4. The entire post is a direct criticism of his words and the way in which he conducts himself during "debate".
Well at least you finally admit the entire post is a direct criticism of me, since the debate wasn't about me I appreciate you pointing out that the entire post was off topic as I asserted from the beginning. You forgot to add above and beyond the criticism was the discriminatory comments included in your post. Can you tell me what section an entire post criticizing someone should belong? Would that be reputation or Politics and Society? I'll give you a hint look at where the thread is still located! I know you like to stretch the interpretations of words as much as possible, but really, this is getting sad the lengths you are having to go to now to justify your actions. We both know my words were a direct response to your comments and your emotions got the better of you and you made a poor judgement. |
|
|
|
B1tUnl0ck3r and BADecker are literally the reason why military weapons shouldn't be available to civilians. Their brains don't function properly, logic is twisted to suit their agenda and when the wrong thing sets their logic on fire watch the fuck out!
These 2 users are both likely one "event" away from being the next MAGA bomber or MAGA Synagogue Shooter and if they do go to the next level they just have to pick up the AR and hand guns sitting on the couch next to them!
You are disgusting. I really want to leave it at that but you will probably remove the reply for being off topic if I don't elaborate. You have little to no self awareness. Your exploitation of these attacks to cast these people as terrorists (2) for supporting the laws and foundation of our nation(1) is truly sickening.
These two have plenty of ideas to be critical over, this is just your personal peev. (3) Also you are a fucking Canadian, how about you stop injecting yourself into all of our internal policies. Oh that's right you live in Canada and it is a frozen wasteland so you have to focus on the US all the time.
Lets take a look: 1. The topic of the thread is "We stand with the second Amendment no matter what...", which I directly address in reference (1). 2. I directly reply to Flying Hellfish's commentary comparing other forum posters to terrorists, exploiting the recent bomb threats and attacks in reference (2). 3. I again reference the fact that he compared these posters to terrorists, pointing out that they say plenty of things far more worthy of criticism, and this is simply a pet issue of his. 4. The entire post is a direct criticism of his words and the way in which he conducts himself during "debate". It is convenient to simply just label this "off topic" or "trolling" when you don't agree with the conclusions. The problem is eventually its going to be you too unable to speak freely, that is how censorship works. Frankly though I don't believe either of you actually believe what you are saying and are just hoping you can spin this and wrap it up before too many people notice and think too hard about it. |
|
|
|
overconfident dems  |
|
|
|
If you are going to repeat my own words back to me thinking it makes you look smart, it doesn't. It helps if you know what they mean to begin with. I didn't "shotgun" anything, I replied to the shotgun of arguments within that opinion piece so you lazily substituted for your own arguments. Tell me, what part of your argument about the definition of what a "few" years is proves Donald Trump is racist when the government suit was settled without admission of guilt? is that your standard of evidence? He was accused? Oh right that is the new standard of the left, everyone we don't like is guilty upon accusation.
FBI FIOA from an investigation is an opinion piece. Your "counter-argument" was 'it's in the past so it doesn't count" which is a pretty shitty argument. I want a real argument instead of this meta-bullshit concern troll you're constantly doing. When you confuse toting of a fake victory with undisputed evidence of racism. Aww yiss Court records showed that "four superintendents or rental agents confirmed that applications sent to the Trump organization's central office for acceptance or rejection were coded by race." A rental agent said Fred Trump had instructed him "not to rent to blacks" and to "decrease the number of black tenants" "by encouraging them to locate housing elsewhere." A consent decree between the DOJ and the TO was signed on June 10, 1975, with both sides claiming victory—the TO for its perceived ability to continue denying rentals to welfare recipients, and the head of DOJ's housing division for the decree being "one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated." It personally and corporately prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the ... sale or rental of a dwelling," and "required Trump to advertise vacancies in minority papers, promote minorities to professional jobs, and list vacancies on a preferential basis with the Open Housing Center of the Urban League." Finally, it ordered the Trumps to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis with ... the Fair Housing Act of 1968."
Ok then, please do quote the exact statement that declares Donald Trump guilty of the accused violations within the FOIA documents. None of what you states is that, you just prefer to interpret the words that way. What you have there is some statements by people, not of the activities of D.J.T. specifically. As usual I am sure you are quite familiar with the source information, as you always are, so this should be no trouble at all for you right? Again, don't cry about it. You are making a claim, the burden of proof is on you. Quote the proof within the document. Let me make this simple for you. If there was proof, they would have lost the lawsuit. There is no proof, because it was settled without admission of guilt. Since there is no proof, in summary what you have are accusations. |
|
|
|
Oh look, more guilt by extremely loose association. The man's business was real estate and he sold a Russian a house! GUILTY AS CHARGED!!! |
|
|
|
 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.htmlPretty sure some of those cases highlight pretty decent arguments; do you wanna start going into each case? Oh, looks like TECSHARE started trying to argue case by case. Funnily enough; if you dig into each of his arguments slightly, they fall apart. Like "oh, he didn't own the company but only ran day to day operations, so he's innocent". Shit like that is why it's so hard to argue on the internet  == Fred's son Donald Trump joined Trump Management Company around 1968, and rose to become company president in 1971.--- https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-companyOh hey, look at that, government doing our work for us! FOIA and public distribution, oh look at the year, after 1971. Yes, please do go into each individually, isn't that the topic of this thread? Also I already asked you to do this, break it down in your own words. Have a debate instead of shotgunning other people's opinions at me as if they are your own and are fact. Tell me please, what exactly about you posted argues against what I stated? >Additionally the company was Fred Trump's, not Donald Trumps, and he was only a few years into the business at the time. Yall need to learn to actually check into some of the random shit yall say. Like when you say "oh, he's a newb! he wasn't around during the investigation" when the guy's acting president pre-investigation; yall gonna have a hard time arguing. Maybe if you were trolling less, and reading more evidence, you'd not try to "shotgun" retarded defenses. Gotta remember, the amount of evidence required to refute bullshit is greater than the bullshit claim. Fuck, it's been 2k years and people still believe in shit like the bible. If you are going to repeat my own words back to me thinking it makes you look smart, it doesn't. It helps if you know what they mean to begin with. I didn't "shotgun" anything, I replied to the shotgun of arguments within that opinion piece so you lazily substituted for your own arguments. Tell me, what part of your argument about the definition of what a "few" years is proves Donald Trump is racist when the government suit was settled without admission of guilt? is that your standard of evidence? He was accused? Oh right that is the new standard of the left, everyone we don't like is guilty upon accusation. |
|
|
|
Can you tell me what your baseless opinions about my opinions have to do with this specific incident right here? You know, on topic?
I already did. There is no censorship. There's just your butthurt for being unable to shitpost P&S. Except you didn't even address the actual situation. You attempted to make me look guilty by association (with people I don't really even associate with or necessarily like), and unilaterally judged my posts as "trolling" and "personal attacks". If my posts are all such off topic trolling, why are they still up? I wasn't complaining. I didn't find it necessary to post about Flying Hellfish's Reputation, but he decided to put this here as if I posted the op. Literally this thread is a direct result of his actions. Also I find it amusing you accuse me of not being able to control myself for more than a few posts without personal attacks while both of you pretty much include one in almost every post. I think there may be just a little bit of projection going on. You can just label things you disagree with as "trolling", or "personal attacks", but most of us can read simple English and can see that I was directly replying to his political rhetoric with a valid argument of my own. |
|
|
|
I voted, twice!
As a Socialist illegal alien, it is only your duty. |
|
|
|
Tell me, why I am I responsible for the behavior of those other individuals? Am I an "asshole" because I have opinions you disagree with? Is that not the point of the section to have discussions with people you don't agree with?
Also that is a false choice fallacy. There are plenty of other options besides your two extremist examples. Frankly I didn't feel the need to make this a public discussion. Flying Hellfish did however, and here we are. In the OP he created by removing my critical, on topic political reply to him, from its original thread to "Reputation", using authority exclusive to moderators.
Tell me where I said that you're "responsible for the behavior of those other individuals"? You're an asshole because you're an asshole. You can't hold a discussion for more than a couple of posts without descending into pointless trollery and personal attacks. Which belongs in Reputation, Off Topic, or trashcan. Can you tell me what your baseless opinions about my opinions have to do with this specific incident right here? You know, on topic? |
|
|
|
''Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing,''
Stop cherry picking, are you badecker's brother?
And as I said, ''One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation'' Scientific theories are the best explanation we have right now, they might not be 100% true but unless you can prove otherwise they remain as true. Note that evolution is tested and has been tested for a long time.
There is no opposing scientific theory to evolution, at most some scientists disagree on specific things inside the evolution theory but no one has been able to present a better theory, not even fucking close.
It doesn't matter how much you test it, how much data there is, or how well it is accepted, a "theory", or "scientific theory" is still a theory. As a theory, as with all science, nothing is ever settled, and everything is up for debate if new contradictory data is presented. You may not agree with the data, you may think it is inaccurate, but it is a fact this is how scientific theory operates. There is no such thing as settled science, and things that were "facts" 5 years ago, 5 months ago, or 5 minutes ago are often not "facts" a moment later because new data is discovered. |
|
|
|
I think you mean those people who believe that HIV doesn't exist, you will have horns and tail from genetically modified products, and no need for vaccination.
Most people aren't very smart. Without having an opinion and not understanding the essence of the issue, they're happy to relay other people's thoughts that aren't always adequate.
When you start arguing with them suddenly it turns out that your a rapist from frozen wasteland.
It always amazes me how accurately the descriptions that leftists try to use to demonize people usually quite accurately describe their own behavior. Perhaps present some empirical data to support your argument. Character attacks aren't going to do anything but reassure existing true believers, and at most make less people have a debate openly while they question your conclusions privately. BTW... Obvious sock puppet is obvious. |
|
|
|
|
I predict Democrat disappointment.
|
|
|
|
Someone who doesn't accept current scientific theories shouldn't discuss anything about science.
What's that? Astargath's law? Understanding that scientific theories exist is quite factual understanding. Rather, somebody who thinks scientific theories are fact should build himself a synagogue to think in. Now, what does that have to do with vaccines?  ''somebody who thinks scientific theories are fact'' Showing your misunderstanding for theories again. A scientific theory is simply the best understanding we have of a specific phenomena. It's the best explanation of it. So then your theory is the only theory that is accurate, and the other theories are just theories right? To you science is an amorphous mass that fits whatever definition you need it to at any given moment. Theories are by definition up for debate. Scientific theories are by definition not up to debate. A scientific theory has a very different meaning than a ''theory''. Not saying a scientific theory is the absolute truth and they can certainly change but only after a lot of evidence is presented. In the present any scientific theory is the best understanding we have of, gravity, evolution, quantum physics, etc etc. ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]'' "Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,[1] abductive inference,[1] or retroduction[2]) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation,[3] although not all uses of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.[4][5] " In other words under debate. Thanks for making my argument for me. |
|
|
|
So we have a choice between
- P&S being overrun by assholes like TECSHARE/Quicksy/bluefirewhatshername; or
- having it moderated by an opinionated commie pothead who lives in an ice hut...
Yeah that's a tough one LOL. Keep in mind that not so long ago no one else really cared much about cleaning up P&S and that's how FHF got the job.
Censorship my ass. Create a thread in Off Topic like notbatman and live there.
Tell me, why I am I responsible for the behavior of those other individuals? Am I an "asshole" because I have opinions you disagree with? Is that not the point of the section to have discussions with people you don't agree with? Also that is a false choice fallacy. There are plenty of other options besides your two extremist examples. Frankly I didn't feel the need to make this a public discussion. Flying Hellfish did however, and here we are. In the OP he created by removing my critical, on topic political reply to him, from its original thread to "Reputation", using authority exclusive to moderators. |
|
|
|
Someone who doesn't accept current scientific theories shouldn't discuss anything about science.
What's that? Astargath's law? Understanding that scientific theories exist is quite factual understanding. Rather, somebody who thinks scientific theories are fact should build himself a synagogue to think in. Now, what does that have to do with vaccines? ''somebody who thinks scientific theories are fact'' Showing your misunderstanding for theories again. A scientific theory is simply the best understanding we have of a specific phenomena. It's the best explanation of it. So then your theory is the only theory that is accurate, and the other theories are just theories right? To you science is an amorphous mass that fits whatever definition you need it to at any given moment. Theories are by definition up for debate. |
|
|
|
By the way, how WOULD a SOS run for another office under the laws of a particular state without overseeing his own election? I assume that since you've complained about that, you have determined that the current action is improper under the Alabama state law, and are prepared to explain what the right method is?
What does this have to do with Alabama? You might want to start reading what you're commenting on unless your goal is to make yourself look like a moron, in which case - well done. Trump issued an executive order moving Georgia to Alabama lol Republicans do you have your life boats ready, don't want you all getting wet when the blue wave comes in! Wanna bet on it? I look forward to at least a few days of you hiding with your tail between your legs trying to avoid discussing how wrong you were. Or maybe you can just move the whole midterms to the reputation section. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
