Total Posts:94|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Grandpa disowns daughter for a good reason.

Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 8:55:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A woman disowned her son for being gay, and her father disowned her for disowning her son and is now raising this boy. I support the grandpa, how about you? Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:06:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 8:55:44 PM, Sitara wrote:
A woman disowned her son for being gay, and her father disowned her for disowning her son and is now raising this boy. I support the grandpa, how about you? Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
'
The Fool: I mean don't think either should have got disowned. But I have a supporting argument..

But what does saying "I support that" do?

Do you have a supporting argument?

That wouldn't count as a objectively valid source. It's clearly a LGBT propaganda site.I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do have a problem with dishonest propaganda.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:11:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:06:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/9/2013 8:55:44 PM, Sitara wrote:
A woman disowned her son for being gay, and her father disowned her for disowning her son and is now raising this boy. I support the grandpa, how about you? Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
'
The Fool: I mean don't think either should have got disowned. But I have a supporting argument..

But what does saying "I support that" do?

Do you have a supporting argument?

That wouldn't count as a objectively valid source. It's clearly a LGBT propaganda site.I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do have a problem with dishonest propaganda.
So fighting hate is propaganda. You have committed the fallacy fallacy. You equate disagreement with a fallacy, and that is not honest. debating, and it is not propaganda or dishonest to fight for gay rights.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:17:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:29:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:17:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence

No one here is supporting violence. Disowning someone is not a violent act and my source does not support violence either. WOW. Way to insert a complete lie into a factual situation.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:31:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:29:47 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:17:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence

No one here is supporting violence. Disowning someone is not a violent act and my source does not support violence either. WOW. Way to insert a complete lie into a factual situation.

WOW did you even check to read the second sentence
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:31:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:17:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence

One does not have to resort to violence to be a fighter. Jesus? A fighter. Gandhi? A fighter. Dr. King? A fighter. You are under the mistaken impression that fighting always equals violence.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:38:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:11:09 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:06:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/9/2013 8:55:44 PM, Sitara wrote:
A woman disowned her son for being gay, and her father disowned her for disowning her son and is now raising this boy. I support the grandpa, how about you? Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
'
The Fool: I mean don't think either should have got disowned. But I have a supporting argument..

But what does saying "I support that" do?

Do you have a supporting argument?

That wouldn't count as a objectively valid source. It's clearly a LGBT propaganda site.I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do have a problem with dishonest propaganda.


So fighting hate is propaganda

The Fool: I can't tell if that is a question? But I will assume its not for now. You can't correct me after.
There are Noble an honest ways of promoting nondiscrimination. Propangada is dishonest, and deceptive with the intention to harm. Forming hate groups as an exuse to say your fighting hate is just as wrong.

Sitara : You have committed the fallacy fallacy.

The Fool: Its clear you are just learning about how to argue. You have a Looooong way to go.
Good luck catching me in a fallacy, no I really mean that. Good luck

<(8D)

Sitara : You equate disagreement with a fallacy, and that is not honest debating, and it is not propaganda or dishonest to fight for gay rights.

The Fool: I said nothing about disagreement, nor fallacies. I'm sure that you would like that I did that so your projecting that from your own self imagination. Because it's not in this post. I told you that it is a biased site, littered with dishonest and exaggerated propaganda, that is false information aimed at pushing an ideology.

So I ask again, do you have a moral argument supporting your claim? Or are you just running your hate fueled and unjustified mouth .

Note how many things you had to make up so far.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:41:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:31:32 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:17:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence

One does not have to resort to violence to be a fighter. Jesus? A fighter. Gandhi? A fighter. Dr. King? A fighter. You are under the mistaken impression that fighting always equals violence.

The Fool: violence is not the only thing that is wrong, acting aggressive towards somebody to harm them emotionally or any sense is wrong... Violence, is just seen as worst because it's more practical to account for, not because it is any less wrong.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:42:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:38:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:11:09 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:06:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/9/2013 8:55:44 PM, Sitara wrote:
A woman disowned her son for being gay, and her father disowned her for disowning her son and is now raising this boy. I support the grandpa, how about you? Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
'
The Fool: I mean don't think either should have got disowned. But I have a supporting argument..

But what does saying "I support that" do?

Do you have a supporting argument?

That wouldn't count as a objectively valid source. It's clearly a LGBT propaganda site.I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do have a problem with dishonest propaganda.



So fighting hate is propaganda

The Fool: I can't tell if that is a question? But I will assume its not for now. You can't correct me after.
There are Noble an honest ways of promoting nondiscrimination. Propangada is dishonest, and deceptive with the intention to harm. Forming hate groups as an exuse to say your fighting hate is just as wrong.

Sitara : You have committed the fallacy fallacy.

The Fool: Its clear you are just learning about how to argue. You have a Looooong way to go.
Good luck catching me in a fallacy, no I really mean that. Good luck

<(8D)

Sitara : You equate disagreement with a fallacy, and that is not honest debating, and it is not propaganda or dishonest to fight for gay rights.

The Fool: I said nothing about disagreement, nor fallacies. I'm sure that you would like that I did that so your projecting that from your own self imagination. Because it's not in this post. I told you that it is a biased site, littered with dishonest and exaggerated propaganda, that is false information aimed at pushing an ideology.

So I ask again, do you have a moral argument supporting your claim? Or are you just running your hate fueled and unjustified mouth .

Note how many things you had to make up so far.

I do not hate anyone. Classic tu quoque and ad homenim all rolled into one. Fighting for gay rights is not hateful. Seriously, stop spamming an start debating, or leave. You have not provided one single shred of evidence of facts, but just baseless allegations on my character because I support gay rights. This is not russia, deal with it.
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:44:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:41:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:31:32 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:17:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence

One does not have to resort to violence to be a fighter. Jesus? A fighter. Gandhi? A fighter. Dr. King? A fighter. You are under the mistaken impression that fighting always equals violence.

The Fool: violence is not the only thing that is wrong, acting aggressive towards somebody to harm them emotionally or any sense is wrong... Violence, is just seen as worst because it's more practical to account for, not because it is any less wrong.

No one is acting agressive. You are lying. You need to leave the honest debating to nontrolls.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:56:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:44:37 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:41:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:31:32 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:17:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence

One does not have to resort to violence to be a fighter. Jesus? A fighter. Gandhi? A fighter. Dr. King? A fighter. You are under the mistaken impression that fighting always equals violence.

The Fool: violence is not the only thing that is wrong, acting aggressive towards somebody to harm them emotionally or any sense is wrong... Violence, is just seen as worst because it's more practical to account for, not because it is any less wrong.

No one is acting agressive. You are lying. You need to leave the honest debating to nontrolls.

I think you are the troll, as that Cybertron dude said "insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence", yet you still talked about violence. Either you are a troll, or you have a hard time reading...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:06:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:42:50 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:38:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:11:09 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:06:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/9/2013 8:55:44 PM, Sitara wrote:
A woman disowned her son for being gay, and her father disowned her for disowning her son and is now raising this boy. I support the grandpa, how about you? Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
'
The Fool: I mean don't think either should have got disowned. But I have a supporting argument..

But what does saying "I support that" do?

Do you have a supporting argument?

That wouldn't count as a objectively valid source. It's clearly a LGBT propaganda site.I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do have a problem with dishonest propaganda.



So fighting hate is propaganda

The Fool: I can't tell if that is a question? But I will assume its not for now. You can't correct me after.
There are Noble an honest ways of promoting nondiscrimination. Propangada is : Sitara : You equate disagreement with a fallacy, and that is not honest debating, and it is not propaganda or dishonest to fight for gay rights.

The Fool: I said nothing about disagreement, nor fallacies. I'm sure that you would like that I did that so your projecting that from your own self imagination. Because it's not in this post. I told you that it is a biased site, littered with dishonest and exaggerated propaganda, that is false information aimed at pushing an ideology.

So I ask again, do you have a moral argument supporting your claim? Or are you just running your hate fueled and unjustified mouth .

Note how many things you had to make up so far.

do not hate anyone. Classic tu quoque and ad homenim all rolled into one.

The Fool: When you can demonstrate them than then they will count, simply just saying them does nothing. Just like saying you support something does nothing.

Nonetheless is obvious that you are hostile to people how don't support your Religious/Ideology. You are aggressive and you speak in a hateful way, toward them, you're just not calling your state, and I'm calling you out. And I always will. Each and every time. If you don't like it you get out of here.

You support the fact that the husband this own the mother, that is, you spoke of this as being well as a type of revenge. And that is hate. The motivation to think ill and with suffering on them is hate.

Secondly, you don't know what you're talking about, Pretending you know about fallacies. Because anybody who understands fallacies doesn't use them in that sense, you're using them like a newbie. We simply just refute the argument directly. It's pedantic, and you probably don't even know how ridiculous it looks.

An ad hominem, I when you call somebody a derogatory name, As a support for your argument, I'm not using that as a support for my argument. If you Google it, actually read it, so you know what you're talking about next time.

Sitara : Fighting for gay rights is not hateful.

. You can do it hatefully, and the way you do it is hatefully.

Seriously, stop spamming an start debating, or leave.

The Fool: It"s a discussion forum And I am asking you to support you claim? And you can answer. So that your problem, YOU LEAVE>

Sitara: You have not provided one single shred of evidence of facts, but just baseless allegations on my character because I support gay rights.

The Fool: Lol, Oh I am going to have a lot of fun with this one. I support guys Right just as well. So you don't know what you are talking about. I just do it honestly without hate and harm. You are hateful Phony.

I simply asked you if you had a moral argument which support your claim or are you just running your mouth like someone who does not know what they're talking about?

Somehow you've still dodged the answer, You've created five stories now.

Sitara: This is not Russia, deal with it.

The Fool: You haven't given an argument, there's nothing to deal with, you are your own self refuter. I like that, it makes it easy, I like you like that, looking like that, the way you do.

<(8D)

Don't stop now.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:22:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:56:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:44:37 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:41:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:31:32 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:17:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence

One does not have to resort to violence to be a fighter. Jesus? A fighter. Gandhi? A fighter. Dr. King? A fighter. You are under the mistaken impression that fighting always equals violence.

The Fool: violence is not the only thing that is wrong, acting aggressive towards somebody to harm them emotionally or any sense is wrong... Violence, is just seen as worst because it's more practical to account for, not because it is any less wrong.

No one is acting agressive. You are lying. You need to leave the honest debating to nontrolls.

I think you are the troll, as that Cybertron dude said "insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence", yet you still talked about violence. Either you are a troll, or you have a hard time reading...
Wrong. i did not talk about violence. I referenced fighting hate with education and ideals.
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:24:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 10:06:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:42:50 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:38:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:11:09 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:06:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/9/2013 8:55:44 PM, Sitara wrote:
A woman disowned her son for being gay, and her father disowned her for disowning her son and is now raising this boy. I support the grandpa, how about you? Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
'
The Fool: I mean don't think either should have got disowned. But I have a supporting argument..

But what does saying "I support that" do?

Do you have a supporting argument?

That wouldn't count as a objectively valid source. It's clearly a LGBT propaganda site.I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do have a problem with dishonest propaganda.



So fighting hate is propaganda

The Fool: I can't tell if that is a question? But I will assume its not for now. You can't correct me after.
There are Noble an honest ways of promoting nondiscrimination. Propangada is : Sitara : You equate disagreement with a fallacy, and that is not honest debating, and it is not propaganda or dishonest to fight for gay rights.

The Fool: I said nothing about disagreement, nor fallacies. I'm sure that you would like that I did that so your projecting that from your own self imagination. Because it's not in this post. I told you that it is a biased site, littered with dishonest and exaggerated propaganda, that is false information aimed at pushing an ideology.

So I ask again, do you have a moral argument supporting your claim? Or are you just running your hate fueled and unjustified mouth .

Note how many things you had to make up so far.

do not hate anyone. Classic tu quoque and ad homenim all rolled into one.

The Fool: When you can demonstrate them than then they will count, simply just saying them does nothing. Just like saying you support something does nothing.

Nonetheless is obvious that you are hostile to people how don't support your Religious/Ideology. You are aggressive and you speak in a hateful way, toward them, you're just not calling your state, and I'm calling you out. And I always will. Each and every time. If you don't like it you get out of here.

You support the fact that the husband this own the mother, that is, you spoke of this as being well as a type of revenge. And that is hate. The motivation to think ill and with suffering on them is hate.

Secondly, you don't know what you're talking about, Pretending you know about fallacies. Because anybody who understands fallacies doesn't use them in that sense, you're using them like a newbie. We simply just refute the argument directly. It's pedantic, and you probably don't even know how ridiculous it looks.

An ad hominem, I when you call somebody a derogatory name, As a support for your argument, I'm not using that as a support for my argument. If you Google it, actually read it, so you know what you're talking about next time.

Sitara : Fighting for gay rights is not hateful.

. You can do it hatefully, and the way you do it is hatefully.

Seriously, stop spamming an start debating, or leave.

The Fool: It"s a discussion forum And I am asking you to support you claim? And you can answer. So that your problem, YOU LEAVE>

Sitara: You have not provided one single shred of evidence of facts, but just baseless allegations on my character because I support gay rights.

The Fool: Lol, Oh I am going to have a lot of fun with this one. I support guys Right just as well. So you don't know what you are talking about. I just do it honestly without hate and harm. You are hateful Phony.

I simply asked you if you had a moral argument which support your claim or are you just running your mouth like someone who does not know what they're talking about?

Somehow you've still dodged the answer, You've created five stories now.

Sitara: This is not Russia, deal with it.

The Fool: You haven't given an argument, there's nothing to deal with, you are your own self refuter. I like that, it makes it easy, I like you like that, looking like that, the way you do.

<(8D)

Don't stop now.
I am not hateful. If I hated you, you would know it. Hate is against my beliefs. It is a complete lie that you are telling. Bear not false witness.
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 11:04:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 10:06:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:42:50 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:38:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:11:09 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:06:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/9/2013 8:55:44 PM, Sitara wrote:
A woman disowned her son for being gay, and her father disowned her for disowning her son and is now raising this boy. I support the grandpa, how about you? Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
'
The Fool: I mean don't think either should have got disowned. But I have a supporting argument..

But what does saying "I support that" do?

Do you have a supporting argument?

That wouldn't count as a objectively valid source. It's clearly a LGBT propaganda site.I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do have a problem with dishonest propaganda.



So fighting hate is propaganda

The Fool: I can't tell if that is a question? But I will assume its not for now. You can't correct me after.
There are Noble an honest ways of promoting nondiscrimination. Propangada is : Sitara : You equate disagreement with a fallacy, and that is not honest debating, and it is not propaganda or dishonest to fight for gay rights.

The Fool: I said nothing about disagreement, nor fallacies. I'm sure that you would like that I did that so your projecting that from your own self imagination. Because it's not in this post. I told you that it is a biased site, littered with dishonest and exaggerated propaganda, that is false information aimed at pushing an ideology.

So I ask again, do you have a moral argument supporting your claim? Or are you just running your hate fueled and unjustified mouth .

Note how many things you had to make up so far.

do not hate anyone. Classic tu quoque and ad homenim all rolled into one.

The Fool: When you can demonstrate them than then they will count, simply just saying them does nothing. Just like saying you support something does nothing.

Nonetheless is obvious that you are hostile to people how don't support your Religious/Ideology. You are aggressive and you speak in a hateful way, toward them, you're just not calling your state, and I'm calling you out. And I always will. Each and every time. If you don't like it you get out of here.

You support the fact that the husband this own the mother, that is, you spoke of this as being well as a type of revenge. And that is hate. The motivation to think ill and with suffering on them is hate.

Secondly, you don't know what you're talking about, Pretending you know about fallacies. Because anybody who understands fallacies doesn't use them in that sense, you're using them like a newbie. We simply just refute the argument directly. It's pedantic, and you probably don't even know how ridiculous it looks.

An ad hominem, I when you call somebody a derogatory name, As a support for your argument, I'm not using that as a support for my argument. If you Google it, actually read it, so you know what you're talking about next time.

Sitara : Fighting for gay rights is not hateful.

. You can do it hatefully, and the way you do it is hatefully.

Seriously, stop spamming an start debating, or leave.

The Fool: It"s a discussion forum And I am asking you to support you claim? And you can answer. So that your problem, YOU LEAVE>

Sitara: You have not provided one single shred of evidence of facts, but just baseless allegations on my character because I support gay rights.

The Fool: Lol, Oh I am going to have a lot of fun with this one. I support guys Right just as well. So you don't know what you are talking about. I just do it honestly without hate and harm. You are hateful Phony.

I simply asked you if you had a moral argument which support your claim or are you just running your mouth like someone who does not know what they're talking about?

Somehow you've still dodged the answer, You've created five stories now.

Sitara: This is not Russia, deal with it.

The Fool: You haven't given an argument, there's nothing to deal with, you are your own self refuter. I like that, it makes it easy, I like you like that, looking like that, the way you do.

<(8D)

Don't stop now.
I another complete lie; I am not religious, and I have friends whom I respect with many viewpoints. I am only hostile to complete liars like you.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 11:46:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 10:22:31 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:56:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:44:37 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:41:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:31:32 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:17:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence

One does not have to resort to violence to be a fighter. Jesus? A fighter. Gandhi? A fighter. Dr. King? A fighter. You are under the mistaken impression that fighting always equals violence.

The Fool: violence is not the only thing that is wrong, acting aggressive towards somebody to harm them emotionally or any sense is wrong... Violence, is just seen as worst because it's more practical to account for, not because it is any less wrong.

No one is acting agressive. You are lying. You need to leave the honest debating to nontrolls.

I think you are the troll, as that Cybertron dude said "insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence", yet you still talked about violence. Either you are a troll, or you have a hard time reading...
Wrong. i did not talk about violence. I referenced fighting hate with education and ideals.

Garret and Cyber were (I believe) attempting to parse it for you. You seem to not understand, so I'll try to break it down more explicitly.

Cyber said:

"more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence"

What that is is

More X doesn't solve X. Insert (anything similar to X in place of X).

You said "But I'm not talking about X!"

Cyber wasn't saying you were. He used violence as an example, but then said "insert whatever the situation is" which, do actually do that, would be basically saying, "You don't solve disowning over ideological differences by more disowning over ideological differences".

Neither Garret nor Cyber were actually saying you were talking about violence. It was the example he used. He could have also said "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Now, you may argue that you're saying that the second disowning wasn't a bad thing because you find what the mother did to be bad enough to warrant disowning. Which I'm not taking a position on. But I hope I've clarified cyber's point (and cyber, if I'm wrong, please correct me).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 7:47:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:41:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:31:32 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:17:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence

One does not have to resort to violence to be a fighter. Jesus? A fighter. Gandhi? A fighter. Dr. King? A fighter. You are under the mistaken impression that fighting always equals violence.

The Fool: violence is not the only thing that is wrong, acting aggressive towards somebody to harm them emotionally or any sense is wrong... Violence, is just seen as worst because it's more practical to account for, not because it is any less wrong.

Your definition of "aggression" is very arbitrary. Here you are telling Sitara she has a hate fueled mouth but would not consider that aggressive, but that the grandfather has taken such a negative stance against his daughter is aggressive? What gives? In my opinion, the end justifies the means, otherwise we might as well all just shut up and let the bad trample over us like we were retards, enslave us even, as was once done of those "less civilised".

Where is your justification for such remarks? I'm not saying you don't have any now, but it would better be presented than just to assume the moral high ground as you have.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 8:12:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In my opinion, it does oftentimes take some degree of violence to change a mind. The mind, unfortunately, is just a control center, and as such its wrongs are to be put down to control. The essence of a human being, however, might be said differently of, but it is, in my experience, often so shut off from the world that it is much, much too hard to just reach with peace and love. Then, it becomes necessary to render the mind obsolete, a failure, that this essence, this beginning, might once again take a look at the world for itself, much more informedly this time, not layered with program after program to keep out those initially perceived bad things. And so I will play mental games.

However, I would not say this is appropriate for everyone, more so those capable, and that just peace and love should be the modus operandi for those incapable, but then maybe, like Fool, I am just tooting my own horn, but then again, I do believe I've helped many people to see the world in a better way. I have an uncanny ability for going around confirmation bias for example, like J.K. Rowling with her fantastical Bible, and I do not think it is so immoral to speak sense to people where they would not want you to speak at all. This, however, is aggression, but is it not justified if the person ends up better of? I think so.

Those malignant forces in the world shape their subjects as their own, and it is only in exposing their fraudulence, their weakness, and by means of righteous strength, of taking away control, that they will be freed from their bonds, their delusion. This is aggression, though justified.

In the case of this grandfather then, his games might very well work, considering the build one might associate with the female mind, and then this undertaking might very well be justified. Again, are we to just be enslaved? It's not often at all that the mind will look to anything else outside of having lost control.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 8:50:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find one of the most effective approaches is to build people up and then tear them down. Bring them to rely on you in their controlling ways, that is, then take away your support. This, and leading people towards information that you have hidden in an area that they might use to exert control over you, you having set some small foundation already, are my two areas of speciality, of combating confirmation bias, outside of just understanding and being able to explain to people why they are who they are, that is. And though these methods are deceptive and most certainly generate emotional turmoil, they are, as far as I can see, the only means to actually help people, and then in their helping people, they are justified. To just say someone has a "hate fueled mouth" certainly isn't any better anyway, and, in my opinion, just childish.

I will also always offer an out, an out which is progress, which those I have subjected to the above will then latch on to. I do believe medic has recently latched on to one of my outs and is certainly making progress.

WSA is currently laughing at himself and cradling that which has brought him most comfort since his world was torn apart. He'll get it, too. Not without any discomfort, though.

For each of these, I have rewritten their histories, as Fool would decry, but it is not wrong so long as no lasting harm comes of them. Nobody likes being called "hateful" either now do they?

Incorrigibility!!
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 12:53:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
i find it appalling how none of you get what i was saying. "More meaningless violence does not solve meaningless violence" is another way of saying that two wrongs do not make a right
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 1:47:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 7:47:56 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:41:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:31:32 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:17:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
more meaningless violence doesn't solve meaningless violence. insert whatever the situation is in the place of violence

One does not have to resort to violence to be a fighter. Jesus? A fighter. Gandhi? A fighter. Dr. King? A fighter. You are under the mistaken impression that fighting always equals violence.

The Fool: violence is not the only thing that is wrong, acting aggressive towards somebody to harm them emotionally or any sense is wrong... Violence, is just seen as worst because it's more practical to account for, not because it is any less wrong.

Your definition of "aggression" is very arbitrary. Here you are telling Sitara she has a hate fueled mouth but would not consider that aggressive, but that the grandfather has taken such a negative stance against his daughter is aggressive? What gives? In my opinion, the end justifies the means, otherwise we might as well all just shut up and let the bad trample over us like we were retards, enslave us even, as was once done of those "less civilised".

Where is your justification for such remarks? I'm not saying you don't have any now, but it would better be presented than just to assume the moral high ground as you have.

There has to be a degree of proportionality to the end justifying the means, if your goal is to solve the blood shortage, is it OK to take a few thousand people, capture them, enslave them and take all their blood except the amount they need to survive? By your logic, I guess it is.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 1:48:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 8:12:53 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
In my opinion, it does oftentimes take some degree of violence to change a mind. The mind, unfortunately, is just a control center, and as such its wrongs are to be put down to control. The essence of a human being, however, might be said differently of, but it is, in my experience, often so shut off from the world that it is much, much too hard to just reach with peace and love. Then, it becomes necessary to render the mind obsolete, a failure, that this essence, this beginning, might once again take a look at the world for itself, much more informedly this time, not layered with program after program to keep out those initially perceived bad things. And so I will play mental games.

However, I would not say this is appropriate for everyone, more so those capable, and that just peace and love should be the modus operandi for those incapable, but then maybe, like Fool, I am just tooting my own horn, but then again, I do believe I've helped many people to see the world in a better way. I have an uncanny ability for going around confirmation bias for example, like J.K. Rowling with her fantastical Bible, and I do not think it is so immoral to speak sense to people where they would not want you to speak at all. This, however, is aggression, but is it not justified if the person ends up better of? I think so.

Those malignant forces in the world shape their subjects as their own, and it is only in exposing their fraudulence, their weakness, and by means of righteous strength, of taking away control, that they will be freed from their bonds, their delusion. This is aggression, though justified.

In the case of this grandfather then, his games might very well work, considering the build one might associate with the female mind, and then this undertaking might very well be justified. Again, are we to just be enslaved? It's not often at all that the mind will look to anything else outside of having lost control.

So you are a proponent of spreading non violence by using violence? the irony is unbearable.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 1:49:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, I get you, CA, but the point I'm making is that Fool's proportionality seems very hard to pin down whereas mine is not. I'm not in favour of any lasting physical or mental harm to anyone, no.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 1:51:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 1:48:56 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/12/2013 8:12:53 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
In my opinion, it does oftentimes take some degree of violence to change a mind. The mind, unfortunately, is just a control center, and as such its wrongs are to be put down to control. The essence of a human being, however, might be said differently of, but it is, in my experience, often so shut off from the world that it is much, much too hard to just reach with peace and love. Then, it becomes necessary to render the mind obsolete, a failure, that this essence, this beginning, might once again take a look at the world for itself, much more informedly this time, not layered with program after program to keep out those initially perceived bad things. And so I will play mental games.

However, I would not say this is appropriate for everyone, more so those capable, and that just peace and love should be the modus operandi for those incapable, but then maybe, like Fool, I am just tooting my own horn, but then again, I do believe I've helped many people to see the world in a better way. I have an uncanny ability for going around confirmation bias for example, like J.K. Rowling with her fantastical Bible, and I do not think it is so immoral to speak sense to people where they would not want you to speak at all. This, however, is aggression, but is it not justified if the person ends up better of? I think so.

Those malignant forces in the world shape their subjects as their own, and it is only in exposing their fraudulence, their weakness, and by means of righteous strength, of taking away control, that they will be freed from their bonds, their delusion. This is aggression, though justified.

In the case of this grandfather then, his games might very well work, considering the build one might associate with the female mind, and then this undertaking might very well be justified. Again, are we to just be enslaved? It's not often at all that the mind will look to anything else outside of having lost control.

So you are a proponent of spreading non violence by using violence? the irony is unbearable.

Essentially, yes. Can one not speak in a violent tone or attack an argument violently, though? I am not for inflicting any long-lasting mental or physical harm on anyone.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 2:18:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 12:53:03 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
i find it appalling how none of you get what i was saying. "More meaningless violence does not solve meaningless violence" is another way of saying that two wrongs do not make a right

Um, I did, and I literally said that's what you were saying. So keep away with your "none of you" business...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 2:19:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 2:18:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 12:53:03 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
i find it appalling how none of you get what i was saying. "More meaningless violence does not solve meaningless violence" is another way of saying that two wrongs do not make a right

Um, I did, and I literally said that's what you were saying. So keep away with your "none of you" business...

oh sorry, i didn't see that
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 2:27:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 1:51:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/12/2013 1:48:56 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/12/2013 8:12:53 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
In my opinion, it does oftentimes take some degree of violence to change a mind. The mind, unfortunately, is just a control center, and as such its wrongs are to be put down to control. The essence of a human being, however, might be said differently of, but it is, in my experience, often so shut off from the world that it is much, much too hard to just reach with peace and love. Then, it becomes necessary to render the mind obsolete, a failure, that this essence, this beginning, might once again take a look at the world for itself, much more informedly this time, not layered with program after program to keep out those initially perceived bad things. And so I will play mental games.

However, I would not say this is appropriate for everyone, more so those capable, and that just peace and love should be the modus operandi for those incapable, but then maybe, like Fool, I am just tooting my own horn, but then again, I do believe I've helped many people to see the world in a better way. I have an uncanny ability for going around confirmation bias for example, like J.K. Rowling with her fantastical Bible, and I do not think it is so immoral to speak sense to people where they would not want you to speak at all. This, however, is aggression, but is it not justified if the person ends up better of? I think so.

Those malignant forces in the world shape their subjects as their own, and it is only in exposing their fraudulence, their weakness, and by means of righteous strength, of taking away control, that they will be freed from their bonds, their delusion. This is aggression, though justified.

In the case of this grandfather then, his games might very well work, considering the build one might associate with the female mind, and then this undertaking might very well be justified. Again, are we to just be enslaved? It's not often at all that the mind will look to anything else outside of having lost control.

So you are a proponent of spreading non violence by using violence? the irony is unbearable.

Essentially, yes. Can one not speak in a violent tone or attack an argument violently, though? I am not for inflicting any long-lasting mental or physical harm on anyone.

I am not talking about your tone in an argument, I thought you were saying we are justified in using physical violence to promote nonviolence. lol
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 2:35:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 2:27:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/12/2013 1:51:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/12/2013 1:48:56 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/12/2013 8:12:53 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
In my opinion, it does oftentimes take some degree of violence to change a mind. The mind, unfortunately, is just a control center, and as such its wrongs are to be put down to control. The essence of a human being, however, might be said differently of, but it is, in my experience, often so shut off from the world that it is much, much too hard to just reach with peace and love. Then, it becomes necessary to render the mind obsolete, a failure, that this essence, this beginning, might once again take a look at the world for itself, much more informedly this time, not layered with program after program to keep out those initially perceived bad things. And so I will play mental games.

However, I would not say this is appropriate for everyone, more so those capable, and that just peace and love should be the modus operandi for those incapable, but then maybe, like Fool, I am just tooting my own horn, but then again, I do believe I've helped many people to see the world in a better way. I have an uncanny ability for going around confirmation bias for example, like J.K. Rowling with her fantastical Bible, and I do not think it is so immoral to speak sense to people where they would not want you to speak at all. This, however, is aggression, but is it not justified if the person ends up better of? I think so.

Those malignant forces in the world shape their subjects as their own, and it is only in exposing their fraudulence, their weakness, and by means of righteous strength, of taking away control, that they will be freed from their bonds, their delusion. This is aggression, though justified.

In the case of this grandfather then, his games might very well work, considering the build one might associate with the female mind, and then this undertaking might very well be justified. Again, are we to just be enslaved? It's not often at all that the mind will look to anything else outside of having lost control.

So you are a proponent of spreading non violence by using violence? the irony is unbearable.

Essentially, yes. Can one not speak in a violent tone or attack an argument violently, though? I am not for inflicting any long-lasting mental or physical harm on anyone.

I am not talking about your tone in an argument, I thought you were saying we are justified in using physical violence to promote nonviolence. lol

It's actually commonly put forward to give babies a little nip back when they're biting just to enlighten them as to what they're doing.