Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 19:19:51 GMT
OK, it's a fact then. But it's also a fact that a barren universe is one without values, and therefore the only way that we can make value judgements is in relation to how it affects conscious beings. I'm not trying to convince the universe not to create more children; I'm trying to convince people not to create more children. Therefore I think that your argument is pure sophistry. Antinatalism is about ethics and is grounded in the intuitive logic of 'suffering = bad; pleasure = good', not in mathematics. Based on moral nihilism, it would also be impossible to conclude that the holocaust or child molestation is 'wrong' or 'bad'; so if 'suffering isn't bad' is the best that can be said against antinatalism, then I'm quite happy with that. Talk about sophistry. "suffering = bad; pleasure = good'" has fuck-all to do with logic. That suggests that you don't even know what logic is. You're an objectivist. But objectivism is ignorant. That's not what the world is like. It is what the world, from the everyday perspective of a sentient being, is like. I can't convince the universe of anything, and that is not the goal. "Suffering = bad" because suffering has only negative connotations such as 'pain', 'torture', 'ordeal', etc. In other words, if you aren't experiencing anything unpleasant, then you are not suffering. If you are experiencing a condition that is unpleasant and you wish it would stop, then you are suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 19:23:23 GMT
Talk about sophistry. "suffering = bad; pleasure = good'" has fuck-all to do with logic. That suggests that you don't even know what logic is. You're an objectivist. But objectivism is ignorant. That's not what the world is like. It is what the world, from the everyday perspective of a sentient being, is like. I can't convince the universe of anything, and that is not the goal. "Suffering = bad" because suffering has only negative connotations such as 'pain', 'torture', 'ordeal', etc. In other words, if you aren't experiencing anything unpleasant, then you are not suffering. If you are experiencing a condition that is unpleasant and you wish it would stop, then you are suffering. Meaning is not objective, either. Any term, x, only has the connotations that some individual assigns to it. You can say that "unpleasant = unpleasant," as otherwise we'd be equivocating, but "pain = bad" only works when we're talking about an individual who assigns "bad" to all pain, and not everyone does that. We could say that most people do that (even though I doubt that's true), but that most people do anything has no implicational value, and to claim that it does is to commit an argumentum ad populum. This is an annoying conversation by the way, because you don't meet the objection of even one thing I bring up. So it's just you glossing over stuff and moving on with rhetoric while I point out more problems for you to essentially ignore. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 19:58:24 GMT
It is what the world, from the everyday perspective of a sentient being, is like. I can't convince the universe of anything, and that is not the goal. "Suffering = bad" because suffering has only negative connotations such as 'pain', 'torture', 'ordeal', etc. In other words, if you aren't experiencing anything unpleasant, then you are not suffering. If you are experiencing a condition that is unpleasant and you wish it would stop, then you are suffering. Meaning is not objective, either. Any term, x, only has the connotations that some individual assigns to it. You can say that "unpleasant = unpleasant," as otherwise we'd be equivocating, but "pain = bad" only works when we're talking about an individual who assigns "bad" to all pain, and not everyone does that. We could say that most people do that (even though I doubt that's true), but that most people do anything has no implicational value, and to claim that it does is to commit an argumentum ad populum. This is an annoying conversation by the way, because you don't meet the objection of even one thing I bring up. So it's just you glossing over stuff and moving on with rhetoric while I point out more problems for you to essentially ignore. "Suffering" is always bad, even if "pain" isn't. For example, someone could have you chained and gagged to your bed while they whip you. Most people would be suffering in that situation, but if you are into S&M, then you are probably not suffering and therefore we cannot assign a negative value to that scenario. Suffering cannot be accurately used in association with any thing that is not bad. I also find it an annoying conversation, because your argument doesn't have any real world application to anything. It could be used to justify literally anything from the holocaust to animal torture. It could be used by a torture killer to justify their crimes. So in real world scenarios, it is useless and therefore none of what you have brought up is a 'problem' for antinatalism. And if that's the only weak spot that the philosophy of antinatalism has, then I'm happy to accept that. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 20:04:43 GMT
Meaning is not objective, either. Any term, x, only has the connotations that some individual assigns to it. You can say that "unpleasant = unpleasant," as otherwise we'd be equivocating, but "pain = bad" only works when we're talking about an individual who assigns "bad" to all pain, and not everyone does that. We could say that most people do that (even though I doubt that's true), but that most people do anything has no implicational value, and to claim that it does is to commit an argumentum ad populum. This is an annoying conversation by the way, because you don't meet the objection of even one thing I bring up. So it's just you glossing over stuff and moving on with rhetoric while I point out more problems for you to essentially ignore. "Suffering" is always bad, even if "pain" isn't. For example, someone could have you chained and gagged to your bed while they whip you. Most people would be suffering in that situation, but if you are into S&M, then you are probably not suffering and therefore we cannot assign a negative value to that scenario. Suffering cannot be accurately used in association with any thing that is not bad. I also find it an annoying conversation, because your argument doesn't have any real world application to anything. It could be used to justify literally anything from the holocaust to animal torture. It could be used by a torture killer to justify their crimes. So in real world scenarios, it is useless and therefore none of what you have brought up is a 'problem' for antinatalism. And if that's the only weak spot that the philosophy of antinatalism has, then I'm happy to accept that. There is no accurate usage of words, and it's a fact that anyone can justify anything. Denying that fact is simply ignorant. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 20:08:48 GMT
"Suffering" is always bad, even if "pain" isn't. For example, someone could have you chained and gagged to your bed while they whip you. Most people would be suffering in that situation, but if you are into S&M, then you are probably not suffering and therefore we cannot assign a negative value to that scenario. Suffering cannot be accurately used in association with any thing that is not bad. I also find it an annoying conversation, because your argument doesn't have any real world application to anything. It could be used to justify literally anything from the holocaust to animal torture. It could be used by a torture killer to justify their crimes. So in real world scenarios, it is useless and therefore none of what you have brought up is a 'problem' for antinatalism. And if that's the only weak spot that the philosophy of antinatalism has, then I'm happy to accept that. There is no accurate usage of words, and it's a fact that anyone can justify anything. Denying that fact is simply ignorant. The concept of suffering always related to negative experiences and sensations. Suffering is always pain (either physical or mental), but not all pain is suffering. And your nihilistic logic is equally as unfalsifiable when used to justify slavery, genocide or torture as it is when justifying bringing new life into the world. That ought to be your hint that it's not a very good justification. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 20:15:18 GMT
There is no accurate usage of words, and it's a fact that anyone can justify anything. Denying that fact is simply ignorant. The concept of suffering always related to negative experiences and sensations. Suffering is always pain (either physical or mental), but not all pain is suffering. And your nihilistic logic is equally as unfalsifiable when used to justify slavery, genocide or torture as it is when justifying bringing new life into the world. That ought to be your hint that it's not a very good justification. If non-cognitivism is the case, are moral claims falsifiable? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 20:18:31 GMT
tpfkar Keira is the only person who has debated the subject on IMDb/IMDb 2 without resorting to insults and/or strawman arguments. There was also one guy on another forum who was fairly civil and didn't distort any of my points, and one guy on Reddit who was somewhat convinced by antinatalism, but still wanted to be excused to have 1 child. That's why I edited my post from "never" to "seldom". You start off with the insults when people disagree with you and then bawl when people don't shy from pointing out your manifest irrationality and crass dishonesty.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.About 70-80% of all activity on the IMDB v2 Religion, Faith and Spirituality board is people insulting each other, and about 97-98% of your posts are insulting people, some of whom have blocked your posts. I don't refrain from insults altogether, but I have no interest in personal vendettas and very seldom verging on almost never do I post just to insult someone. I didn't insult Kiera in debating antinatalism, and I have not insulted Falconia. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 20:24:04 GMT
The concept of suffering always related to negative experiences and sensations. Suffering is always pain (either physical or mental), but not all pain is suffering. And your nihilistic logic is equally as unfalsifiable when used to justify slavery, genocide or torture as it is when justifying bringing new life into the world. That ought to be your hint that it's not a very good justification. If non-cognitivism is the case, are moral claims falsifiable? You can say 'the universe doesn't care about suffering', and that would be a true statement; but as irrelevant as it is true. It's not a useful way of looking at real world problems, and does not pose any problem for antinatalism. If someone was justifying their decision to have children and they were espousing the nihilistic views that you have here (the universe doesn't care about ethics, therefore anything goes), then they're admitting that their motives are entirely selfish and that they will always put their own desires first. There's nothing that can be said or done to reach such people. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 17, 2017 20:27:10 GMT
tpfkar You start off with the insults when people disagree with you and then bawl when people don't shy from pointing out your manifest irrationality and crass dishonesty. About 70-80% of all activity on the IMDB v2 Religion, Faith and Spirituality board is people insulting each other, and about 97-98% of your posts are insulting people, some of whom have blocked your posts. I don't refrain from insults altogether, but I have no interest in personal vendettas and very seldom verging on almost never do I post just to insult someone. I didn't insult Kiera in debating antinatalism, and I have not insulted Falconia. You're a liar.  Even with considering responding to insulting posts as simply "insulting people". And of course fully bypasses the point of you starting with the insults and then moaning about it attempting to use that to feed the legitimacy of your positively demented positions.
Funny that, I've seldom seen anyone debate antinatalism without personal insults and deliberately misquoting or otherwise distorting the points being made by the antinalism. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 20:42:55 GMT
If non-cognitivism is the case, are moral claims falsifiable? You can say 'the universe doesn't care about suffering', and that would be a true statement; but as irrelevant as it is true. It's not a useful way of looking at real world problems, and does not pose any problem for antinatalism. If someone was justifying their decision to have children and they were espousing the nihilistic views that you have here (the universe doesn't care about ethics, therefore anything goes), then they're admitting that their motives are entirely selfish and that they will always put their own desires first. There's nothing that can be said or done to reach such people. I asked you a yes or no question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 23:10:31 GMT
You can say 'the universe doesn't care about suffering', and that would be a true statement; but as irrelevant as it is true. It's not a useful way of looking at real world problems, and does not pose any problem for antinatalism. If someone was justifying their decision to have children and they were espousing the nihilistic views that you have here (the universe doesn't care about ethics, therefore anything goes), then they're admitting that their motives are entirely selfish and that they will always put their own desires first. There's nothing that can be said or done to reach such people. I asked you a yes or no question. You may be able to falsify the notion that there is an objective dimension to morality, but not the idea that we shouldn't inflict suffering when not necessary. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 23:21:23 GMT
About 70-80% of all activity on the IMDB v2 Religion, Faith and Spirituality board is people insulting each other, and about 97-98% of your posts are insulting people, some of whom have blocked your posts. I don't refrain from insults altogether, but I have no interest in personal vendettas and very seldom verging on almost never do I post just to insult someone. I didn't insult Kiera in debating antinatalism, and I have not insulted Falconia. You're a liar. Even with considering responding to insulting posts as simply "insulting people". And of course fully bypasses the point of you starting with the insults and then moaning about it attempting to use that to feed the legitimacy of your positively demented positions.
Funny that, I've seldom seen anyone debate antinatalism without personal insults and deliberately misquoting or otherwise distorting the points being made by the antinalism.You scarcely ever have a response to anything that isn't at least part an insult, and usually your posts in other threads add nothing construction to a discussion but are only trollish insults. And I only retaliate with insults a fraction of the time, mostly because I am too emotionally mature to bother with cultivating animosity with a stranger on the Internet. I haven't bypassed that point, because it simply isn't true. I've given 2 examples on this thread of people who have disagreed with me whom I have not insulted. Ask both of those posters I've named, if you wish. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 17, 2017 23:35:49 GMT
tpfkar You're a liar. Even with considering responding to insulting posts as simply "insulting people". And of course fully bypasses the point of you starting with the insults and then moaning about it attempting to use that to feed the legitimacy of your positively demented positions.
Funny that, I've seldom seen anyone debate antinatalism without personal insults and deliberately misquoting or otherwise distorting the points being made by the antinalism.You scarcely ever have a response to anything that isn't at least part an insult, and usually your posts in other threads add nothing construction to a discussion but are only trollish insults. And I only retaliate with insults a fraction of the time, mostly because I am too emotionally mature to bother with cultivating animosity with a stranger on the Internet. I respond with the tone of those of who I respond to; you just offer a whole lot of material for a response. You should point out these trollish insults where they weren't precipitated by others' antecedent behaviors  and warranted, or just keep lying. As your evaluation of such things it usually far afield, you'll have to include links. But I suppose purported insults likely are your strongest argument, as invalid as it is. Not surprisingly it sounds a little tender for the frequent accuser of oversensitivity.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 1:21:36 GMT
tpfkar You scarcely ever have a response to anything that isn't at least part an insult, and usually your posts in other threads add nothing construction to a discussion but are only trollish insults. And I only retaliate with insults a fraction of the time, mostly because I am too emotionally mature to bother with cultivating animosity with a stranger on the Internet. I respond with the tone of those of who I respond to; you just offer a whole lot of material for a response. You should point out these trollish insults where they weren't precipitated by others' antecedent behaviors and warranted, or just keep lying.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.That's not really the point. Everyone rubs someone up the wrong way, so almost anything that is posted can be taken as justification for an insult. The point is that you prefer insulting people to posting anything of substance. I absolutely never get into Internet feuds with anybody, and yet you accuse me of "start[ing] off with the insults", when I've given the names of 2 people who disagree with me on antinatalism who have posted in this thread, whom I have not insulted. I don't have a link to show that I've never insulted someone. But I have posted to Falconia on this thread about antinatalism and have not insulted that poster (who disagrees with me). I'm not dredging up my conversation with Kiera from long ago, but I did not insult her and you can check that with her. And if I were 'tender' about anything, I would have put you on ignore like most of your targets. Also, as a side note, do you normally check the Philosophy board, or did you find this thread via my posting history? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 1:23:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 1:45:24 GMT
tpfkar I respond with the tone of those of who I respond to; you just offer a whole lot of material for a response. You should point out these trollish insults where they weren't precipitated by others' antecedent behaviors and warranted, or just keep lying.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.That's not really the point. Everyone rubs someone up the wrong way, so almost anything that is posted can be taken as justification for an insult. The point is that you prefer insulting people to posting anything of substance. I absolutely never get into Internet feuds with anybody, and yet you accuse me of "start[ing] off with the insults", when I've given the names of 2 people who disagree with me on antinatalism who have posted in this thread, whom I have not insulted. Not the point you'd like perhaps. But it is a hard cold fact and directly on point that I feel free to adjust my tone based on the tone of the posts I respond to, a fact that is directly applicable to you. And right, no links. Shocker. You're of course again the liar. Show examples with links or continue to highlight this particular aspect of your hypocritical fullofsh!tness. I use both sarcasm, even the cutting type to make points, and will continue doing so, and I'm not going to couch facts especially when someone is frequently on melodramatic insensible insult sprees, or makes insipidly fallacious claims about the strength of his nonsense based upon his sensitivity to criticism. I've interacted with both Kiera and Falconia as well, and never insulted them outright, although I've criticized positions when warranted. Neither are a measure of provocation, as I'm sure you well know even while you field the inanity. And of course you'll call anything that cuts to the bone of your various dishonesties, irrationalities and hypocrisies as insults, and further yammer about how that somehow shows strength of argument. If you weren't "tender" you wouldn't be moaning about it and you would put up links to be examined in the depth as opposed to your facile convenient cries. You consider yourself a "target", yet you claim you're not tender? Again, even though you frequently rattle on about other peoples' oversensitivity? I do what I (free) will. I'm certainly not going to entertain your intimations of persecution via having your posts replied to.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 1:56:21 GMT
That's not really the point. Everyone rubs someone up the wrong way, so almost anything that is posted can be taken as justification for an insult. The point is that you prefer insulting people to posting anything of substance. I absolutely never get into Internet feuds with anybody, and yet you accuse me of "start[ing] off with the insults", when I've given the names of 2 people who disagree with me on antinatalism who have posted in this thread, whom I have not insulted. Not the point you'd like perhaps. But it is a hard cold fact and directly on point that I feel free to adjust my tone based on the tone of the posts I respond to, a fact that is directly applicable to you. And right, no links. Shocker. You're of course again the liar. Show examples with links or continue to highlight this particular aspect of your hypocritical fullofsh!tness. I use both sarcasm, even the cutting type to make points, and will continue doing so, and I'm not going to couch facts especially when someone is frequently on melodramatic insensible insult sprees, or makes insipidly fallacious claims about the strength of his nonsense based upon his sensitivity to criticism. I've interacted with both Kiera and Falconia as well, and never insulted them outright, although I've criticized positions when warranted. Neither are a measure of provocation, as I'm sure you well know even while you field the inanity. And of course you'll call anything that cuts to the bone of your various dishonesties, irrationalities and hypocrisies as insults, and further yammer about how that somehow shows strength of argument. If you weren't "tender" you wouldn't be moaning about it and you would put up links to be examined in the depth as opposed to your facile convenient cries. You consider yourself a "target", yet you claim you're not tender? Again, even though you frequently rattle on about other peoples' oversensitivity? I do what I (free) will. I'm certainly not going to entertain your intimations of persecution via having your posts replied to.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.My point was that you almost exclusively post insults, and that is the only point that I was substantiated. Other people get rubbed up the wrong way but can manage to keep the insults in moderation. And the very thread in which I have posted to Falconia (respectfully disagreeing) is this one that you are presently reading. It will be in page 1 or 2. Also, I respectfully disagreed with Kiera at the start of this thread. And your claim was that I never support my argument without first insulting people, so it doesn't matter whether those particular two individuals are provocateurs; it disproves your claim. All I do is (occasionally) insult people who insult me; much as you have defended yourself for doing. And thanks for confiming that you were following me. I wasn't going to claim persecution, it just made me smile that you you like following me around. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 2:05:01 GMT
tpfkar If non-cognitivism is the case, are moral claims falsifiable? You can say 'the universe doesn't care about suffering', and that would be a true statement; but as irrelevant as it is true. It's not a useful way of looking at real world problems, and does not pose any problem for antinatalism. If someone was justifying their decision to have children and they were espousing the nihilistic views that you have here (the universe doesn't care about ethics, therefore anything goes), then they're admitting that their motives are entirely selfish and that they will always put their own desires first. There's nothing that can be said or done to reach such people. When the body / mental state is not pathological then the things that are "bad" should provoke a response that is some degree of what you call suffering. But the way to address that is to make things better for all and avoid the things that validly trigger those responses; not strive to vanquish sentience nor to scuttle all due to a small minority of defects. The great(est) flaw in your position is your reverence of the tiniest bit of "suffering", whether or not it is contribution to a bigger success, happiness, satisfaction, and ignoring the net said satisfaction that they can and often do have. Kids can be set up to thoroughly enjoy their lives.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 2:15:10 GMT
tpfkar You can say 'the universe doesn't care about suffering', and that would be a true statement; but as irrelevant as it is true. It's not a useful way of looking at real world problems, and does not pose any problem for antinatalism. If someone was justifying their decision to have children and they were espousing the nihilistic views that you have here (the universe doesn't care about ethics, therefore anything goes), then they're admitting that their motives are entirely selfish and that they will always put their own desires first. There's nothing that can be said or done to reach such people. When the body / mental state is not pathological then the things that are "bad" should provoke a response that is some degree of what you call suffering. But the way to address that is to make things better for all and avoid the things that validly trigger those responses; not strive to vanquish sentience nor to scuttle all due to a small minority of defects. The great(est) flaw in your position is your reverence of the tiniest bit of "suffering", whether or not it is contribution to a bigger success, happiness, satisfaction, and ignoring the net said satisfaction that they can and often do have. Kids can be set up to thoroughly enjoy their lives.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.That philosophy works fine for people who are already alive and believe that there is some kind of 'big picture' which is going to make the suffering worthwhile. But in terms of people who have not yet been born, there is no way to guarantee that their lives will be mainly joyful and only punctuated by brief spells of suffering. There is no way of distributing the risk in such a way that the suffering toll doesn't end up being something akin to the inverse of a progressive income tax (in this case, the weakest being the ones who are encumbered with the heaviest burden). For those who are unborn, there is no greater goal that they have signed up to; it is their parents who enlist them in this larger cause without knowing whether the child is going to share those goals and be happy with their role in bringing it about. Even the most privileged children with the most loving parents can find life very hard; there simply isn't any way of effectively screening against future suffering. Myself, I was brought up in a middle class family by loving parents; so there would have been no way of knowing in advance that I was going to feel resentful about being roped into [whatever my parents thought was so important] without my consent. And my suffering isn't even really all that bad, by the standards of what others have to put up with. I suppose that you could call my condition a case of existential ennui. Consciousness is the only source of value in the universe, and suffering is the most valuable thing in the universe. The bigger causes that you have described are narratives that humans who have already been born make up for themselves. None of these causes are objectively important or in need of being accomplished. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 18, 2017 2:30:28 GMT
tpfkar Not the point you'd like perhaps. But it is a hard cold fact and directly on point that I feel free to adjust my tone based on the tone of the posts I respond to, a fact that is directly applicable to you. And right, no links. Shocker. You're of course again the liar. Show examples with links or continue to highlight this particular aspect of your hypocritical fullofsh!tness. I use both sarcasm, even the cutting type to make points, and will continue doing so, and I'm not going to couch facts especially when someone is frequently on melodramatic insensible insult sprees, or makes insipidly fallacious claims about the strength of his nonsense based upon his sensitivity to criticism. I've interacted with both Kiera and Falconia as well, and never insulted them outright, although I've criticized positions when warranted. Neither are a measure of provocation, as I'm sure you well know even while you field the inanity. And of course you'll call anything that cuts to the bone of your various dishonesties, irrationalities and hypocrisies as insults, and further yammer about how that somehow shows strength of argument. If you weren't "tender" you wouldn't be moaning about it and you would put up links to be examined in the depth as opposed to your facile convenient cries. You consider yourself a "target", yet you claim you're not tender? Again, even though you frequently rattle on about other peoples' oversensitivity? I do what I (free) will. I'm certainly not going to entertain your intimations of persecution via having your posts replied to.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.My point was that you almost exclusively post insults, and that is the only point that I was substantiated. Other people get rubbed up the wrong way but can manage to keep the insults in moderation. And my point of course is that you're a shameless liar, as evidenced by still no links to examine to track the purported "exclusively posted insults". And of course your admitted insults are acceptable, they're yours after all. Right, so post the link and note the insult. It certainly won't pay off for anyone trying to dig through and guess what you may be talking about with your framing. I suppose it's easy enough to whine, claim it strengthens some argument and then run.  And where did I make such a claim? You just can't help yourself, can you. Also show where I defended bare insults. Cutting to the bone in a tone that matches the post responded to is a different thing altogether, regardless if you're feeling the need for, what is it you'd say? A safe space? As typical, it's difficult to tell with you what's comprehension vs. just an overt willingness to assert things out of the air Ada-style.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
