NationStates Jolt Archive


How wrong are you?

Neo Kervoskia
11-05-2008, 03:12
How wrong are you?

You debate, you argue, but how wrong are you?
Demented Hamsters
11-05-2008, 03:13
As wrong as something that is as wrong as you can get. Possibly even wrong-er than that
[NS]Click Stand
11-05-2008, 03:14
The last time I was wrong was around '96. Damn Punic Wars, I just assumed Hannibal was in the third one.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
11-05-2008, 03:16
How wrong are you?

You debate, you argue, but how wrong are you?

Cheesy, but sometimes Wrong is my middle name.
Ashmoria
11-05-2008, 03:25
seldom, very seldom.
New Limacon
11-05-2008, 03:26
I've been wrong only once. Right now.
Heikoku 2
11-05-2008, 03:28
Never. At least regarding politics. See my sig.
Ordo Drakul
11-05-2008, 03:29
Having been married twice, and now living in the Glorious People's Republic of Colorado, I've been informed I am very, very wrong, but it's never gone beyond that-facts back me up, but I'm still wrong.
Wilgrove
11-05-2008, 03:30
I am very wrong *twitch* hehe.
Kamsaki-Myu
11-05-2008, 03:31
I am perpetually wrong.

Yeah, work that one out, biatch.
Conserative Morality
11-05-2008, 03:46
I love being wrong. It's fun. Until you get caught, like that time in the White House. :D
Pirated Corsairs
11-05-2008, 03:46
I define correctness as agreement with me, rather than with reality.

Ergo, I am never wrong. Sometimes reality is, though. :D
CannibalChrist
11-05-2008, 03:48
I can't be wrong, its a fundimental law of the universe
Shotagon
11-05-2008, 03:48
I've been completely wrong before, so wrong that I've had to basically rewrite my justifications for everything I've ever thought. And no, it wasn't religion I was wrong about.
Janillmari
11-05-2008, 03:49
Wrong can be very right some times.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
11-05-2008, 03:55
Wrong can be very right some times.

Or vice versa. *nod* :)
Janillmari
11-05-2008, 04:04
Or vice versa. *nod* :)

oh so true..
Nobel Hobos
11-05-2008, 04:14
I am so wrong that I can't even prove it.
Janillmari
11-05-2008, 04:18
I am so wrong that I can't even prove it.

please try ... lol;)
Andaras
11-05-2008, 04:21
Hmm, last thread I posted was my essay on the Labor Theory of Value, and the usual bourgeois crowd avoided it like the plague and didn't post at all.

Yes I am correct, and that's why the bourgeois apologists avoid my arguments.
Angry Fruit Salad
11-05-2008, 04:21
That first post was a synesthetic NIGHTMARE..
Vojvodina-Nihon
11-05-2008, 04:23
This statement is wrong.
Copiosa Scotia
11-05-2008, 04:27
Wait, I'm wrong? This changes everything!
Ryadn
11-05-2008, 04:27
Hmm, last thread I posted was my essay on the Labor Theory of Value, and the usual bourgeois crowd avoided it like the plague and didn't post at all.

Yes I am correct, and that's why the bourgeois apologists avoid my arguments.

So... does that mean I'm right whenever you won't answer my questions? Sweet. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, now I will bask in my victories.

ps. We didn't avoid it. We fell asleep.
Janillmari
11-05-2008, 04:28
This statement is wrong.

As are a lot of other things... lol like your face.. haha jk
Janillmari
11-05-2008, 04:29
ps. We didn't avoid it. We fell asleep.

very funny...:p
Marrakech II
11-05-2008, 04:30
Yes I am correct, and that's why the bourgeois apologists avoid my arguments.


That is so wrong. :p
Marrakech II
11-05-2008, 04:32
As are a lot of other things... lol like your face.. haha jk

It is wrong to make fun of people with disfigurements.
Janillmari
11-05-2008, 04:38
It is wrong to make fun of people with disfigurements.

ok well sorry if i offended anyone, not my fault they had problems
Nobel Hobos
11-05-2008, 05:55
I am so wrong that I can't even prove it.

please try ... lol;)


If I try to prove that I am wrong, and succeed, then I won't be wrong any more. This would violate the first precept, that I be wrong.


.If I try to prove that I am wrong, and fail, it remains possible that I am correct. Yet, correct reasoning should prove what is true: that I am wrong.

Therefore, in the second case, if I fail to prove myself wrong I cannot be correct and must be wrong. I fail to prove, but also prove, which is a contradiction.

Neither case holds. I refine my statement somewhat: I am wrong, so I can't prove it.
Jhahannam
11-05-2008, 06:04
So, me and Hobos were in Tijuana, and we found this little placed called "Purple Rain" where the dusky lurid chicas will bring you to the apogee of turgidity before leaving you moist and spent, and right before I went up with mine, he was at the bar and said "Will the car be okay? and I said "Sure, why not?" and he said "Well, this is Mexico..." and I said "Don't be racist" and he said "We didn't get insurance for down here" and I said "It'll be fine" and he said "I haven't paid it off yet" and I said "You worry excessively..."

Well, I was wrong.
Nerotika
11-05-2008, 06:28
Wrong is a state of mind, you just have to believe enough to make it right ;).

That's why i'm always right...
Nobel Hobos
11-05-2008, 08:06
So, me and Hobos were in Tijuana, and we found this little placed called "Purple Rain" where the dusky lurid chicas will bring you to the apogee of turgidity before leaving you moist and spent, and right before I went up with mine, he was at the bar and said "Will the car be okay? and I said "Sure, why not?" and he said "Well, this is Mexico..." and I said "Don't be racist" and he said "We didn't get insurance for down here" and I said "It'll be fine" and he said "I haven't paid it off yet" and I said "You worry excessively..."

Well, I was wrong.

Me leaving the keys in the thing was wrong. Not telling you about that was wrong. Pretending I'd bought the car was wrong. Not getting a proper price for that coke you left in it was wrong.

You were merely misinformed.
Croatoan Green
11-05-2008, 08:13
I don't make mistakes, I thought I did once but I was mistaken.
Neu Leonstein
11-05-2008, 08:26
*points at location*
Nobel Hobos
11-05-2008, 08:31
*points at location*

A big puddle of wrong.

Lake Australia? Or are you over in the bigger puddle?
Delator
11-05-2008, 08:38
You debate, you argue, but how wrong are you?

Wrong enough to confuse the fuck out of nearly everbody I know.
Nobel Hobos
11-05-2008, 09:09
Wrong enough to confuse the fuck out of nearly everbody I know.

If they aren't punching you in the face, try a simpler form of words.
Errinundera
11-05-2008, 10:25
I'm not game enough to make any claims publicly, one way or the other.
ColaDrinkers
11-05-2008, 11:02
I'm pretty sure that any given opinion I have will be at least 25% wrong.
Infinite Revolution
11-05-2008, 11:03
i'm certainly a wrong'un
Heinleinites
11-05-2008, 15:17
I was wrong once. I thought I was wrong, but it turned out I was right.

That's what you get for not having faith in yourself. Experts, pahh..
The Plutonian Empire
11-05-2008, 17:41
I'm always wrong, that's why I don't debate. :p
Dukeburyshire
11-05-2008, 19:51
About the Empire : 50% of the time.

Rest of the time: NEVER! (runs off with flag)
Katganistan
11-05-2008, 20:00
How wrong are you?

You debate, you argue, but how wrong are you?

Just as wrong as you are. Maybe more, maybe less.

I can't be wrong, its a fundimental law of the universe

:p

Hmm, last thread I posted was my essay on the Labor Theory of Value, and the usual bourgeois crowd avoided it like the plague and didn't post at all.

Yes I am correct, and that's why the bourgeois apologists avoid my arguments.

Maybe "bourgeois apologists" are tired of hearing the same old hackneyed rant and can't be bothered -- aka ignoring it. Lack of response does not equal unbeatable argument.
Ifreann
11-05-2008, 20:00
I'm so wrong I loop back around to right.
Soheran
11-05-2008, 20:15
Maybe "bourgeois apologists" are tired of hearing the same old hackneyed rant and can't be bothered -- aka ignoring it.

Did you read the thread? It was wrong, but not "old" (for NSG anyway), "hackneyed", or a "rant."
Dyakovo
11-05-2008, 20:56
I'm not, except for when I am.
Janillmari
11-05-2008, 21:17
If I try to prove that I am wrong, and succeed, then I won't be wrong any more. This would violate the first precept, that I be wrong.


.If I try to prove that I am wrong, and fail, it remains possible that I am correct. Yet, correct reasoning should prove what is true: that I am wrong.

Therefore, in the second case, if I fail to prove myself wrong I cannot be correct and must be wrong. I fail to prove, but also prove, which is a contradiction.

Neither case holds. I refine my statement somewhat: I am wrong, so I can't prove it.

Haha very true! Your logic.. well is logical.? lol
Peepelonia
12-05-2008, 11:57
How wrong are you?

You debate, you argue, but how wrong are you?

Shit what do you mean by wrong? We are all wrong on many things, some of us are right, and some of us thing we are right. By what measurement do you measure wrong and right?
Everywhar
12-05-2008, 14:56
I am very wrong. For example, I cling to the belief that we want a nonviolent revolution and that a general strike is all we need. I neglect the fact that anyone who actually tries to resist will be mercilessly slaughtered by the State.
Dalmatia Cisalpina
12-05-2008, 15:51
I've found if you speak authoritatively, people don't notice when you're wrong.
Everywhar
12-05-2008, 15:55
It also helps to use words and phrases like "clearly," "no doubt," "undoubtedly," and "obviously."
Mad hatters in jeans
12-05-2008, 17:10
How wrong are you?

You debate, you argue, but how wrong are you?

Who says i debate or argue? how wrong are you Mr/Mrs/alien/other/transgender/person Neo Kervoskia?
I could argue i'm never wrong or i'm always wrong, either way it amounts to nothing, so why ask in the first place?
Hydesland
12-05-2008, 17:21
I would say I'm right, yep, completely correct.
G3N13
12-05-2008, 17:31
I'm absolutely, positively wrong...all the time.

At least based on comments I recieve...and you know what, majority is always right in democracy!
Mad hatters in jeans
12-05-2008, 18:46
I'm absolutely, positively wrong...all the time.

At least based on comments I recieve...and you know what, majority is always right in democracy!

You're right there friend.
Lunatic Goofballs
12-05-2008, 18:51
I'm so wrong I loop back around to right.

Yay! :D
Nanatsu no Tsuki
12-05-2008, 23:15
Who says i debate or argue? how wrong are you Mr/Mrs/alien/other/transgender/person Neo Kervoskia?
I could argue i'm never wrong or i'm always wrong, either way it amounts to nothing, so why ask in the first place?

Easy, to make you go around in circles just like you´re doing right here.:p
Janillmari
13-05-2008, 00:45
Easy, to make you go around in circles just like you´re doing right here.:p

Yeah its a bit --insert something circly here--
Nanatsu no Tsuki
13-05-2008, 01:02
Yeah its a bit --insert something circly here--

That´s the MHiJ for you. Logic and questions like a giant Vitrubian Man.
Janillmari
13-05-2008, 01:20
That´s the MHiJ for you. Logic and questions like a giant Vitrubian Man.

oh haha.. lol
Nanatsu no Tsuki
13-05-2008, 01:27
oh haha.. lol

*slaps in the back* In case you´re choking.;)
Janillmari
13-05-2008, 01:30
*slaps in the back* In case you´re choking.;)

Thanks I think i will live
Nanatsu no Tsuki
13-05-2008, 01:34
Thanks I think i will live

Wrong. You´ll die, like everybody else.:eek:
Janillmari
13-05-2008, 01:57
Wrong. You´ll die, like everybody else.:eek:

Oh wow.. lol.. geeze and here i thought i was immortal
Bloodlusty Barbarism
13-05-2008, 03:32
I've found if you speak authoritatively, people don't notice when you're wrong.

*puts down an important-looking clipboard, smooths out his uniform* They do too. Understand?
Jhahannam
13-05-2008, 03:35
Oh wow.. lol.. geeze and here i thought i was immortal

No, Christopher Lambert was trying to cut your head off with an antique Japanese sword because of what you did with his granddaughter.


You know, spilled grapejuice in his 1994 Camaro Z28 with California License Plate "B-ONLY1"
Everywhar
13-05-2008, 03:41
Wrong. You´ll die, like everybody else.:eek:
Noooooes! We all live for evar!!!!
Jhahannam
13-05-2008, 03:43
Noooooes! We all live for evar!!!!

Only in Christ.

Or Zardoz.

Zardoz was cool.
Soheran
13-05-2008, 03:59
I neglect the fact that anyone who actually tries to resist will be mercilessly slaughtered by the State.

Your pessimism is not justified.

State power depends on obedience, and obedience depends on its power. The point of the general strike (and comparable methods of mass non-violent resistance) is not to take state power head-on, which obviously it cannot do, but simply to break the cycle--to destroy the capacity of the state to exercise power by denying it the obedience it needs.

Without the allegiance of the citizenry, what can the rulers do? Kill everyone? With a military that ultimately comes from that very same citizenry?

I am not a dogmatic pacifist, and I wouldn't rule out armed resistance in all circumstances... but sometimes, even often, non-violence is better. (Indeed, armed resistance depends on the same logic, in the end. What group of armed citizens can take on a modern military?)

Edit: Sorry, off-topic--but this is descending into spam anyway, so....
Everywhar
13-05-2008, 04:51
Your pessimism is not justified.

Meanie. :( What if I wanna be a grumpy curmudgeon?


State power depends on obedience, and obedience depends on its power.

Therefore state power depends on its power?


The point of the general strike (and comparable methods of mass non-violent resistance) is not to take state power head-on, which obviously it cannot do, but simply to break the cycle--to destroy the capacity of the state to exercise power by denying it the obedience it needs.

And obedience depends on power, right? So obedience will be secured by the merciless slaughter of those who resist. I don't entertain the idea that a general strike will be met with unicorns and teddy bears throwing candy for the children. (As much as I would like candy and a teddy bear right now). My point is that we should not take it for granted that the State won't figure out a way to use violence against strikers. In other words, I don't think we've come a long way since Ludlow.


Without the allegiance of the citizenry, what can the rulers do? Kill everyone? With a military that ultimately comes from that very same citizenry?

I am not a dogmatic pacifist, and I wouldn't rule out armed resistance in all circumstances... but sometimes, even often, non-violence is better. (Indeed, armed resistance depends on the same logic, in the end. What group of armed citizens can take on a modern military?)

Edit: Sorry, off-topic--but this is descending into spam anyway, so....
I think we both agree that the general strike or some other form of disobedience is preferable to armed struggle, but my point is simply that there are evil people with power who don't behave rationally. And if they don't, they might order some thoroughly indoctrinated assholes in the National Guard who (still) identify with the rulers to "make an example" of resisters.

On topic: But, you know, I could be wrong about all this. ;)
Potarius
13-05-2008, 05:00
Meanie. :( What if I wanna be a grumpy curmudgeon?

People who oddly resemble Balthier aren't allowed to be grumpy curmudgeons, fool.
Pandamoria
13-05-2008, 05:11
I am always wrong.

But, if I'm always wrong, that means I'm right about being wrong, which means I'm wrong about being wrong, which means I AM always wrong... (repeat to infinity)
Everywhar
13-05-2008, 05:13
People who oddly resemble Balthier aren't allowed to be grumpy curmudgeons, fool.
Who is Balthier?

*scratch head*

I am always wrong.

But, if I'm always wrong, that means I'm right about being wrong, which means I'm wrong about being wrong, which means I AM always wrong... (repeat to infinity)
Dog chases tail; infinite regression ensues.
Potarius
13-05-2008, 05:15
Who is Balthier?

*scratch head*

More people need to play Final Fantasy XII, obviously.
Everywhar
13-05-2008, 05:16
Clearly. I haven't played Final Fantasy anything.
Potarius
13-05-2008, 05:24
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13681583&postcount=136

The nose and eyebrows are a bit different, but still.
Potarius
13-05-2008, 05:25
Clearly. I haven't played Final Fantasy anything.

Holy shit. Are you serious?
Everywhar
13-05-2008, 05:28
Holy shit. Are you serious?
Yes. :D

EDIT: What the fuck, that's a pretty uncanny likeness. lol
Soheran
13-05-2008, 05:29
Meanie. :( What if I wanna be a grumpy curmudgeon?

Then there are plenty of things for people of our political affiliation to be grumpy about as it stands. :)

Therefore state power depends on its power?

In a sense, yes, and this is the troublesome tenacity of power: it is self-perpetuating.

And obedience depends on power, right? So obedience will be secured by the merciless slaughter of those who resist.

The state is not omnipotent; the people in power cannot just wave their hands and slaughter people who resist. Repression, and rule in general, requires the involvement of many people: soldiers, planners, bureaucrats, truck drivers, etc.

Threaten the regime, create a critical mass such that those people see the opportunity to disobey, and the capacity of those in power to crush the resistance is severely attenuated. That's how revolutions work. They generally don't work by open warfare--the revolutionaries would lose.

I don't entertain the idea that a general strike will be met with unicorns and teddy bears throwing candy for the children.

Non-violence does not imply naivete. The mostly non-violent Civil Rights Movement was met by beatings and murder, with the complicity and sometimes participation of the state. But it worked eventually anyway.

(As much as I would like candy and a teddy bear right now).

:fluffle:

My point is that we should not take it for granted that the State won't figure out a way to use violence against strikers.

Yes, you're right. That's my problem with a dogmatic stance of non-violence: it rests on a certainty that things will work out nicely and neatly, a certainty that simply can't be justified. Sometimes violence may prove necessary.

My only point is that there's nothing unreasonable about the possibility of non-violent revolution.

And if they don't, they might order some thoroughly indoctrinated assholes in the National Guard who (still) identify with the rulers to "make an example" of resisters.

But the people in the military don't identify with the rulers, but with the country and the ideals it claims to stand for--and while in ordinary circumstances this kind of patriotism may be easily manipulated by the powerful, it's much harder to conflate the nation and the ideals with the will of the rulers when the will of the rulers is to slaughter your own countrypeople.
Potarius
13-05-2008, 05:34
Yes. :D

EDIT: What the fuck, that's a pretty uncanny likeness. lol

So uncanny that you must play Final Fantasy XII and see how much ass you kick as your alter-ego.
Everywhar
13-05-2008, 05:45
So uncanny that you must play Final Fantasy XII and see how much ass you kick as your alter-ego.
:D kk
Soyut
13-05-2008, 05:56
I am s o\\ high right now, woo
Nobel Hobos
13-05-2008, 06:04
EDIT: What the fuck, that's a pretty uncanny likeness. lol

It's the same smile. Face shape, nose and brow are really rather different.
Potarius
13-05-2008, 06:14
It's the same smile. Face shape, nose and brow are really rather different.

His face is a bit wider, his eyebrows are thicker, and his lips aren't as full. But it's still pretty similar.

I think it's the hair and the look on his face, mostly.