Total posts: 5,875
-->
@Imabench
I heard about you before I read any of your posts. You are a disappointment. You aren't smart, or even quick. You're just the run of the mill entitled moron used to being protected by his clique.
Crude, boorish, and childish.
But your clique is no longer around you, and AirMax is not protecting you. All you have now is crude stupidity. You haven't realized it yet. But you will.
You aren't in Kansas anymore, doofus.
Created:
Posted in:
Whether or not you express your bigoted feelings in private doesn't make them not bigoted.
Ah. The feelings are now bigoted eh?
Nope...
You said "bigoted feelings". Your bias is showing.
I was talking about the specific expressions of feelings that you brought up (ranting to your wife).
First you said I was "sneaking", now it's "ranting". You liberal filter simply changes the words as you read them huh?
You are confused. Telling someone you are going to kill them is not expressing an emotion, that is expressing an intention.
I disagree. The desire to kill someone is an emotional state.
and telling them is expressing an intention. Desires cannot be illegal.
Thinking about killing someone isn't illegal. Telling someone you are going to kill them can be.
Ah, you are looking for illegalities, not immoralities. You are confused.
I'm looking for neither.
You brought up illegalities.
So if this isn't about expressions, then why do you keep bringing up specific examples of expressions and asking questions about them?
You are the one bringing it up. Expressions go with emotions. It is silly to try to separate them.
you keep switching over to expressions.
They aren't separate. And your use of the word "switching" doesn't make it so.
so what more is there to talk about if we aren't talking about the expressions?
You tell me. You're the one who keeps responding with empty posts.
I already said having the internal feeling only...
Feelings always have a physiological response.
I don't think a passive feeling makes a person a bigot.
I don't believe you. Remembering bringing as "sneaking" and telling as "ranting" betray you. You are a politically correct SJW who thinks he's stumbled on a bigot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Lol. You were warned Stephen.
Was I? About what?
It'll come to you...
I have come to the conclusion, you are simply a fool and are tolerated here for entertainment value only.. as vile and thoughtless as you are.
I knew it would come to you. : )
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
With his inexplacable arrogance, that is all he thinks matters.Your opinion of me is totally irrelevant .
But here you are again, on a thread that you have said " goodbye" to twice now,....
But like a cockroach, comes slithering back.
...seeking even more attention and resorting to foul language that is uncalled for. All rather cretinous behaviour, in my opinion.
What an idiot. One side of him craves attention and chases it like a lackey, and the other disperses the attention by being a moron.
Any wonder the angst?
Created:
-->
@Imabench
This is an example of your astounding intelligence? You're like bully/vagabond without the poor grammar.
You have nothing of value to say, and carry a grudge as if you grew up in a trailer park. You probably have a secret desire to be banned. Low self-esteem sadist.
Have you told everyone to avoid me yet? How is that going for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
They do more than you know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Ah, you are looking for illegalities, not immoralities. You are confused. Telling someone you are going to kill them is not expressing an emotion, that is expressing an intention.
Telling about how one felt cannot be illegal, not in any country with the rule of law anyway. And I fail to see how an emotion that doesn't make one a bigot, can suddenly make one a bigot simply when the person says, "I had so and so emotion".
If your point is that a bigot can also have the same emotion, no one has contradicted that. I suspect you do not personally believe anyone can feel revulsion at the homosexual act and not also be a bigot.
Can you deny that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
And how does expressing the emotion in confidence change the situation?
>Once you start expressing these feelings in an intolerant manner, then we can start delving into bigotry territory.
How do you tell someone, "It made me cry" in an "intolerant" manner? And who decides intolerant?
>Whether or not you express your bigoted feelings in private doesn't make them not bigoted.
Ah. The feelings are now bigoted eh? My god, you lefties are predictable.
If for example, an emotion makes me cry, why would we need to separate the emotion from the crying?
>I believe this only really applies to small children, not grown adults.
When you're ready to tell me why, I'll listen.
If the emotion itself does not make one a bigot, how does telling someone about the emotion do that?
Because thinking and acting are two different things. Thinking about killing someone isn't illegal. Telling someone you are going to kill them can be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
If it is involuntary, then the person has no moral judgement to answer for.
>Sure. I don't know what that has to do with bigotry, but sure.
I don't either, but you're the one asking for it.
So, again, what are we talking about? Are we talking about only the internalized feeling of emotion, or are we including the outward expressions of emotion?Why would we exclude the involuntary action the emotion may cause?
>You tell me.
Stop being silly. You're the one claiming separation.
>Are we talking about only the internalized feeling of emotion (like you said), or are we including the outward expressions of emotion?
I've answered you several times. Repeating the question will not give you the answer you like.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
The original op is about the observable effect god(s) have on our perceived reality.
Sorry, all I saw was an arrogant poor thinker who thought he had a winner in some snark about God and light bulbs.
And knowing you, that will be your question till you die, no matter what is said to you. Remember, I know how to get off your never ending questions train.That is still my question.
The next time you see a guy you don't recognize screwing in a light bulb, ask him for ID. You never know.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
You're now ready to abandon your argument to make this a "god does not exist" clunker huh?
You do not get to ooze to another argument when your OP has been beaten. This is your thread. Your argument was faulty. I don't have to prove anything to you. My view of God makes no difference to your illogical argument.
You came on with a red herring built on an illogical argument. Your case is dead.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Listen closely.
It is you who believes there is no evidence for God. You. And how you believe is not necessarily reality. And others do not have to believe as you do.
My rebuttals are based on what argument you present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I am not though.
I am not even saying I have these emotions.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is the smarmy position when you are pushed back with logic. But in your post you were able to make positive claims about there being no God, and title you thread in snarky arrogance.I do not claim to have evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exist.
If you have no evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exists, then whether you've seen one screwing in a light bulb is immaterial. It is a red herring.
Your argument is fake and irrational. Go work on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
>I agree! An internal feeling can cause an outward expression, even an involuntary one (though usually mature adults are able to maintain composure).
If it is involuntary, then the person has no moral judgement to answer for.
>And people can make voluntary outward expressions to a private audience in a private setting.
Good.
>So, again, what are we talking about? Are we talking about only the internalized feeling of emotion, or are we including the outward expressions of emotion?
Why would we exclude the involuntary action the emotion may cause? And how does expressing the emotion in confidence change the situation?
>you start sneaking expressing that emotion.
Your choice of the word "sneaking" betrays your PC liberalism. If for example, an emotion makes me cry, why would we need to separate the emotion from the crying?
>Once we start making outward expressions, the answer changes.
How? If the emotion itself does not make one a bigot, how does telling someone about the emotion do that?
>My real question is: if we aren't talking about the outward expressions, why do you keep bringing them up?
I didn't bring them up slick. You did, and you have kept bringing them up in each of your posts. Whether the emotion is expressed, involuntarily or later voluntarily, how does that change the implication of the emotion itself?
Is your trigger finger itching?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Think man. Use me.
You don't know how I look. Can you say you've never seen me? No. You cannot. Your claim that you've never seen God do anything is a red herring as you admit you would not recognize God even if you saw Him.
From that bit if illogical reasoning, you go on to conclude, from what you had never "seen", that there is no God. Logical fallacy built upon logical fallacy.
Believe whatever you want, just stop pretending you've used logic and reasoning to arrive at your irrational conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
An internal feeling can cause an involuntary frown, gasp, shout, or trembling. One could also express his revulsion to say, his wife in the privacy of his home.
The question is, does that feeling of revulsion make one a bigot? This isn't rocket science. As a liberal, I know your inner SWJ has been awoken, and you will now do a bloodhound trying to find the bigot you are certain is behind the question.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
how do you know the person screwing in a light bulb you thought was a human being was not God?
>I'm not sure how to prove a negative....
You have not been asked to prove anything slick. I just want to know how you knew none of them were God, given that you admit that you don't know how to recognize Him.
>but I have no particular reason to believe that any god(s) were involved.
Do you have any particular reason to believe that no god(s) were involved? The fact still stands. You cannot recognize God on sight. Thus it is possible you saw Him screw in a light bulb and did not recognize it was God. Your bias has caused you to assume the conclusion you liked.
How do you one of those instances wasn't God?
>Objective certainty about any "fact" may be beyond humans.
You seemed pretty certain when you claimed that none of them were God. Are you contradicting yourself? Would you like to soften your claim?
That is why I do not focus on what cpuld be if we assume I focus on what is and is not supported by testable peer reviewed study and our shared reality.
I tingle in anticipation at the testable peer reviewed study about Gods and light bulbs you are going to send me.
I did not speak of a hypothetical being. If you think some being is hypothetical, how does that concern me?
I would like to address how you have determined the involvement of the creator in question.
Inductive and deductive logic. And the same way you determined that people you did not recognize could not have been a particular person. I answered you, 3 times over.
Your argument is logically flawed. Go work on it.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Untrue. I was proofing the creation of the sun, not proofing God.
This is blatant dishonesty.
I don't see how. I said,
God made the sun.
And was asked...
And how have you determined that
"That" being, God making the sun. God needs no "proof".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Instead of snark, it'd be better to expand on what you mean.
I always respond to intelligent civil questions respectfully.
:Are you talking about a completely passive, internalized emotional feeling or are you talking about reacting to and acting upon that feeling for this scenario?
Your question is curious, cause I only spoke about a completely passive, internalized emotional feeling. Why would I need to clarify things I did not say or imply?
The question I asked makes sense only if the revulsion is limited to how the observer feels.
But note the case with RM, his SJW was already outraged and fuming about homophobia. This is a typical response, more common in liberals and progressives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That or you realized you responded like a militant idiot. But thanks. And the "distress" you imagine causing me thanks you too.I will leave this thread out of my Social Democrat respect for the distress I'm causing you.
Be careful now. You said you learned your lesson with zeichen. Most already doubt you did.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, but Comey and the FBI aren't Jews.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I used those nails to stop me going down that "slippery slope" you saw. Thanks for the permission.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I used those nails to stop me going down that "slippery slope" you saw. Thanks for the permission.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No. Just to be rid of your stupidity. Is that too much to ask?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your logical proofs assume creation and a creator. You're assuming a creator when trying to proof a creator. Its fallacious reasoning.
Untrue. I was proofing the creation of the sun, not proofing God.
No one has to assume creation. You and I and the ground on which we stand are creations.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
No dodging slick. You know me.
Why in the world would you talk about God and light bulbs if you have no way of recognizing God even if you saw Him?
Because some individuals claim to have experienced god(s)
This has nothing to do with the question. I'm asking what you think, not what others think. If you do not know how to recognize God if you saw him, how do you know the person screwing in a light bulb you thought was a human being was not God?
Then same way you determined that every character you've seen screwing in a light bulb was not God.My only claim is that in every instance of a lightbulb being screwed in I have ever witnessed a human being was directly involved.
How do you one of those instances wasn't God? Try to dodge and I will ask till your shame forces you to answer.
How have you determined that this hypothetical being....
I did not speak of a hypothetical being.
How have you determined that the universe was created?
I gave you 3 answers. Pick one.
how have you determined that your particular god concept is specifically responsible?
I did not mention a particular god concept.
Now, gather up your integrity and answer my question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That is interesting because in my experience, any expression of revulsion at homosexual acts has immediately garnered the charge of bigotry.
Shut up and get over it. Your disgust doesn't mean a damn thing. I have had it up to the fucking hilt with you Judeo-Christian homophobes and your BS.
Exhibit A.
Compare and contrast with similar emotions of "disgust".
Exhibit B
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you witnessed God screwing in a light bulb, how would you know it was God?
I'm not sure....
Then you might have already witnessed God screwing in a light bulb, but did not recognize Him as God. Why in the world would you talk about God and light bulbs if you have no way of recognizing God even if you saw Him?
God made the sun.
And how have you determined that
Answer 1 - The same way you determined that every character you've seen screwing in a light bulb was not God.
Answer 2 - Inductive Logic. Creation of the sun required great power. Only God has sufficient power. Only God could have created the sun.
Answer 3 - Deductive Logic. The universe is created. The sun is part of the created universe. God is the creator. Therefore God created the sun.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
When he gets angry he spams over and over to himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
That would seem to include telling the homosexual you find his act repulsive. Would not a homosexual feel maligned and devalued at you feeling that way about them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
That is interesting because in my experience, any expression of revulsion at homosexual acts has immediately garnered the charge of bigotry.So far no one has gone along with the idea that being repulsed by acts of homosexuality sex is bigotry at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
So, short of physical action, can anything be bigotry? What then is homosexual bigotry?
Created:
I can assure you he isn't a high IQ satirist.You keep making debates that are either intentionally wrong to prod at people and provoke them or are the result of shallow thinking, I'm still unsure which. I like to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you're a high IQ satirist playing a low IQ atheist.
God does not need light to see. Why would He need a light bulb?
You say you've never seen God do anything. But what have you seen? And is that the standard? What you've seen? Everything done before you were born invalid? Anything done beyond your presence invalid?
If you witnessed God screwing in a light bulb, how would you know it was God?
Instead of a light bulb, God made the sun.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
WHY HAVEN'T YOU BEEN BANNED!!!!?
Mike cannot see every post. When the troll goes overboard, just list him and DebateArt.com as the receivers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
This is true, and you did not have to become an anus to reach your conclusion like our DDO troll.That's definitely an alternate theory that would account for her actions. But unfortunately there is no more evidence of that than there is of the rape.
Though there is not enough evidence for either conclusion, the idiot troll will snarl and spit at anyone not sharing his biased opinion. Convinced that what resides between his ears is reality.
But if we go by the fact that people do not just kill themselves, and Islams well documented penchant for violence towards women, a conclusion that implicates Islam in her death is not unlikely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
I'll leave you to it and just warn others to not waste their time and brain cells on you.
Yeah. Go warn them you sycophant, everyone listens to you. Please, you can shut up now. Your impressions are not interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
@Stronn
OK. If a person is repulsed by to men, but attracted to two women, can't to be said that it isn't homosexuality he is repulsed at? For it is homosexuality in both cases of the two men and the two women.4. No...
So how is it not bigotry to be repulsed at one act of homosexuality but not at the same act performed by others?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Your little drive by's are all just little pot shots at Christianity.
You make these silly little assumptions, and then build these elaborate arguments off them.
Your opinions are not fact, and how things seem to you is not necessarily how they are. But you behave as if they are.
SM's example is that you can't be (or create) a married batchelor, no matter how powerful you are!
Untrue slick. The question was, how is that a limitation? What is being limited? You said the whole thing is silly, and it is, but then you immediately attempt to use the silliness as support.
Can God create a non-created creation? It is all stupidity, but the stupidity is in the question, not in God's power. My experience has been that people pushing this stupidity are aware of the stupidity. As I know SM is. Note that I have to push him to answer questions before he answers, but then will answer only selected ones. And yet has not defined his terms, but keeps asserting them.
When pressed he goes into his passive "I don't understand" mode and asks more questions, dodging having to address his fake logic again.
As far as I'm concerned, the argument is over. SM is not willing to be logical, and I have no obligation to address illogic. This argument is for neophytes or low IQ sympathizers. I am neither.
Finally, the concept of infinity was laid out in the bible 6,000 years ago. You cannot revise history to fit your bias.
Created:
Posted in:
2. Or can a person be repulsed (by the act, not the person) and not be a bigot at all?
3. Is repulsion at the homosexual act a learned response or is it biological?
4. If a man is repulsed at the sexual act between two men, but feels attracted at the sexual act between two women, is that bigotry?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I think I'll wait till your "point" stops bouncing around.
In the main time, Fox has nothing to be ashamed about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I think I'll wait gill your "point" stops bouncing around.
In the main time, Fox has nothing to be ashamed about.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
How are you "limited" by the impossiblilty of you being a married bachelor?
A limit is in this context a thing that one is incapable of doing.
That is the most irrational definition of a limitation I have ever seen. As smithereens said, if you are going to use irrationality, logic is worthless to you. Until you are logical, we are speaking different languages.
In the cas3 of an immovable object it is a physical limit. In the case at a married bachelor it is a linguistic limit.
What is a "linguistic limit"? What does it limit you from?
One is tautalogical and one is actual. Both are limitations.
Neither is logical, and both are simply asserted by you.
Does that answer your question from post 46?
No. But don't worry. You aren't logical, and aren't prepared to be logical. So you might as well be speaking Greek.
It's heartening that you must be absurdly illogical to make your point. Neither I nor God's power have anything to fear from your irrational argument.
Thanks.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I thought I answered your question in post 39.
Amazing. My questions were in post 46.
The inability to do logically inconsistent things is a limit
That is what you keep asserting without support or definition.
The inability to do things outside ones nature is a limit.
That is what you keep asserting without support or definition.
The idea of an object or being with absolutely no limits is logically impossible.
That is what you keep asserting without support or definition.
Do you wish to reword your question?
No. Why would I reword questions you haven't answered?
Have I been unclear somehow?
Yes. And evasive. And dishonest. Ho-hum.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I tire of you dodging my questions but always having more of your own. Why do you do that? Even worse, you will make a sweeping assertion, and when challenged to show some logical reasoning behind it, you simply reassert the assertion.
Since you can't or won't answer my questions, and you can't or won't show any logical reasoning for your assertion, I can dismiss it as gibberish.
Have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
I went ahead and cut out all of the parts of your response where you continued to cry like a whiny little bitch, so that I could focus on your actual arguments about the subject at hand......
The only crying was you. I didn't post to you. You posted to me. Whining from the first post.
Fortunately, that also eliminated close to 90% of your entire post bloated with bile and self-important delusion. So joy all around.Unfortunately that eliminated close to 90% of everything you typed since you have a knack for devolving into unfocused rants whenever someone points out your blatant stupidity.
Perhaps if I repost the massive wall of text that you blatantly ignored
We'll come back to this.
-> "Willie Dillie, the politician you're referring to, was a noted Islamophobe who on August 6th left the city.....blah, blah, blah.
Now let me say to you again what you missed in your haze of self-importance.
Why would I be interested in the least about the comments you made? I did not make the thread. What you think about the issue is not as interesting to me as you seem to think.
I don't have to respond to your flame bait comments. Why would I be interested in the least about the comments you made?
You wouldn't...
And yet, knowing this, you post your stupidity to me yet again. You aren't as compelling as you think. Get a hold of your ego. Find someone who thinks you've said anything worthy of a reasoned reply.
Perhaps if I repost the massive wall of text that you blatantly ignored
Please don't. I ignored it for a good reason, as your militant vulgarity attests to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
(I'm not actually keeping a list....
Lol. Sure you aren't. No one is interested in your neurosis Einstein. All your years on DDO did not teach you that calling people you disagree with stupid is the most stupid thing to do. No one cares what you think of me. Put some content in your post.
Why would I be interested in the least about the comments you made?You wouldn't......
Then it was imbecilic of you to expect a detailed reply from me about your vulgar post. Try to keep up.
you clearly don't value the opinions of people smarter than you,
I've been on DDO for years watching you crow that you're smarter than everyone else. If you were, you wouldn't have to state it yourself. No one cares how smart you think you are Einstein. Just stick to factual content.
then there wouldn't be a need for anyone to point out the retardation shared between you and Stephen for taking this story as seriously as you continue to do.
Lol. You're filling a need are you? Do you wear a cape as you post? Could all your years of trolling come down to a hero complex? I begin to see why people winked at your militant stupidity.
I've never had a policy of being kind or courteous to those who don't deserve it.....
No one has asked for your kindness or courtesy, of which you seem to have none. We want logic and facts, which you also seem to have very little of. But please, aim for the logic and facts.
If you don't like me pointing out your stupidity in an argument, either respond to the arguments that were made in a way that would make me change my mind on the argument,
I will respond the way I like. You do the same. But if you try to bring your trolling ways here, I will call you on it. Notice that we ran away from trolls like you. No one wants that here.
It will probably take a demonstration, because the years of impunity on DDO have made you believe your own hype. No problem.
So be as militant or as vulgar as you like, just also add real content to your posts. Or you can be stupid and post only ad-homs, and your ban history here will not resemble DDO.
Your choice.
I made my choice already. I chose to leave the sick site you and other trolls created on DDO. You won't run over this site. And if you don't like that, too bad. Deal with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
That just points to your general incompetence but still militant demeanor.Both my computer and phone have failed to be able to view the video,....
Then after that, maybe try to respond to some of the arguments I made about why the event in question is fake,
Why would I be interested in the least about the comments you made? I did not make the thread. What you think about the issue is not as interesting to me as you seem to think.
rather then structure your reply entirely around your inability to read context clues.
I read words Einstein. If you had anything sensible to say, you wouldn't need the juvenile bombast.
And I know you're used to your pal AirMax letting you troll DDO unimpeded, look around you, this isn't DDO. Tone down the militancy. This isn't WWE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I see that when you click a reply it goes to the post that replied you. Sweet. Thanks man.
Created: