it is says more about you.

And you need to get the hell over it. I will not dumb it down any further than I already do, or be a phony, just for you or your notion of conformity. A high schooler, probably even an Advanced Program middle schooler (ever heard of Word Clues?), should be able to follow me just fine, even if you have to look up a word now and then. Take that as an opportunity to learn a new word and absorb it into your own vocabulary, rather than an excuse to be all insecure, resentful, spiteful, and complaining.

And why am I defending myself for using normal words in a proper manner, anyway? You kids have never felt any need to apologise for the way you "speak," yours surely being the more abusive and abnormal; in fact, you're usually rather insolent about it. Yet, whenever I make a comment or criticism of the caveman-like grunts and other nearly incomprehensible junk that gets spewed all over this forum, including all your webkid slang, and chat and texting abbreviations and whatnot (omg @itzacid teh lulz)—or just by my very manner of speaking itself—I'm a mean, old, arrogant bad guy. But you lot are free to complain about me, and often quite snottily. Yah, ok.

Same principle seems to apply to the matter of the content of what's said (e.g., statement of opinion). It seems you guys can dish it out but you can't take it. I say that makes you a bunch of self-centered, hypocritical, unreasoned, illiterate, witless, lifeless, insipid, crude, petty, trite, selectively pollyannaish, snotty, spoiled brats. How's that for a string of non-synonymous adjectives?

You really think your vocabulary isn't above the average? LOL! Of course people can follow your posts just fine, they are nearly all along the lines of:

"I hate fortress and nobody should ever play it ever because I do not like it. Your vocabulary is not as colorful as mine, so that means you're a stupid kid and I'm smarter than you because you're a kid. Pot, kettle, grandiose ideas."

@the bold: Female dog, please, we both know this is not true. I have tried to prove this to you multiple times, but you pussy cat out and refuse to show your pixels on teamspeak.

On a serious note: Want to avoid these kinds of issues altogether? Stop posting with such a negative connotation! It's clear that you make well thought out posts and actually do try to contribute to this community, but when you're posts always seem like you're talking down to people, they're not going to like it, durp! If you weren't such a negative Nancy, people would not complain about your vocabulary...

Why do you think nobody complains about the amount of exclamation marks chrisd uses? BECAUSE HE IS FOOPIN' AWESOME!