#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Can you judge a man from hundreds of years ago by today's standards?
Yes
Side Score: 46
|
 |
No
Side Score: 59
|
|
0
points
Sure , a man that raped a woman in the past is still a rapist , a man who saved a child from a burning building is still a hero , a man who didn’t eat meat is still a vegetarian ......I could go on The ancient Greeks regularly had sex with children. Should we therefore ignore the works of Plato and Socrates? Funny, because I don't usually see you responding to quotes from Plato's Republic with 10,000 words about how we should ignore Plato because he was a paedophile. Indeed, I shall go on. Isaac Newton believed that time was absolute wherever one happened to be in the universe. By today's standards that is a stupid belief. So tell us, was Isaac Newton therefore stupid? The Aztecs regularly performed human sacrifices as part of their culture. So tell us, was every Aztec therefore evil? Side: No
The ancient Greeks regularly had sex with children. Should we therefore ignore the works of Plato and Socrates? Where did I say we should ignore their works, if there nonsense yes if not and they have merit work away Funny, because I don't usually see you responding to quotes from Plato's Republic with 10,000 words about how we should ignore Plato because he was a paedophile. Because its an argument I never made , sorry my short replies are to long for you Indeed, I shall go on. Isaac Newton believed that time was absolute wherever one happened to be in the universe. By today's standards that is a stupid belief. So tell us, was Isaac Newton therefore stupid? No he was a genius who got things wrong The Aztecs regularly performed human sacrifices as part of their culture. So tell us, was every Aztec therefore evil? What’s evil? Side: Yes
0
points
Where did I say we should ignore their works Yesterday you opened an entire debate dedicated to how we should ignore Marx because he was a "Jew-hating racist" who "raped his maid". if they’re nonsense yes if not And yet this contradicts directly what you did yesterday to Marx. Hence, you are a liar. But we all knew that already. Because its an argument I never made Open Google, press your absurdly stupid, obnoxious, ugly little face to the monitor and type out the word "analogy". Side: No
Yesterday you opened an entire debate dedicated to how we should ignore Marx because he was a "Jew-hating racist" who "raped his maid". I never mentioned ignoring Das Kapital but I highly recommend doing so , very few have ever read it those that did fell into a deep sleep within minutes of attempting to read what would put anyone to .sleep in seconds .....Very few Socialists have ever read but all claim they have And yet this contradicts directly what you did yesterday to Marx. Hence, you are a liar. But we all knew that already. It doesn’t , bit it demonstrates your inability to comprehend basic concepts that a child comprehends Open Google, press your absurdly stupid, obnoxious, ugly little face to the monitor and type out the word "analogy". When you actually make one I shall inform you maybe you should look up ‘ time machine ‘ also next time Side: Yes
1
point
I never mentioned ignoring Das Kapital You never mentioned any other rapes either. In fact you made up an allegation about rape and applied it to the only man who wrote Das Kapital. Your attempt to now convince us that was sheer coincidence is of course as ridiculously laughable and stupid as everything else you ever write. Side: No
You never mentioned any other rapes either I didn’t realise Marx was guilty of other rapes , I stand corrected . In fact you made up an allegation about rape and applied it to the only man who wrote Das Kapital. Only man? Why were there more ? Your attempt to now convince us that was sheer coincidence is of course as ridiculously laughable and stupid as everything else you ever write. Translation.......I beat you ......again Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
maybe you should look up ‘ time machine ‘ Maybe you should stop spending all day accusing other people of your own stupidity. A time machine does not have to transport humans or anything living. There is a science which you clearly have never heard of because you are too stupid, and it is called QUANTUM PHYSICS. The fact of the matter is that you are a nasty, obnoxious little infantile dickhead, who has for the last 6 months accused me of "believing in time machines" because I happened to link this article for discussion:- That's the reality. That you are a lying scumbag idiot with nothing better to do with his time than harass strangers on the internet for not being Nazis. Side: No
1
point
The ancient Greeks regularly had sex with children. Should we therefore ignore the works of Plato and Socrates? This beautifully demonstrates your most common fallacies. Your collectivism causes you provide an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic. Your near universal use of ad hominem causes you to suppose that, after judging Socrates and Plato for their status as Greeks, you could discount their argument for the same, without regard for their actual arguments. You can be entertaining on occasion. Side: Yes
1
point
This beautifully demonstrates your most common fallacies I'll wager it does no such thing. Your collectivism causes you provide an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally Your arbitrary determination that "collectivism" caused me to provide an example relevant to the discussion is of course utterly barmy nonsense. You are writing stupid, senseless codswallop which is barely coherent, as usual. Shut up you idiot. Side: Yes
1
point
Your near universal use of ad hominem So, let me clarify this a moment. You begin by making an ad hominem attack against me (i.e. inventing non-disclosed "fallacies" as a means to attack my character), and then two sentences later accuse me of ad hominem? Did I really just read that right? Side: No
0
points
You read it right but you clearly didn't comprehend any of it. Absolutely Amarel, because clearly your incoherent shitposts are my comprehension problem. Another fine and delightful insight from you. Ad hominem isn't merely an insult or accusation Correct. It also covers things like purposefully vague accusations of fallacy in an attempt to call somebody's character into question. Can you think of anybody who did that in the very first sentence of their reply, Amarel? Think really hard now, you narcissistic little cherub, you. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
See above. Shut up Amarel. Your empty rhetoric is utterly pointless. Just in the last 3 posts, you've called 2 different people Nazi, idiot, and said shut up. This means your psychological state is toxic and disordered. You should probably seek help immediately for your condition before you have a heart attack. Side: Yes
The ancient Greeks regularly had sex with children. Should we therefore ignore the works of Plato and Socrates? Plato and Socrates were individuals. It's fallacious to look at a group (the Greeks) in order to judge individuals who cannot be assumed to act as you suppose the group acts. This is the same fallacy with racism or any other form of bigotry. It's collectivism and it's a short cut for simplistic minds. Funny, because I don't usually see you responding to quotes from Plato's Republic with 10,000 words about how we should ignore Plato because he was a paedophile. Even if it were the case that Plato was a pedophile, that would not be a valid reason to disregard true things that he said. Ad Hominem is fallacious because the validity or truth of a statement is independent of who ever is stating it. I know this is all lost on you, but you told me to shut up. So I thought another free lesson was in order. You're welcome. Side: Yes
2
points
Plato and Socrates were individuals. It's fallacious to look at a group (the Greeks) in order to judge individuals I KNOW it is fallacious you absurdly stupid imbecile. That was the POINT. What you have read is an ANALOGY of the precise same argument Dermot used yesterday (and indeed you have used yourself). I told you over twelve hours ago to open Google and look up the word "analogy" and instead of doing it, you've decided to write yet another shitpost. It is FALLACIOUS to attack Marxists on the basis of unproven allegations that Marx raped his maid. You are just literally such a ridiculous cockroach that you attack me for analogising a right wing fallacy, while you jump on board with the actual right wing fallacy. Side: No
That was the POINT. What you have read is an ANALOGY of the precise same argument Dermot used yesterday (and indeed you have used yourself). Nonsense , you make the most ridiculous arguments and then when trapped resort to claiming you were actually making an ‘analogy ‘ which is yet something else you cannot successfully complete I told you over twelve hours ago to open Google and look up the word "analogy" and instead of doing it, you've decided to write yet another shitpost. It is FALLACIOUS to attack Marxists on the basis of unproven allegations that Marx raped his maid. It is not an an ‘attack‘ to state the truth about Marx and his blatant hypocrisy and double standards nor the fact that Engels was a multi millionaire these are criticisms of Marx the man , I have in the past criticized his ‘ masterpiece Das Kapital and on that you could predictably not offer a valid defence in fact you were totally unfamiliar with its contents and only had a most fleeting knowledge of its contents I note you’ve attacked everyone on this thread who corrected you and as usual resort to your childish insults and temper tantrums all because of being exposed again for the idiot you are Side: Yes
1
point
you make the most ridiculous arguments Oh just shut up you pointlessly stupid imbecile. Everything you write is stupid. Don't you understand that by now? It is is a waste of my time even replying to it because you're a complete fucking imbecile who tries to make up for his intelligence deficit by lying at every opportunity and writing mean comments. Side: No
1
point
Yet you can't seem to lay your finger on the reason why people call you a stupid Nazi. People??? You mean you and the answer to that is simple it’s because you get thrashed by everyone on here which drives you into a rage ........ I see you’ve just chickened out of another debate ......no surprise there Side: Yes
1
point
I have seen at least half a dozen people on this website point it out with my own eyes. Translation.....You’ve attacked and downvoted me with your 73 accounts Your faux incredulity does not detract from your obnoxious attitude, or your seething hatred of Communists, Jews and blacks. But you’re the only one who attacks a Jew on here daily , I don’t know any commies / Socialists / Nazis but I detest communism I forgot you loved Stalin I detest black looters , gangsta drug dealers and brain dead black gangsta rappers who glorify rape , drug dealing and cop killing you applaud such You’re an armchair Socialist / Nazi who gladly sponges welfare from the Capitalists you detest just like uncle Karl who sponged off Engels Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
https://www.createdebate. I think the top comment says it all. All you are is a fascist cockroach who spends his life abusing language and reason, Amarel. You accused two people of not being able to defend something you had never asked them to defend, and you assumed it needed defending in the first place. Marxism is a criticism of capitalism, so it would be capitalism which would need to be defended against Marxism. But since you obnoxious bastards on the right like to turn every fact upside down... Side: No
1
point
God damn nom. FM can be pretty despicable, but at least he isn't utterly lazy (he gave a valiant effort in that debate) Stop ignoring what I write please you vile, intellectually redundant corporate fascist scuzzbucket. Making up lies and demanding they be disproved is not debate. It is political and/or religious extremism. Side: No
Between you and FM, only FM tried to defend labor theory. But not until after I posted that debate. You, on the other hand can't even grasp the meaning of basic fallacies or the reasons they are invalid. I suppose it's unfair to expect you to try much of anything. "Try looking around blind man"..Just rude of me . Side: Yes
1
point
Between you and FM, only FM tried to defend labor theory. I've literally just explained to you two posts previously that Marxism is an academic criticism of capitalism. Hence, capitalism needs defending against labour theory, not the other way around. This is your pathetic fascist shtick all day long pal. Turn it upside down and remarket it. Side: No
Hence, capitalism needs defending against labour theory, not the other way around. Labor theory does not accurately describe the nature of value. It is an invalid theory. Thus, it doesn't qualify as a valid critique of anything at all. A black man doesn't need to defend the legitimacy of his existence against a white supremacist. The racist theory is invalid. Side: Yes
1
point
Labor theory does not accurately describe the nature of value. Because it is a criticism of capitalism, and capitalism does not accurately describe the nature of value. Indeed, no philosophical work accurately describes the nature of value because value is entirely subjective, arbitrary, and relative to the observer. Now please shut up you total fucking idiot. Side: No
Your kind of stupidity isn't usually this far out. 'Labor theory is invalid because it is critiquing capitalism which is invalid'. That's not a valid position at all. If you critique my invalid position, you need to use a VALID position to do so smart guy. Indeed, no philosophical work accurately describes the nature of value Not only is it false, but you demonstrate that even you don't believe it later in the very same sentence. Watch because value is entirely subjective, arbitrary, and relative to the observer. Oh? Is that the nature of value? Have you accurately describes it? Side: Yes
1
point
Your kind of stupidity isn't usually this far out. Amarel, you will earn the right to call me stupid when you make a valid point which I am unable to counter. Your intent to skip that part entirely just makes me dislike you. 'Labor theory is invalid because it is critiquing capitalism which is invalid'. Can you explain whose quote that is please. I don't have time for this utter fucking nonsense. Grow up. Not only is it false Philosophical work is a plural. I was referring to the existing body of research you spectacularly illiterate, persistently contrarian barrel of idiots. The word "it" renders your response entirely incoherent. you demonstrate that even you don't believe it later in the very same sentence. Watch Why? Why are you so arrogant about being so stupid? Oh? Is that the nature of value? There is no "nature" of value where value is not objectively real you utter cunt. That was your own terminology. YOU said value has a nature, not me. You're a fucking idiot. That sir, is a fact. I assure you it is a fact. Side: No
There is no "nature" of value where value is not objectively real That's absurd as usual. Subjective phenomenon exist objectively. But then, I'm arguing with the same idiot who believes that human beings don't have a nature. Do human beings exist objectively? Do you suppose there is anything that has a nature? Side: Yes
1
point
That's absurd as usual Oh shut up Amarel. Your infantile rhetoric is tiring, repetitive and barely coherent. You want to debate philosophy but simultaneously you are an idiot who does not understand the basic principle of dialectic reasoning. Subjective phenomenon exist objectively. But they have no inherent "nature". We are not debating their existence. Another fine deflection from you. But then, I'm arguing with the same idiot who believes that human beings don't have a nature. And again you turn the burden of proof exactly upside down. If you believe humans have inherent magical qualities which are independent of the environment in which they live then by all means prove it to me. Otherwise shut your obnoxious mouth you lowbrow idiot. Side: No
1
point
This one's not too bad actually. Though likely dishonest if your pattern of behavior holds. We're using two slightly different conceptions of nature. The biological world vs the quality of the universe. I'm curious genius, do you know the difference between yourself and a frog? Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
I have never encountered anyone so wrong about so much in so many different areas. A fictional phenomenon is, for example, and extra sense written in a story that does not actually exist. It's nature is whatever the author decides in that story. Value is an actual phenomenon. So is perception by the way. If there were no life? That's a big of you fuckin retard, there IS life! 'If there were no matter then nothing in the universe would be material, that makes material a fiction'. Jesus Christ! I am tired of explaining, in the most simplistic language I can, basic issues to someone who can't even manage to behave like more than a cartoon villain. Jesus you are in rare form today. Side: Yes
1
point
I have never encountered anyone so wrong about so much in so many different areas That's great Amarel, but somebody needs to explain to you why insults are not a valid form of counterargument. A fictional phenomenon is, for example, and extra sense written in a story that does not actually exist. This is yet another attempt to generalise a cataclysmically wide group (i.e. "fictional phenomena) into the singular confines of your one specific example. Hence, so far all you have done is commit the exact same fallacy I criticised you for ten minutes ago. It's nature is whatever the author decides in that story. I'm sorry Amarel, but your grammar is so atrocious and your language so incoherent that it is difficult to even maintain a conversation with you. Value is an actual phenomenon No it isn't. You have shown us nothing to suggest that value is objectively real, whereby I have provided the logical argument that, if the universe were devoid of life, nothing could be said to be of value. Therefore, value is not objectively real. It is part of life's subjective interpretation of the universe. Side: No
Your consistently wrong words placed on this site objectively exist, specifically in the form they take, in large part as a result of your twisted up values. I have provided the logical argument that, if the universe were devoid of life, nothing could be said to be of value. Therefore, value is not objectively real That is not a logical argument, first because the universe is not devoid of life. Second, it's a false premise to assume that a thing cannot be objectively real because it wouldn't exist absent it's necessary preconditions. Yours is a baseless assertion that is forgivable in small children who are only beginning to understand the contrast of imagination with reality. If the universe didn't exist at all, then nothing could be said of material, or of anything else. Therefore material is not objectively real, nor is anything at all. Of course this is non-sense, but it is non-sense in exactly the same form of your supposed logical argument. This irrefutable refutation of your dribble is usually the point at which you claim to be incapable of reading comprehension, but only as it concerns my argument. Side: Yes
1
point
Your consistently wrong words Amarel, whatever is black you will argue is white. It is tiresome my friend. That is not a logical argument Yes it is. first because the universe is not devoid of life. It does not need to be for my argument to be logical. A hypothetical argument does not become illogical merely because it is hypothetical. Your absurdity is almost as bizarre as your persistence in proving it. Second, it's a false premise to assume that a thing cannot be objectively real because it wouldn't exist absent it's necessary preconditions. But I did not make that argument, Amarel. This appears to be your third effort to manufacture a fallacy of generalisation within the space of three posts buddy. My comment concerned value. Your misrepresentation of my comment assumes I have made a general statement, and that this statement matches your arbitrary revision. Neither are true. It is not a false premise to say that, if there was no life, there would be no such thing as the fairy godmother. This does not make the fairy godmother objectively real. The premise that absence of the preconditions for the fairy godmother illustrates that the fairy godmother is not real is not a false premise because it is true. Hence, for the third time in three posts you have attempted to make a false generalisation about something. Side: Yes
my friend. I'm not your friend buddy. But I did not make that argument You did. While it is true that absent life, values would not exist, this doesn't render values fictional. Without life, eyes wouldn't exist. It is not a false premise to say that, if there was no life, there would be no such thing as the fairy godmother. Nice try, but this is a much better example of a false equivalence then your false dichotomy explanation, and it rests on begging the question of values. Fairy godmother is a work of creative fiction whereas values are a phenomenon of human cognition (and more). Regardless of this false equivalence, it is still a false premise to claim that a thing cannot be objectively real because it wouldn't exist absent it's necessary preconditions. This is a false premise even if you insert a true conclusion, as you did with the fair godmother example. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Always have. Amarel, you are so overwhelmingly full of shit you could make a Jewish defence lawyer seem honest. You have never read Marx because you are a batshit insane extreme far right wingnut who detests the very mention of his name. The only attacking you do of Marx's work involves visiting extreme far right propaganda blogs and using the cut and paste tool. Side: No
1
point
1
point
This is the same fallacy with racism or any other form of bigotry. It's collectivism What are you talking about you utterly, utterly mad bastard? This debate is about whether we can judge people from the past by today's standards. Dermot argued that we can. I countered that by explaining that Plato was a paedophile. What is difficult to understand about that you fucking idiot? Nothing I said has any relationship whatsoever to "collectivism". I just countered Dermot's point with a logical and relevant example. That's all. Side: No
1
point
Even if it were the case that Plato was a pedophile, that would not be a valid reason to disregard true things that he said Can you even fucking READ? This sentence which I wrote, and YOU quoted:- Should we therefore ignore the works of Plato and Socrates? Is me turning Dermot's own logic back against him. Clearly, I am inferring that it is not logical to ignore the works of Plato. You cannot possess the ability to read English and somehow miss that. It's impossible. Side: No
Clearly, I am inferring that it is not logical to ignore the works of Plato You provided an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic. See? Collectivism is supposedly valid in your post, but due to the invalidity of judging the past by the present we cannot judge Plato for actions of Greeks. Keep going stupid. This is funny. Side: Yes
1
point
You provided an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally My entire point was that it would NOT be reasonable you illiterate imbecile. You should be arguing with Dermot, not me, but you are too fucking stupid to follow a conversation. Side: No
1
point
To judge those of the past based on present standards. Oh Jesus Christ you're... Just...So...Stupid. Here is the background information you are clearly lacking, you absurdly stupid imbecile:- Yesterday Dermot accused Marx of being a racist (as you yourself have done, despite your denials) and as "proof" of this he cherry-picked several lines from a letter to Engels. I responded by showing him comparable quotes from Abraham Lincoln (as I also did to you, despite your denials), to illustrate that you cannot judge a man who lived in the past by today's standards. Hence why this debate has been opened. Understand now, you monstrously stupid idiot? Side: No
Apparently I have to reiterate what this particular thread is about. Your collectivism causes you provide an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic. Your near universal use of ad hominem causes you to suppose that, after judging Socrates and Plato for their status as Greeks, you could discount their argument for the same, without regard for their actual arguments. Side: Yes
1
point
Apparently I have to reiterate what this particular thread is about. Apparently, whenever you are made to look like the completely retarded idiot that you are, instead of skulking away back under whichever rock houses you, you double down. Your collectivism You keep repeating this bizarre claim over and over and over again that "collectivism" is why I pointed out that Plato's ideas are not invalid simply because the Greeks liked to sleep with kids. This conversation will never go anywhere Amarel for two reasons:- A) Because you are a total bark-chewing idiot. B) Whenever I disprove or debunk you, your response is to double down on whatever I have just debunked. Side: No
I pointed out that Plato's ideas are not invalid simply because the Greeks liked to sleep with kids. I knew we would get to your backpedal eventually, that's why I downvoted your original post (for posterity). It's plain in your post that Plato would be judged for Greek pedo acceptance IF we judged the past by the values of the present. That's what your argument was about afterall. I articulated this exact point in my first post here, but you are extraordinarily slow..So here we are. Side: Yes
1
point
I knew we would get to your backpedal eventually Amarel, you're simply insane. You're literally mad as a hatter. What in Christ's name do you think I have "backpedalled" about, you ridiculously illiterate moron? that's why I downvoted your original post You downvoted my post because you didn't understand it you farcically stupid cunt. You made that absolutely clear when you accused me of arguing the precise opposite of what I actually argued. Your infantile ego simply cannot contemplate defeat, can it? You are dangerously unwell, Amarel. These are the symptoms of political extremism, as I have been explaining to you for the past half hour. It's plain in your post that Plato would be judged for Greek pedo acceptance My post has absolutely nothing to do with what Plato "would be" judged for. You are literally inventing your own fake version of my post you infantile, retarded cunt. Side: No
1
point
1
point
I called you boring so you called me boring. No, I called you boring because you are the only person I know who can write 10,000 words without having any coherent argument. Your posts lack any criticism which can be justified as valid through rational argument. Yet you never shut up. Side: No
I saw a guy take a blotch color vision test wherein numbers are visible only through distinguishing between color variations. After the test he went on about how stupid the test was because they kept asking about numbers but their obviously weren't any numbers. Everyone paying attention understood what happened except for him. You're like him. Side: Yes
1
point
Yesterday Dermot accused Marx of being a racist And proved what Historians accept as fact , all there in his letters to Engels which of course you’ve never read (as you yourself have done, despite your denials) and as "proof" of this he cherry-picked several lines from a letter to Engels. Cherry picked ? WTF I posted the comments in full ‘ I responded by showing him comparable quotes from Abraham Lincoln (as I also did to you, despite your denials), to illustrate that you cannot judge a man who lived in the past by today's standards. Hence why this debate has been opened. Of course I can judge a man by today’s standards Lincoln hated blacks Lincoln like Marx was a racist You really are offensively dense Side: Yes
1
point
And proved what Historians accept as fact , all there in his letters to Engels which of course you’ve never read By the same fallacy you are using to accuse Marx of racism (i.e. taking his life out of its time and context), Abraham Lincoln is an even bigger racist. All the quotes are there to prove it. Hence, you have these options:- A) Admit that everybody was racist during that time. B) Accuse Abraham Lincoln of hating blacks. C) Go away. Choose one. Side: No
By the same fallacy you are using to accuse Marx of racism (i.e. taking his life out of its time and context), Abraham Lincoln is an even bigger racist I don’t think you even know what you’re saying anymore , I’ve yet to meet a dumber human being and you don’t even have to work at it as it comes natural Side: Yes
1
point
Can you find me the person who told you I give a literal rat's ass what you think about anything so we can have a discussion please? You’ve never had a ‘discussion in your miserable life unless “you’re a Nazi “ “you’re stoooopid “ is your idea of such .......wait ......😳it is isn’t it ? Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Say Dermot, tell us a little bit more about you being an ugly little man who has to blind hit on women over the internet. I would be very interested in hearing your views on that matter. Life must be tough when you're ugly. I should take that into account before I start laughing at your infantile trolling. Side: No
Say Dermot, tell us a little bit more about you being an ugly little man who has to blind hit on women over the internet. I would be very interested in hearing your views on that matter. Life must be tough when you're ugly. I should take that into account before I start laughing at your infantile trolling. This is too easy ....... Say Nom tell us a little bit more about you being an ugly little man who has to blind hit on women over the internet. I would be very interested in hearing your views on that matter. Life must be tough when you're ugly. I should take that into account before I start laughing at your infantile trolling. Side: Yes
1
point
This is too easy You are very brave. I would personally hate it if I were ugly. Say Nom tell us a little bit more about you being an ugly little man who has to blind hit on women over the internet Ah, now I understand. When you said "too easy" you meant, "check out my Hitlerian big lie technique where I turn everything upside down and fire it back at you". Good one. Seriously though, you must be a bit pushed for interest if you are chatting Jace up. Especially given the slimy, creepy way you do it where you put on a different personality and pretend to be someone else. That kind of hints at rapist to me. Side: No
1
point
I don’t think you even know what you’re saying anymore , I’ve yet to meet a dumber human being Yeah, to find anybody dumber than me you'd have to find someone so stupid they can't master basic grammar. What are the chances of that? Side: No
1
point
Cherry picked ? WTF I posted the comments in full You cherry picked any comment which you could twist into an accusation of racism, and left out all the comments which demonstrate the complete opposite, such as:- Karl Marx famously said that “Labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded.” https://www.socialistalternative.org/ So there you are again, you see, exposed as a lying piece of shit Nazi with a whore mother. Side: No
Oh do shut up you moron ...... Marx wrote to Engels that Tremaux had ”proved that the common Negro type is the degenerate form of a much higher one” and that this was “a significant advance over Darwin”. A further example can be found in Marx’s correspondence with Engels in 1862, saying that his rival “the Jewish Nigger Lasalle” was leaving Britain to return to Germany: “It is now absolutely clear to me that, as both the shape of his head and his hair texture shows – he descends from the Negroes who joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or grandmother on the paternal side hybridized with a nigger.) Now this combination of Germanness and Jewishness with a primarily negro substance necessarily creates a strange product. The pushiness of the fellow is also nigger-like.” Bear in mind that today we are expected by many of Marx’s keenest advocates to judge historical figures by today’s moral standards. If socialists truly believed in the principles of social justice that they constantly spout, they would have condemned this disgusting racist long ago. Instead, they worship him. This serves to reveal that their attacks are based purely on political motivations and furthering the cause of socialism, rather than any real notion of justice. For them, socialism as a value trumps all others. Schooled again for the filthy little racist you are Nom , regards your mother rumour has it she had a pussy like a bucket with a mouth to match Side: No
1
point
Oh do shut up you moron ...... Marx wrote to Engels that Tremaux had ”proved that the common Negro type is the degenerate form of a much higher one” Abraham Lincoln said in public of the notion of equality between blacks and whites:- "Family life might also collapse and the increase of the mixed breed bastards might some day challenge the supremacy of the white man." https://quod.lib.umich. Therefore, using your own logic, Abraham Lincoln was also a racist, as was every single person who ever lived during those times. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
Dermot's first stand up routine wasn't going as planned. Despite the many hints in the front row it largely went unnoticed. Noms first defence of his ‘Time machine ‘ BS was to call on ....drum roll ......Professor ....cough , cough , ahem ....Mallet 😱 Who read the Time Machine so cough , cough ......knows what he’s on about 😳🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣� Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
Isn't it really strange how capitalist nations were the ones who enslaved, exploited and segregated blacks In America it was the Democratic Party. Today, it's the Democratic Party. but it's the Marxists who are racist. They are putting Muslims in gulags so...... https://www.reuters.com/investigates/ Go figure. Strange world this upside down alt-Reich paradise. Capitalism has no wing. Many Democrats are Capitalists. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
www.washingtonexaminer.com Stop posting this extreme far right bullshit please. Why on God's Earth would anybody go to the extreme far right for an opinion about the left? Would you go to a soothsayer if you have a toothache you vile Nazi retard? The Washington Examiner is owned by Clarity Media Group, which is in turn owned by Philip Anschutz, who is an American billionaire entrepreneur who describes himself as a “conservative Christian.” Anschutz is also the owner of the right leaning Weekly Standard and has donated millions of dollars to right leaning causes, including anti-LGBT groups, such as the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a hate group. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ So you are sourcing hate groups and you expect a reasonable response do you? Fucking idiot. Side: No
1
point
you could discount their argument for the same, without regard for their actual arguments. Amarel, when you can make a coherent argument in plain English I'll address it. Until then shut the fuck up. Your post basically reads like this:- 1) I'm going to accuse you of using fallacies. Vaguely, of course, so I don't have to provide any actual examples. 2) Now I'm going to tell you what you think and invent my own cynical reasons why you contributed positively to the discussion. 3) Now I'm going to accuse you of ad hominem. Universal ad hominem (I guess as opposed to non-universal ad hominem???) 4) I'm going to blather on incoherently for a full paragraph and then end with a snarky remark, which is as provocative and mean as possible. Approximately two sentences after I accused you of ad hominem. Side: Yes
To assist you with reading comprehension, I have identified the contents of the post in a more simplistic form for your benefit. In order of the sentences of my original post: 1- Your post demonstrates your fallacies. 2- This the first fallacy. 3- This is the second fallacy. 4- Comment on entertainment value. This effort is similar to describing red to a color blind person. That's it for lessons for today. Side: No
1
point
Your post demonstrates your fallacies. Oh, OK. Then your post demonstrates that you like raping kids. This the first fallacy. Your first fallacy was trying to repackage a post about Plato into an essay about "collectivism". This is the second fallacy Oh just shut up you ridiculously stupid imbecile. You're an imbecile Amarel. Your posts are literally senseless. I made it absolutely clear what my position was and somehow you interpreted what I wrote to mean the complete opposite. Side: Yes
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
