ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 This isn't about your opinion of where I live. I don't care what you think. It's about you making a stupid statement to make a stupid point and not admitting it and backpeddling. This thread is not about whether or not there has ever been looting elsewhere but why there has been little in Japan. You know why there has been little looting in Japan? Because there is mainly one race/religion/ethnic people in Japan. I said it's one word, respect but after thinking about it the one word is unity. They, for the most part get along whereas we do not. I am not backpeddling in the least. The thead never has been about this, it is the black and white crowd here that is making the thread out to be that way. The argument that you made above is actually a very good one. We are actually progressing the thread to where it should be argued. We don't get along in this coountry because individuals are king. Individual deconstruct unity. Maybe the people in America aren't broken, maybe the system is? Yes, gasp... I am calling into question the time honored American "way." So you are for unity? As long as YOU can step over somebody else... I suppose. For a such a high-power financial/culinary guru, what are you doing wasting your time talking to such a simple dick like me?... It is going on 0800 PDT, shouldn't you be managing somebody's IRA? :P So you're inferring "most". Based on nothing more than your deep, penetrating understanding of human nature and arson. And you call that "thinking outside the box". Let me repeat what I said earlier: thinking outside the box is not a benefit when you're an idiot. You can do better Spock... My third grader has better arguments than you. Shouldn't you be playing with the other young lions of the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 For a moment I read the thread topic title as Why no hooters in Japan. Would probably be a better discussion. And a shorter one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) This is such an easy discussion. The Japanese are civilized. Except those stupid masks piss me off. Why only women? And I get wearing them while standing gnext to the plant. But then they show the same broads wearing them in sterile environments. In Japan, mishandling chopsticks is considered an insult to the chef cooking your meal. But wearing a mask to talk to someone isnt. That makes sense. Back on point..... yes, the Japanese have class. The others? Well................ Edited March 23, 2011 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I am not backpeddling in the least. The thead never has been about this, it is the black and white crowd here that is making the thread out to be that way. The argument that you made above is actually a very good one. We are actually progressing the thread to where it should be argued. We don't get along in this coountry because individuals are king. Individual deconstruct unity. Maybe the people in America aren't broken, maybe the system is? Yes, gasp... I am calling into question the time honored American "way." So you are for unity? As long as YOU can step over somebody else... I suppose. For a such a high-power financial/culinary guru, what are you doing wasting your time talking to such a simple dick like me?... It is going on 0800 PDT, shouldn't you be managing somebody's IRA? :P Yeah you're back peddling on your insurance remark seeing you can't back it up. So the American system is broken? I thought this was an issue since time immemorial. What I'm pointing out that this cultural diversity the the "progressives" are always preaching is in fact a detriment to a society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 You can do better Spock... My third grader has better arguments than you. Shouldn't you be playing with the other young lions of the world? Maybe your third grader has better arguments because your comparing it to your bull **** statements like "'Some' really means 'most' if you think outside the box." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 This isn't about your opinion of where I live. I don't care what you think. It's about you making a stupid statement to make a stupid point and not admitting it and backpeddling. This thread is not about whether or not there has ever been looting elsewhere but why there has been little in Japan. You know why there has been little looting in Japan? Because there is mainly one race/religion/ethnic people in Japan. I said it's one word, respect but after thinking about it the one word is unity. They, for the most part get along whereas we do not. We get along fine... :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 We get along fine... :unsure: Not compared to the non-melting pot cultures. We've always had issues with this in our country. Italians, Irish, Jews, Blacks, Chinese, Peurto Ricans, Mexicans........on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) Yeah you're back peddling on your insurance remark seeing you can't back it up. So the American system is broken? I thought this was an issue since time immemorial. What I'm pointing out that this cultural diversity the the "progressives" are always preaching is in fact a detriment to a society. I just backed it up... It doesn't matter how many fires are set on purpose... All it takes is ONE arson... Who knows?... MOST of the fires could have been spread that way. Everybody wants to think it was the quake that caused the fires... You and everybody else doesn't know for sure either. It is fact, insurances didn't pay out for a quake. Anyway, the quake won't ignite the blaze... It is intetntional or unintentional ignition sources that do. Just swinging a steel hammer near an open gas line may be enough. Who knows what "really" happened to spark things... Maybe your third grader has better arguments because your comparing it to your bull **** statements like "'Some' really means 'most' if you think outside the box." No. I am comparing the arguments to YOU you friggan pea brain. What part of the memo did you miss? Do you ever really listen to yourself and how dumb you sound?... Of course not, you are a narcassist. Nice try... Try again Spock. Edited March 23, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I just backed it up... It doesn't matter how many fires are set on purpose... All it takes is ONE arson... Who knows?... MOST of the fires could have been spread that way. Everybody wants to think it was the quake that caused the fires... You and everybody else doesn't know for sure either. It is fact, insurances didn't pay out for a quake. Anyway, the quake won't ignite the blaze... It is intetntional or unintentional ignition sources that do. Just swinging a steel hammer near an open gas line may be enough. Who knows what "really" happened to spark things... What the !@#$? Did you have a stroke or something? "It doesn't matter...it only takes one...so 'most' could be accurate...who knows...no one knows for sure...who knows what really happened." This doesn't back up your statement at all - quite the contrary, it proves you're full of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Back on topic... "There is no looting in Japan because they respect each other and there is unity among the people!" I don't make this sh*t up people... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) Back on topic... "There is no looting in Japan because they respect each other and there is unity among the people!" I don't make this sh*t up people... :lol: Ok so at first you said my argument was a very good one and now you're posting the above? Slipping off the meds today? Who knows what "really" happened to spark things... Ummm what happened to spark things was a !@#$ing 7.9 earthquake which ruptured gas lines. Also they dynamited buildings to try create firebreaks that actually caused more fires. Do not get into what happened here during that earthquake with me, I have been fascinated with that event for years and have done extensive research on it. Edited March 23, 2011 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Also they dynamited buildings to try create firebreaks that actually caused more fires. In his world, this proves that most were set intentionally for insurance reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Ok so at first you said my argument was a very good one and now you're posting the above? Slipping off the meds today? Ummm what happened to spark things was a !@#$ing 7.9 earthquake which ruptured gas lines. Also they dynamited buildings to try create firebreaks that actually caused more fires. Do not get into what happened here during that earthquake with me, I have been fascinated with that event for years and have done extensive research on it. Just showing how anything can be spun. Again, both intentional and untentional ignition sources. But then again... People were saints back then! And the Japaneses are so stand-up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Again, both intentional and untentional ignition sources. And this means what? So Tom was right? In your world those firebreaks where intenionally set to collect insurance. I mean you did say most of the fires in SF were set to collect on insurance right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) And this means what? So Tom was right? In your world those firebreaks where intenionally set to collect insurance. I mean you did say most of the fires in SF were set to collect on insurance right. Holy leap of logic Batman... And your Boy Blunder is still wrong... Especially for taking this thread down this road. It was 1906 for chrissakes... No doubt many things were done on purpose... Heck they blew the levees around New Orleans on purpose in 1927... To save the city... Why do you think those types of stories caught traction again in 2005? You can't blame people. Don't be so naive. Edited March 23, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Holy leap of logic Batman... And your Boy Blunder is still wrong... Especially for taking this thread down this road. It was 1906 for chrissakes... No doubt many things were done on purpose... Now it's gone from "some" to "most" to "it only takes one, who knows for sure" to "many"? You know, some of your posts don't make sense. And by "some", I of course mean "damn near all". Heck they blew the levees around New Orleans on purpose in 1927... To save the city... Why do you think those types of stories caught traction again in 2005? You can't blame people. Don't be so naive. So people were more destructive and less responsible back in 1927 vs. 2005, therefore most of the fires in SF were intentionally set? Really, what's the point of that little vignette? Again, both intentional and untentional ignition sources. But most...er, some...uh, many...were intentionally set, but who really knows? You've really managed to cover all the bases here. Tough to argue when you don't fail to avoid not disagreeing with anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Now it's gone from "some" to "most" to "it only takes one, who knows for sure" to "many"? You know, some of your posts don't make sense. And by "some", I of course mean "damn near all". So people were more destructive and less responsible back in 1927 vs. 2005, therefore most of the fires in SF were intentionally set? Really, what's the point of that little vignette? But most...er, some...uh, many...were intentionally set, but who really knows? You've really managed to cover all the bases here. Tough to argue when you don't fail to avoid not disagreeing with anything. Spock you ingnorant fool! "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." In case you need to be reminded... The ignorant fool is you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Spock you ingnorant fool! "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." In case you need to be reminded... The ignorant fool is you. It's impossible to defeat some ignorant men...or most, or many, but really don't know, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Holy leap of logic Batman... And your Boy Blunder is still wrong... Especially for taking this thread down this road. It was 1906 for chrissakes... No doubt many things were done on purpose... Heck they blew the levees around New Orleans on purpose in 1927... To save the city... Why do you think those types of stories caught traction again in 2005? You can't blame people. Don't be so naive. Hey that was your logic not mine. No dude, you took it down this road. So can you provide me with some evidence that these fires that burned pretty much the whole city of San Francisco to the ground were set on purpose? Have you ever noticed that whenever there is an earthquake there are fires? What does the fact that the earquake happening in 1906 have to do with it? What does the fact that they blew levees in NO in 1927 have to do with fires in SF after an earthquake in 1906? So now you're saying they burned down the city of SF to save the city of SF. Or was it for insurance purposes? I'm not the one with logic problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Hey that was your logic not mine. No dude, you took it down this road. So can you provide me with some evidence that these fires that burned pretty much the whole city of San Francisco to the ground were set on purpose? Have you ever noticed that whenever there is an earthquake there are fires? What does the fact that the earquake happening in 1906 have to do with it? What does the fact that they blew levees in NO in 1927 have to do with fires in SF after an earthquake in 1906? So now you're saying they burned down the city of SF to save the city of SF. Or was it for insurance purposes? I'm not the one with logic problems. Let's simplify this a little: Approximately what percentage of the fires were set intentionally, EII? In fact, let's make it multiple choice: Less than 20% Between 20% and 39% (inclusive) Between 40% and 59% (inclusive) Between 60% and 79% (inclusive) Between 80% and 100% (inclusive) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts