JatinNagpal's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of JatinNagpal's arguments, looking across every debate.

That's right.


it is a part of the woman.

It isn't really a part.

JatinNagpal(798) Clarified
1 point

Yes, that was were the first excerpt you referenced was heading. Seems that point actually did stretch further than you understood.

It heading somewhere that can be agreed upon doesn't mean that it can stretch well enough.

Why is that what is good?

That's been by a method of reduction.

And how is that even attainable?

By actions.

Desire is fundamentally subjective, which means there is no single desirability for good to organize around

Yes, it is subjective. No one said that there will be a universal Desire that is exhaustive and inclusive of everyone - that isn't a possibility.

which is requisite for your utilitarian assertion.

It isn't utilitarian, though. It's what you get if you mix Kantian and Utilitarian morals, and also somewhere between the absolutist and nihilist views. Just like it's always been.

Try finding my argument yourself.

I'd rather make your position derogatory than resorting to childish nicknames.

So, you've finally understood that it's best to ban those who disagree with you.

Also, in case it's intentional, I wonder why you think I'd be ashamed.

Even though I've said it already, (it's just annoying to see something so idiotic) I'm not defending your faith here. I was just addressing the question.

What's that?

You probably clicked the wrong argument.

Though I'd guess any reasonable person would notice that the argument it shows in the right column on this screen, you've surprised me enough in such things already.

0 points

Oh, sorry, I forgot for a while there that fighting irrationally is what you do.

It's evident from the reference that I had forgotten that.

I've been trying to explain that to him for a while, but he isn't smart enough to confront it.

JatinNagpal(798) Clarified
1 point

She clearly wants you to say that God authorised the government to give rights to the people.

-In what world is the entity of a human baby independent? Once the baby is born it becomes more of a dependent burden.

A financial burden for a while does not mean that it's existence is entirely dependent. It can now have independent experiences, and the sustainance of its life isn't then dependent.

Does medical technology that increases surviveability of premiture birth also decrease the time it takes to become human?

It prematurely actualises the potential.

But, if you understand that already, then yes, of course.

0 points

It is called prochoice, yet you seem to think that nicknaming it makes you stronger.

Nothing limits the other side to do the same. Then it'll merely be a fight like between little children.

Catholicism teaches that you must earn the right to go to Heaven and you can never be sure that you have earned that right and must keep trying.

If it does, then it is certainly much more rational than whatever you follow.

You didn't reply there.

Why must God let you into heaven?

When did you decide to make that wager

If you're talking about the christian God, then I've probably always been making that wager. (If you discount the preachings of some of the idiotic religious groups.)

God isn't confined to such views.

Evil is that which goes against God.

That'd mean there are things which can exist against an omnipotent God.


The other things in it, where you judge questions as stupid, are logical tautologies by the LNC, so congratulations for that. But, your understanding is still incomplete.

You cannot show in the Bible that God is "purely" good. It is not there.

You, of course, had to demonstrate idiocy again. This should be a sufficient reply.

Why in the world would you as stupid questions like "Can God be an absence of Himself"? That is nonsense. That's like asking can a rock not be a rock. Why ask such a stupid question?

And why ask "Can God be a bit evil?" What in your warped mind leads you to a stupid question like that?

Then fade away.

You've said the best you could, and I wonder how high it ranks in the worst things I've ever seen. Probably just below your other things.

No one appreciates your idiotic screams leaking from your debates.

Well, you can earn at most 10 points from a debate by adding arguments, and you've already done that.

It isn't point whoring for either of us.

It just shows that we generally have the last word.

That's not parallel enough. I have something better.

Why do so many people love God ?

Is it because He allows their ice cream cone to stay frozen longer on a cold winters day?

Is it because He kisses their boo boos and makes the pain go away?

Is it because He did not take their favourite lolly pop away?

Or is it because he is with perverts?

Give not that which is rational unto the idiots, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

- (used to be) Some random quote

But it'd be equally as worthless and cowardly.

JatinNagpal(798) Clarified
1 point

Humans are not benevolent and omnipotent.

We might become a much more peaceful species in a millennium or so.

JatinNagpal(798) Clarified
1 point

I can't be coming there anytime soon.

It's 5 years at the least.

Though you can expect it to be about triple of that.

If all goes well, I'll have enough influence by then.

.and you trying to present it to the world?

Man your career is over

What is that?

I don't present random things. And if it be logical, then it'll be the greatest achievement since the beginning of science and philosophy.

I wish that such debates as he makes can be pushed to oblivion as quickly as on 4chan.

Yes, of course, now you have sufficient experience of science proving religion.

If only you had a brain, you'd understand what you are saying.

Yes, you do.

But if you are reduced to really simple statements like you've been a few times, then you might as well ban me to win.

1 of 63 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]