Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

 Posts: 2,995 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/9/2011 8:11:21 PMPosted: 6 years ago1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.That is the variation he presented. In the debate and here I will present a counter syllogism using the same form, so if his argument is valid( I don't necessarily think it is) then this argument is valid. He has presented an argument for a being that is maximally great, I am going to present an argument for No Maximality defined as This is the property of being such that there is no maximally great being. Here is my syllogism:1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists.6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists.Now, If my opponents syllogism is valid, meaning the conclusion logically follows if the premises are true, then my conclusion also follows if the premises are true, as it is the exact same form, which should be valid in all cases. Now, that we have established this, we are going to assume for a moment that his argument is actually valid. With the argument being valid we must then decide which one is actually sound, as they both can't be as they come up with contradictory results existing. So, in terms of which one is true, I actually presented this quote from J.L. Mackie's book The Miracle of Theism: "However, he would not be justified in claiming even that it is a toss-up. For one thing, suspense of judgement, not accepting the premiss either of the ontological argument or of the counter-argument, is another option. For another, if we are to choose between these premisses, in default of any other reason, we must ask which is the more modest and which the more extravagant, which can be accused of multiplying entities beyond what is necessary. And surely the more extravagant is that which asserts that maximal greatness is realized in some possible world. For this one carries with it the requirement that a maximally excellent being--and, indeed, a maximally great one--should exist in every possible world, whereas the rival premiss that no-maximality is realized in some possible world, still allows maximal excellence to be realized in some possible worlds though not in others. The latter, then, is less restrictive, less extravagant, and so on very general grounds the more acceptable."The he this is referring to is Plantinga, as it starts off looking like a toss up which one is true. Yet in the end using the constructs of logic Mackie demonstrated that the 2nd syllogism is more likely to be true. Hence, based on the 2 syllogisms it is more likely that no maximality exists.Contradiction was so dead set on believing the only way to counter his argument was this: " Con must show that the existence of an MGB is impossible due to its being self-contradictory -- quite a tall task"This turned out to be absolutely ridiculous as even Plantinga admitted the short comings of his own argument as a proof for god. He even agreed that the No Maximality argument was just as valid as his.My opponent then went onto rant about me conflating things, when I merely used the same logic he did. If my logic conflated epistomological possibility with metaphysical possibility so did his, as the logic was exactly the same. So, if that is a valid rebuttal to my syllogism it would be a defeater of the original argument as well.DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com... It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth! If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
 Posts: 5,955 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/9/2011 8:19:06 PMPosted: 6 years agoContradiction's arguments suck. He has a voting block that ensures his victory every time.In our debate, I honestly didn't think that anyone would be convinced by his completely absurd argument.Though, hey, voting is still going on with that debate.I probably should have been more thorough, but I honestly didn't think the voters would be that stupid. Oh yeah, and voting block.Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
 Posts: 11,682 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/9/2011 8:35:27 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/9/2011 8:19:06 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:Contradiction's arguments suck. He has a voting block that ensures his victory every time.I just checked and found that Dimitri C has voted on all but four of Contradiction's debates, each time voting in his favor. He gave him straight sevens in all but three of the ones he voted on as well. I'd say he has a vote block all right.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 2:07:41 AMPosted: 6 years agoIzbo is still whining about that debate? To be fair voting in it was very difficult due to the terrible indeed piss poor English he employed.Some of contradiction's arguments were pretty weak, but at least they could be read.I am pretty certain that influenced the vote.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 2,995 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 8:08:47 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 2:07:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:Izbo is still whining about that debate? To be fair voting in it was very difficult due to the terrible indeed piss poor English he employed.Some of contradiction's arguments were pretty weak, but at least they could be read.I am pretty certain that influenced the vote.It was not hard to read, you are just know making an excuse as others are agreeing with me. A lot of it I was quoting people.DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com... It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth! If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 9:20:09 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 8:08:47 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 2:07:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:Izbo is still whining about that debate? To be fair voting in it was very difficult due to the terrible indeed piss poor English he employed.Some of contradiction's arguments were pretty weak, but at least they could be read.I am pretty certain that influenced the vote.It was not hard to read, you are just know making an excuse as others are agreeing with me. A lot of it I was quoting people.That is another thing, you need to learn how to quote. It is obvious you never went to college, but if you google quoting etiquette that should sort you out.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 2,995 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 9:28:40 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 9:20:09 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 8:08:47 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 2:07:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:Izbo is still whining about that debate? To be fair voting in it was very difficult due to the terrible indeed piss poor English he employed.Some of contradiction's arguments were pretty weak, but at least they could be read.I am pretty certain that influenced the vote.It was not hard to read, you are just know making an excuse as others are agreeing with me. A lot of it I was quoting people.That is another thing, you need to learn how to quote. It is obvious you never went to college, but if you google quoting etiquette that should sort you out.I am not writing college papers you fuckin moron I am on a debate website, where i spend 10 minutes of my limited time out of work writing a response. I quoted it I put the author and page number. See you are just making nonsense claims to justify why you look like a complete and utter fuckin moron.DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com... It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth! If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 9:30:28 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 9:28:40 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 9:20:09 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 8:08:47 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 2:07:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:Izbo is still whining about that debate? To be fair voting in it was very difficult due to the terrible indeed piss poor English he employed.Some of contradiction's arguments were pretty weak, but at least they could be read.I am pretty certain that influenced the vote.It was not hard to read, you are just know making an excuse as others are agreeing with me. A lot of it I was quoting people.That is another thing, you need to learn how to quote. It is obvious you never went to college, but if you google quoting etiquette that should sort you out.I am not writing college papers you fuckin moron I am on a debate website, where i spend 10 minutes of my limited time out of work writing a response. I quoted it I put the author and page number. See you are just making nonsense claims to justify why you look like a complete and utter fuckin moron.The same rules still apply, and it actually takes less time to quote properly... again it is obvious you never went to college. Such basic skills are beyond you.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 2,995 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:20:04 AMPosted: 6 years ago"Many theologians and theistic scientists claim that evidence has been found for the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God or, at least, some being with supernatural powers. However, they cannot deny that their evidence is not sufficiently convincing to satisfy the majority of scientists." Stenger 21Ok, I would like to thank my opponent for the debate, he is in for a rough ride though. It should first be noted, that he is presenting the positive claim that God is probable, I am merely responding to said arguments. For I think it is important to note that my opponent has defined god in a deistic form, rather then a Traditional form. The Deistic god I tend to be a weak atheist, so to expect me to present a strong case that this god is improbably may be a straw man of my position, and does not actually grant enough space for me to give his arguments for the positive claim an adequate rebuttal.Onto his first argument the Ontological Argument.The biggest problem with the Ontological argument is that there is no reason to go from possible to necessary. It seems to make a huge jump here. That will not be my main contention with this argument though. My main contention is it may be a rational argument but even Plantiga himself is quoted as saying this: "'a sane and rational man who thought it through and understood it might none the less reject it'. On the other hand he suggests that this key premiss is rather like Leibniz's Law: if we carefully ponder it, considering objections and its connections with other propositions, 'we are within our rights in accepting it'." Mackie pg 59The reason for this is we can easily see that this argument can be countered. Plantiga himself helps to do this by defining: No Maximality. As we learn a counter argument can be made that a NO maximality is in every possible world. I'll let J.L. Mackie explain:He defines another term, 'no-maximality'. This is the property of being such that there is no maximally great being. Then someone might argue as follows: no-maximality is possibly exemplified; that is, there is a possible world in which no-maximality is exemplified, and therefore in which maximal greatness is not exemplified; but if maximal greatness is not exemplified in every possible world, it is not exemplified in any; therefore there cannot be any possible world in which maximal greatness is exemplified, that is, maximal greatness is not possible. Since we could argue before from the premiss that maximal greatness is exemplified in some possible world to the conclusion that no-maximality is not exemplified in any, we can argue equally validly from the premiss that no-maximality is exemplified in some possible world to the conclusion that maximal greatness is not exemplified in any" Mackie pg 59Now this brings us to the conclusion that based on both do not create contradictions that it may be a toss up. So how do we decide well we would go about using Occam's Razor. The Maximum being actually requires a lot more where as the rival as Mackie again puts it:" where as the rival premiss that no-maximality is realized in some possible world, still allows maximal excellence to be realized in some possible worlds though not in others. The latter, then, is less restrictive, less extravagant, and so on very general grounds the more acceptable." Mackie pg 61So therefore based on Occam's razor and the 2 contradictory positions here we are forced to conclude god is still not probable.2. Kalam's Cosmological Argument1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.This argument fails in many ways. Firstly, and most importantly it commits the Fallacy of Composition. It attempts attributes the attribute of all the things that have began to exist, to the entire set( the universe). This is a blatant logical fallacy. Say I only have square legos and I start building with them. What shape would my structure have? Oh that's right you can't attribute an attribute of the pieces of the set to the entire set so we don't know. I will contest as well that we can't accept this argument based on the 2nd premise."Nevertheless, another nail in the coffin of the kalam argument is provided by the fact that the second premise also fails. As we saw above, the claim that the universe began with the big bang has no basis in current physical and cosmological knowledge." Stenger 125So the 2nd premise has no reason to be taken seriously as current knowledge simply does not know what happened before the big bang. This argument also has another huge mistake to it. It assumes a personal cause. We know from science that not everything has a personal cause. Craig even inadvertently admits as much: "Craig has retorted that quantum events are still "caused," just caused in a non-predetermined manner"what he calls "probabilistic causality." In effect, Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous"something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation." Stenger 124A portion of my debate showing that I quote and credit authors.DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com... It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth! If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:22:33 AMPosted: 6 years agoIzbo, you must be a pretty bored man, to write whole essays at least 20 times a day trying to show any religious person to be illogical. Do you have a hobby? or is this it? If no, then you should probably get one."A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:23:30 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:20:04 AM, izbo10 wrote:"Many theologians and theistic scientists claim that evidence has been found for the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God or, at least, some being with supernatural powers. However, they cannot deny that their evidence is not sufficiently convincing to satisfy the majority of scientists." Stenger 21Ok, I would like to thank my opponent for the debate, he is in for a rough ride though. It should first be noted, that he is presenting the positive claim that God is probable, I am merely responding to said arguments. For I think it is important to note that my opponent has defined god in a deistic form, rather then a Traditional form. The Deistic god I tend to be a weak atheist, so to expect me to present a strong case that this god is improbably may be a straw man of my position, and does not actually grant enough space for me to give his arguments for the positive claim an adequate rebuttal.Onto his first argument the Ontological Argument.The biggest problem with the Ontological argument is that there is no reason to go from possible to necessary. It seems to make a huge jump here. That will not be my main contention with this argument though. My main contention is it may be a rational argument but even Plantiga himself is quoted as saying this: "'a sane and rational man who thought it through and understood it might none the less reject it'. On the other hand he suggests that this key premiss is rather like Leibniz's Law: if we carefully ponder it, considering objections and its connections with other propositions, 'we are within our rights in accepting it'." Mackie pg 59The reason for this is we can easily see that this argument can be countered. Plantiga himself helps to do this by defining: No Maximality. As we learn a counter argument can be made that a NO maximality is in every possible world. I'll let J.L. Mackie explain:He defines another term, 'no-maximality'. This is the property of being such that there is no maximally great being. Then someone might argue as follows: no-maximality is possibly exemplified; that is, there is a possible world in which no-maximality is exemplified, and therefore in which maximal greatness is not exemplified; but if maximal greatness is not exemplified in every possible world, it is not exemplified in any; therefore there cannot be any possible world in which maximal greatness is exemplified, that is, maximal greatness is not possible. Since we could argue before from the premiss that maximal greatness is exemplified in some possible world to the conclusion that no-maximality is not exemplified in any, we can argue equally validly from the premiss that no-maximality is exemplified in some possible world to the conclusion that maximal greatness is not exemplified in any" Mackie pg 59Now this brings us to the conclusion that based on both do not create contradictions that it may be a toss up. So how do we decide well we would go about using Occam's Razor. The Maximum being actually requires a lot more where as the rival as Mackie again puts it:" where as the rival premiss that no-maximality is realized in some possible world, still allows maximal excellence to be realized in some possible worlds though not in others. The latter, then, is less restrictive, less extravagant, and so on very general grounds the more acceptable." Mackie pg 61So therefore based on Occam's razor and the 2 contradictory positions here we are forced to conclude god is still not probable.2. Kalam's Cosmological Argument1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.This argument fails in many ways. Firstly, and most importantly it commits the Fallacy of Composition. It attempts attributes the attribute of all the things that have began to exist, to the entire set( the universe). This is a blatant logical fallacy. Say I only have square legos and I start building with them. What shape would my structure have? Oh that's right you can't attribute an attribute of the pieces of the set to the entire set so we don't know. I will contest as well that we can't accept this argument based on the 2nd premise."Nevertheless, another nail in the coffin of the kalam argument is provided by the fact that the second premise also fails. As we saw above, the claim that the universe began with the big bang has no basis in current physical and cosmological knowledge." Stenger 125So the 2nd premise has no reason to be taken seriously as current knowledge simply does not know what happened before the big bang. This argument also has another huge mistake to it. It assumes a personal cause. We know from science that not everything has a personal cause. Craig even inadvertently admits as much: "Craig has retorted that quantum events are still "caused," just caused in a non-predetermined manner"what he calls "probabilistic causality." In effect, Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous"something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation." Stenger 124A portion of my debate showing that I quote and credit authors.Incorrectly.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 2,995 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:23:48 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:22:33 AM, 000ike wrote:Izbo, you must be a pretty bored man, to write whole essays at least 20 times a day trying to show any religious person to be illogical. Do you have a hobby? or is this it? If no, then you should probably get one.Yes, I do many things, but find religion to be important as it effects everybody on a daily basis and their is no reason for this crap anymore.DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com... It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth! If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:24:18 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:23:48 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:22:33 AM, 000ike wrote:Izbo, you must be a pretty bored man, to write whole essays at least 20 times a day trying to show any religious person to be illogical. Do you have a hobby? or is this it? If no, then you should probably get one.Yes, I do many things, but find religion to be important as it effects everybody on a daily basis and their is no reason for this crap anymore.When you make a moral statement, such as "x is wrong" do you mean that,a) X is factually incorrect.orb) You simply dislike X.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 2,995 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AMPosted: 6 years agoI posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com... It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth! If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:30:12 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.You are ignoring me for a comment never made... fascinating.Anyways.When you make a moral statement, such as "x is wrong" do you mean that,a) X is factually incorrect.orb) You simply dislike X.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 15,843 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?DDO Vice President #StandwithBossy #UnbanTheMadman #BetOnThett "Don't quote me, ever." -Max "My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping "Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max "Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle "You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam : At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote: : thett was right
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:38:04 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?It is strange, he will persecute Medic on an issues he is not really able to refute... yet do the same to him he lies and clams up. Intellectual dishonest me thinks?I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 15,843 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:40:44 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:38:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?It is strange, he will persecute Medic on an issues he is not really able to refute... yet do the same to him he lies and clams up. Intellectual dishonest me thinks?cant be! only the christians are intellectually dishonest!DDO Vice President #StandwithBossy #UnbanTheMadman #BetOnThett "Don't quote me, ever." -Max "My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping "Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max "Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle "You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam : At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote: : thett was right
 Posts: 2,995 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:44:13 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:40:44 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:38:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?It is strange, he will persecute Medic on an issues he is not really able to refute... yet do the same to him he lies and clams up. Intellectual dishonest me thinks?cant be! only the christians are intellectually dishonest!No, I just feel no need to continue withsome so devoid of any morals and also so disrespectful to the victims of the holocaust. Do you have any respect whatsoever?DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com... It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth! If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
 Posts: 15,843 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:47:23 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:44:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:40:44 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:38:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?It is strange, he will persecute Medic on an issues he is not really able to refute... yet do the same to him he lies and clams up. Intellectual dishonest me thinks?cant be! only the christians are intellectually dishonest!No, I just feel no need to continue withsome so devoid of any morals and also so disrespectful to the victims of the holocaust. Do you have any respect whatsoever?I don't understand...where do you get your objective standard with which to measure what is moral/respectful bozo?DDO Vice President #StandwithBossy #UnbanTheMadman #BetOnThett "Don't quote me, ever." -Max "My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping "Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max "Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle "You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam : At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote: : thett was right
 Posts: 2,995 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:49:31 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:47:23 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:44:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:40:44 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:38:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?It is strange, he will persecute Medic on an issues he is not really able to refute... yet do the same to him he lies and clams up. Intellectual dishonest me thinks?cant be! only the christians are intellectually dishonest!No, I just feel no need to continue withsome so devoid of any morals and also so disrespectful to the victims of the holocaust. Do you have any respect whatsoever?I don't understand...where do you get your objective standard with which to measure what is moral/respectful bozo?Where we get them from has nothing to do with our abiitity to use them. You only have to understand that it is immoral. It is really simple to say the holocaust was not immoral is a comment that takes oneself and sits oneself out of any intelligent conversation and cerebral retard has made it.DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com... It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth! If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:50:00 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:44:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:40:44 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:38:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?It is strange, he will persecute Medic on an issues he is not really able to refute... yet do the same to him he lies and clams up. Intellectual dishonest me thinks?cant be! only the christians are intellectually dishonest!No, I just feel no need to continue withsome so devoid of any morals and also so disrespectful to the victims of the holocaust. Do you have any respect whatsoever?What are these things that you call morals? Why do you believe I don't have them? What disrespect did I show to the victims of the holocaust? Why do you suspect that I lack respect?Why is the basis of this attack a fraudulent quote?Is it that you are simply unable to address simple questions? So you are creating this moral outrage to confuse the issue?Why not directly respond to what I did say about the holocaust instead of a fabricated strawman?I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 15,843 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:51:05 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:49:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:47:23 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:44:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:40:44 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:38:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?It is strange, he will persecute Medic on an issues he is not really able to refute... yet do the same to him he lies and clams up. Intellectual dishonest me thinks?cant be! only the christians are intellectually dishonest!No, I just feel no need to continue withsome so devoid of any morals and also so disrespectful to the victims of the holocaust. Do you have any respect whatsoever?I don't understand...where do you get your objective standard with which to measure what is moral/respectful bozo?Where we get them from has nothing to do with our abiitity to use them. You only have to understand that it is immoral. It is really simple to say the holocaust was not immoral is a comment that takes oneself and sits oneself out of any intelligent conversation and cerebral retard has made it.Don't dodge the question please.DDO Vice President #StandwithBossy #UnbanTheMadman #BetOnThett "Don't quote me, ever." -Max "My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping "Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max "Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle "You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam : At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote: : thett was right
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:51:52 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:49:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:47:23 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:44:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:40:44 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:38:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?It is strange, he will persecute Medic on an issues he is not really able to refute... yet do the same to him he lies and clams up. Intellectual dishonest me thinks?cant be! only the christians are intellectually dishonest!No, I just feel no need to continue withsome so devoid of any morals and also so disrespectful to the victims of the holocaust. Do you have any respect whatsoever?I don't understand...where do you get your objective standard with which to measure what is moral/respectful bozo?Where we get them from has nothing to do with our abiitity to use them. You only have to understand that it is immoral. It is really simple to say the holocaust was not immoral is a comment that takes oneself and sits oneself out of any intelligent conversation and cerebral retard has made it.1: Quote me. Provide evidence for your claims.2: In order to refute what I did say you have to subscribe to objective morality, why are you therefore evading a debate on that subject?I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 2,995 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:52:55 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:51:05 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:49:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:47:23 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:44:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:40:44 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:38:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?It is strange, he will persecute Medic on an issues he is not really able to refute... yet do the same to him he lies and clams up. Intellectual dishonest me thinks?cant be! only the christians are intellectually dishonest!No, I just feel no need to continue withsome so devoid of any morals and also so disrespectful to the victims of the holocaust. Do you have any respect whatsoever?I don't understand...where do you get your objective standard with which to measure what is moral/respectful bozo?Where we get them from has nothing to do with our abiitity to use them. You only have to understand that it is immoral. It is really simple to say the holocaust was not immoral is a comment that takes oneself and sits oneself out of any intelligent conversation and cerebral retard has made it.Don't dodge the question please.Thett it is way beyond stupid, if you watch this video and think if this was you that should be enough to understand. Now, please stop being a fucktard and defending the holocaust.DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com... It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth! If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:54:44 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:52:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:Thett it is way beyond stupid, if you watch this video and think if this was you that should be enough to understand. Now, please stop being a fucktard and defending the holocaust.No one is defending the holocaust? Why are you so adamant on moral issues but evasive on moral questions? Why are you lying about my morals? I put it to you that you are intellectual dishonest.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 15,843 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:55:28 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:52:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:51:05 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:49:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:47:23 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:44:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:40:44 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:38:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?It is strange, he will persecute Medic on an issues he is not really able to refute... yet do the same to him he lies and clams up. Intellectual dishonest me thinks?cant be! only the christians are intellectually dishonest!No, I just feel no need to continue withsome so devoid of any morals and also so disrespectful to the victims of the holocaust. Do you have any respect whatsoever?I don't understand...where do you get your objective standard with which to measure what is moral/respectful bozo?Where we get them from has nothing to do with our abiitity to use them. You only have to understand that it is immoral. It is really simple to say the holocaust was not immoral is a comment that takes oneself and sits oneself out of any intelligent conversation and cerebral retard has made it.Don't dodge the question please.Thett it is way beyond stupid, if you watch this video and think if this was you that should be enough to understand. Now, please stop being a fucktard and defending the holocaust.The only stupid one here is you. I'm not asking you to explain why the holocaust was immoral, I absolutely agree that it was. I was asking you where you got the morals that you condemn it with, a question that you have continually dodged.DDO Vice President #StandwithBossy #UnbanTheMadman #BetOnThett "Don't quote me, ever." -Max "My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping "Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max "Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle "You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam : At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote: : thett was right
 Posts: 2,995 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:56:42 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:52:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:51:05 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:49:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:47:23 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:44:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:40:44 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:38:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:32:08 AM, thett3 wrote:At 9/10/2011 10:29:06 AM, izbo10 wrote:I posted this to show how easy it is to read for everyone else I refuse to waste my time debating someone immoral enough to say the holocaust was not immoral. Have a nice life idiot.u mad bro?It is strange, he will persecute Medic on an issues he is not really able to refute... yet do the same to him he lies and clams up. Intellectual dishonest me thinks?cant be! only the christians are intellectually dishonest!No, I just feel no need to continue withsome so devoid of any morals and also so disrespectful to the victims of the holocaust. Do you have any respect whatsoever?I don't understand...where do you get your objective standard with which to measure what is moral/respectful bozo?Where we get them from has nothing to do with our abiitity to use them. You only have to understand that it is immoral. It is really simple to say the holocaust was not immoral is a comment that takes oneself and sits oneself out of any intelligent conversation and cerebral retard has made it.Don't dodge the question please.Thett it is way beyond stupid, if you watch this video and think if this was you that should be enough to understand. Now, please stop being a fucktard and defending the holocaust.If anybody has a question of why murder is immoral they should make a post in the appropriate forum name: I don't understand why murder is immoral.Seriously, go do it, if you don't comprehend I am not wasting my time maybe someone else will.DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com... It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth! If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:56:51 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:55:28 AM, thett3 wrote:The only stupid one here is you. I'm not asking you to explain why the holocaust was immoral, I absolutely agree that it was. I was asking you where you got the morals that you condemn it with, a question that you have continually dodged.This.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/10/2011 10:59:24 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/10/2011 10:56:42 AM, izbo10 wrote:If anybody has a question of why murder is immoral they should make a post in the appropriate forum name: I don't understand why murder is immoral.Seriously, go do it, if you don't comprehend I am not wasting my time maybe someone else will.Whilst you are lying about my views every single one of your troll threads will be derailed.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.