Absolutely disgusting
-
Oakman wrote:
how long will it be before China shows up on our doorstep and demands payment?
Shout "remember the melamine" and tell them solly Chalie, we're broke and foreign debtors go to the end of the line.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
and tell them solly Chalie
Tim you need to figure out the difference between the Japanese and the Chinese. Get yourself a nice Asian GF and she'll explain it to you. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've lived hand to mouth, and I would rather have my freedom to fail and pay for it than to have some kind of secure standard of existence which limits my freedom.
What the damned fool is saying is that you don't -- can't! -- have reasons for your opinions. This is how "liberals" "reason." Here's an amusing examination of the "reasoning" -- "Bulverism[^]" (I call it "motive-mongering").
Ilíon wrote:
What the damned fool is saying is that you don't -- can't! -- have reasons for your opinions.
Well, he certainly has the standard 'reasons' for why anyone might disagree with the brilliance and purity of leftist ideals. Those reasons are (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. (3)fear. (4) Hate (5) Greed. You know, the typical socialist mantra that these guys call 'debate'...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
and tell them solly Chalie
Tim you need to figure out the difference between the Japanese and the Chinese. Get yourself a nice Asian GF and she'll explain it to you. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
figure out the difference between the Japanese and the Chinese.
Doesn't it go sideways on Chinese girls? :~
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Ilíon wrote:
What the damned fool is saying is that you don't -- can't! -- have reasons for your opinions.
Well, he certainly has the standard 'reasons' for why anyone might disagree with the brilliance and purity of leftist ideals. Those reasons are (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. (3)fear. (4) Hate (5) Greed. You know, the typical socialist mantra that these guys call 'debate'...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
(1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing.
Two things you've accused me of. Hypocrite.
-
Ilíon wrote:
What the damned fool is saying is that you don't -- can't! -- have reasons for your opinions.
Well, he certainly has the standard 'reasons' for why anyone might disagree with the brilliance and purity of leftist ideals. Those reasons are (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. (3)fear. (4) Hate (5) Greed. You know, the typical socialist mantra that these guys call 'debate'...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, he certainly has the standard 'reasons' for why anyone might disagree with the brilliance and purity of leftist ideals. Those reasons are (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. (3)fear. (4) Hate (5) Greed. You know, the typical socialist mantra that these guys call 'debate'...
But you need to understand that in this statement, true as it is, you're using the word 'reason' in the truncated sense of "cause" (that is, as the 'cause' portion of "cause-and-effect"), whereas I was using 'reason' in the primary sense of "rational justification, or conclusion" (that is, as the 'ground' portion of "ground-and-consequent").
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
(1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing.
Two things you've accused me of. Hypocrite.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Stan Shannon: (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. Gaylord: Two things you've accused me of. Hypocrite.
You obviously don't understand, or don't care (*), what 'hypocrite' means. Stan isn't *simply* accusing you of these things. Stan isn't *reflexively* accusing you of these things (as a leftist or "liberal" tends automatically to accuse those who disagree). (*) In fact, you almost never care about facts and reasoning which run contrary to what you want to assert is true. In fact, you are quite willing to use anti-reason (for instance, illogic) to protect the false things you want to assert are true. That is why Stan says (and is justified in it) that you are ignorant and brainwashed.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Stan Shannon: (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. Gaylord: Two things you've accused me of. Hypocrite.
You obviously don't understand, or don't care (*), what 'hypocrite' means. Stan isn't *simply* accusing you of these things. Stan isn't *reflexively* accusing you of these things (as a leftist or "liberal" tends automatically to accuse those who disagree). (*) In fact, you almost never care about facts and reasoning which run contrary to what you want to assert is true. In fact, you are quite willing to use anti-reason (for instance, illogic) to protect the false things you want to assert are true. That is why Stan says (and is justified in it) that you are ignorant and brainwashed.
Ilíon wrote:
Gaylord
:laugh:
Ilíon wrote:
You obviously don't understand, or don't care (*), what 'hypocrite' means. Stan isn't *simply* accusing you of these things. Stan isn't *reflexively* accusing you of these things (as a leftist or "liberal" tends automatically to accuse those who disagree). (*) In fact, you almost never care about facts and reasoning which run contrary to what you want to assert is true. In fact, you are quite willing to use anti-reason (for instance, illogic) to protect the false things you want to assert are true. That is why Stan says (and is justified in it) that you are ignorant and brainwashed.
:laugh: I guess that's why I believe in evolution, huh.
-
Oakman wrote:
figure out the difference between the Japanese and the Chinese.
Doesn't it go sideways on Chinese girls? :~
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
Doesn't it go sideways on Chinese girls
Maybe yours does, mine still goes in and out. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ilíon wrote:
Gaylord
:laugh:
Ilíon wrote:
You obviously don't understand, or don't care (*), what 'hypocrite' means. Stan isn't *simply* accusing you of these things. Stan isn't *reflexively* accusing you of these things (as a leftist or "liberal" tends automatically to accuse those who disagree). (*) In fact, you almost never care about facts and reasoning which run contrary to what you want to assert is true. In fact, you are quite willing to use anti-reason (for instance, illogic) to protect the false things you want to assert are true. That is why Stan says (and is justified in it) that you are ignorant and brainwashed.
:laugh: I guess that's why I believe in evolution, huh.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Ilíon: Gaylord Ravel H. Joyce: :laugh:
Did you not say that you wanted me to call you that? Believe me, I had to do a memory-search to recall that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I guess that's why I believe in evolution, huh.
Your "belief in evolution" (whatever that word is supposed to mean) certainly has nothing to do with reason.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Ilíon: Gaylord Ravel H. Joyce: :laugh:
Did you not say that you wanted me to call you that? Believe me, I had to do a memory-search to recall that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I guess that's why I believe in evolution, huh.
Your "belief in evolution" (whatever that word is supposed to mean) certainly has nothing to do with reason.
Ilíon wrote:
Did you not say that you wanted me to call you that? Believe me, I had to do a memory-search to recall that.
Hey yeah! That's right! It was a reference to some comedy routine that I've never heard of before. It's a good thing you don't know how accurate it is - woo, that'd be embarrassing!
Ilíon wrote:
Your "belief in evolution" (whatever that word is supposed to mean) certainly has nothing to do with reason.
OK, I admit it. I secretly know that God is real, but I just really want to go to Hell.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Ilíon: Gaylord Ravel H. Joyce: :laugh:
Did you not say that you wanted me to call you that? Believe me, I had to do a memory-search to recall that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I guess that's why I believe in evolution, huh.
Your "belief in evolution" (whatever that word is supposed to mean) certainly has nothing to do with reason.
Wait, I DO know that comedian! Dane Cook, that horribly unfunny Christian comedian, right? I saw a video of his about some atheist sneezing on him.
-
Wait, I DO know that comedian! Dane Cook, that horribly unfunny Christian comedian, right? I saw a video of his about some atheist sneezing on him.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Wait, I DO know that comedian! Dane Cook, that horribly unfunny Christian comedian, right?
*I* certainly wouldn't call him a Christian.
You only consider people Christian once they've murdered a few doctors.
-
You only consider people Christian once they've murdered a few doctors.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Wait, I DO know that comedian! Dane Cook, that horribly unfunny Christian comedian, right?
*I* certainly wouldn't call him a Christian.
I want to know something: if it was so right to murder that doctor, why didn't you do it first?
-
I want to know something: if it was so right to murder that doctor, why didn't you do it first?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I want to know something: if it was so right to murder that doctor, why didn't you do it first?
As usual, you prevaricate -- you don't want to know/understand anything. Murder is definitionally wrong. Was he murdered or was it something else?
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I want to know something: if it was so right to murder that doctor, why didn't you do it first?
As usual, you prevaricate -- you don't want to know/understand anything. Murder is definitionally wrong. Was he murdered or was it something else?
You're arguing semantics here. Why weren't you the one to deliver Justice with a capital J?
-
You're arguing semantics here. Why weren't you the one to deliver Justice with a capital J?