Search your feelings pedes, you know it to be true...
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (63)
sorted by:
Your point is deflection. You provide excuse after excuse, apply your rules for judgment and guilt unevenly.
Wow. The abduction, trafficking, raping, torture, and murder of kids is "emotionally charged buzzwords". So, you would have me avoid the core issue itself, of what Epstein was involved in, what everyone who knew him knew what he was involved in, you would have me avoid using the actual words to describe the actual crimes that took place, avoid the words to describe the age of the actual victims, purely to appease your hypocritical stance that I not use "emotionally charged buzzwords"? Why? Because it makes your position look bad? No. I refuse to adjust my accurate language to appease your hypocritical demand on how to discuss this topic.
It's you who doesn't want to discuss the accuracy of what's involved, because you know that if you did, you'd have to actually admit how repugnant it was, and how repugnant everyone involved was, how repugnant everyone is who helps to cover it up.
You don't decry length. You only decry length that disagrees with you. Then, you grasp at straws and throw anything you can against the wall, hoping something sticks, purely because you disagree. This means that you argue in bad faith, that you apply harsh rules against your opponent that you don't follow yourself. This, again, makes you a hypocrite. "Logic"? Logic dictates that the discussion be accurately described, that rules be levied equally and fairly, that the logic be applied consistently. You have not done this, which is why I keep coming back to these core issues, in the (apparently vain) hope that you would see reason. But, as you uncovered in your previous reply, you're entirely biased in your views, and that bias has thoroughly clouded your ability to have any kind of rational or logical discussion surrounding this topic. "Seething hatred"? It is you that admitted to being patently biased because of your hatred toward women.
To be fair, I understand the criticisms of modern women, or even women in general. Women have been thoroughly corrupted by globohomo and feminism. It's not like I'm attempting to white knight women here. I know their faults better than most. But, I only bring up your hatred of women, because you're using that as a clear bias in this discussion. You even openly gave defense of Harvey Weinstein because of your bias, which resulted in you completely skirting around the issue entirely, of the connections between Weinstein and Epstein, of how everyone who knew them knew what they were involved in. But, you skirted around that issue by giving open defense of Weinstein, because of your bias against women.
False dichotomy. It's not an either/or choice. The choices aren't "libertarian hellhole where all immorality and crime is permitted" versus "religiously zealous police state where all morality and minutiae is dictated by the state". You seem to skip over the entire width and breadth of all of reality, where the issue exists, jumping to the furthest extreme, to "debunk" what I was saying. I'm bad at this? Have some self reflection of what you just said.
Furthermore, you are, again, resting your entire position on legality, which of itself is a losing and false issue. Not all that is right is legal, and not all that is wrong is illegal. If you, a supposed rational man, can't determine what is right or wrong, beyond what laws written on books say, then you are completely lost. You tacitly suggest we appeal to authority, another logical fallacy. And, you couch it in a repugnant view that you think all of the modern degenerate sex isn't harmful to people or society. And, again, your view is entirely dictated by your bias/hate against women. You don't want to cast blame against people like Weinstein, because you seem to tacitly approve of him hurting women, and in turn, condone the harm of your own people.
You do realize I brought up those morality laws to show to clear correlation between the overturning of those previous morality laws, and the degeneration of society? I'm not arguing for a tyrannical hellscape where all actions are decided by the state. I've never argued that. Feel free to dig into my timeline (going back years), to see where I've ever argued for that. Quote me. I dare you.
You apparently didn't know the Founding Fathers very well. They intended the U.S. to be dictated by Christian morality, for Christians and by Christians, for White people and by White people. They didn't want every religion under the sun to become citizenry of some amorphous U.S. blob. The problem lied between Christian denominations, not between different religions entirely. They also ONLY applied that rule to the federal government, not upon state or local governments. Your (mis)understanding of this issue is at fault, not mine.
Furthermore, morality can absolutely be dictated by law. That's literally what all laws are, the criminalization of what's immoral (wrong) and legalization of what's moral (right). How in the hell would you dictate laws and legality in your world? Relativism? Truth is absolute, so is logic, and so is morality. People's understanding of those foundations may change, but the truth does not. There are clearly superior and inferior forms and understandings, governances, and laws. And, ever since we got rid of the most basic of moral laws, our nation, our civilization, has turned to shit. By the fruits a thing/person can be judged, and your defense of libertarian hedonism is a condemnation against you and your argument.
I self doubt always. I challenge my own ideas all the time. That's why I engage in these long form debates. I actually like to be proven wrong. I like to learn new arguments and ideas, because it enables me to better learn and understand truth. Weak men hold weak ideas, because neither is challenged. Look through my profile. I've done these long form debates many times. I don't shirk away from them.
Just because I accurately ascribe to you your own beliefs, your own failings, and the results of what you espouse, is not a reflection upon me, but of you. You, of course, disagree, but disagreement does not equate to me being false. Our views on the matter do not change the truth. Just because I disagree with you does not make me "retard(ed)", or "think too highly of myself".
What grand assumptions did I make? Point to them. Be specific. Why are they wrong? What schema did I use? Point to them. Be specific. Why are they wrong?
Well, uhhhh, yeah. That's quite literally why I believe what I do, and don't believe what I don't. I judge based on that. How else am I supposed to act and judge? It's also why I constantly challenge my own ideas, and seek opponents worthy enough to prove me wrong, and read other people's opinions, arguments, and evidence constantly.
Well, as to what we can verify, sure. We don't know, for certain, that Trump was involved. We don't have a notorized governmental form, a timestamped notarized governmental approved video with Trump literally "RAPING BABIES!". What I've been trying to point out, this entire time, is that we can infer a lot based on the available evidence, about how these people act, what they believe, the company they keep, and all of the relevant patterns that exist. By all of that standard of measure, Trump is guilty. And, given the cover up of the Epstein files his administration is currently doing, blatantly proves this. Even if you were correct, by some miracle of chance, Trump is still guilty of covering up the crimes of Epstein and everyone else involved. He was guilty of it during his first term, and he's even more guilty of it now, by actively covering it up, for "national security".
That's only part of the sentence. The true form is "Because you disagree with me, you are the worst type of fool."
Why am I a fool? Why am I the worst type of fool? Be specific. When we truly dig down, it will be patently obvious that it's only because I dared to disagree with you, and point out your own bias and hypocrisy. If you actually look through my profile and look at all the other debates I've gotten in with people, you'll notice, just as I did, that most people are loathe to have their worldview challenged. People don't want to change their minds, no matter how many sound arguments, logic, and evidence you present them. They'd rather stick their fingers in their ears and scream as loud as possible. They'd rather denigrate and attack the person trying to teach them. They'd rather censor and kill the person who disagrees with them, than ever change their stance one iota. It's a shame really, but it's a repeated pattern of behavior I've seen in my own debates, and in debates between others. Truly, I don't know how most people actually change their minds, given the preponderance of evidence of how stubborn they can be to the most blindingly blatant truth. It seems most people would happily rather die, than ever to admit to being wrong, even on the smallest of issues.
Good, that's the entire point. You finally got it. Everything else you've said here is completely useless blubber because this was the entire point.
I read little else of it, because its obviously more bluster to hide the fact that you have no further substance to your point but conjecture. And based on how you conjectured about my character, you are so bad at that its actual retardation given voice.
I did see the words bad faith in it, which is funny given how much you've insulted my character both directly and through your assumptions about me that now you care about respectful argumentation. But you are right I stopped actually trying days ago because both of our positions and thoughts weren't changing and it was obvious.
Actually the full sentence was originally "...and I hope you kill yourself." But after a few minutes I realized that was overt and went back and editted it out. Good catch though, you noticed the thought was halfbaked though I think given how much time you wasted despite knowing I was wasting your time, maybe you should as you have nothing else going on.
Then you missed the point entirely. I said that, as a caveat, because we can't be absolutely 100% certain he was involved.
However, we can't be absolutely 100% certain about most things and people in life. We can't be 100% certain that a convicted murderer is going to murder again, but we lock him up (for one reason) to protect the public, in any case. Intelligence and wisdom isn't just the ability to absorb that information, but to use it to deduce other facts, to draw accurate conclusions from limited data, by using recognized patterns and applying those patterns to other things which display similar connections. The more intelligent and wise a man is, the more he can accurately deduce from less and less data.
Why do you think "crazy", "whacko", "fringe", "insane" conspiracy theorists have been right about so many things the last several decades? We haven't been proven right because all of these conspiracy theories are confirmed on the nightly news, but because we could, and can, infer a lot from what the people in power have done, what they've said, what they believe, who they hang out with, their repeated patterns of behavior, what they've been caught doing in the past, and what they're currently up to right now.
The other mistake, associated with your point, is that you think we need to be 100% certain to act or to judge. That is absolutely false. If you're waiting on 100% certainty to "do the right thing", you'll be waiting forever. The only thing that we can ever know for certain is sound logic. That's it. Everything else is up for debate. Even the very reality we exist in could be entirely fabricated or manipulated, from old philosophical arguments from Descartes (powerful demon/entity manipulating our senses) to the more modern simulated reality postulate. This is because we, as humans, are finite, mortal, and imperfect (with a few exceptions not relevant to this specific debate). We can't know everything, and what we do know is up for interpretation, based on the limited data we have, which can alter our conclusions. Your tacit assertion that we can't pass judgment without 100% certainty necessarily results in good men becoming apathetic and inactive in the affairs of everything around them, refusing to cast judgment or act, purely because of the foolish fear that they might be wrong, even if that chance is infinitesimally small.
I already showed that you don't care about the length. You only care that I disagree, and only use the length as a straw to grasp at any way to criticize me. You levy rules against me more harshly than you levy against someone that agrees with you, which makes you a hypocrite in this. And, just because you disagree, doesn't mean my arguments have no substance, or that it's pure conjecture. Our feelings have no bearing on truth, and your feelings are obvious.
I used your own words and arguments, to discredit your own words and arguments, and to accurately infer who you are and what your motives are. I pointed out where you're being hypocritical and false, where your outward stated goals are antithetical to your behaviors and beliefs. I disparaged your character where it deserved to be disparaged. No amount of "nu uh" will change that.
You don't want to continue this debate because you can't. You don't want to. You'd rather die than ever admit being wrong. You'd rather cling to your beliefs like an anchor, letting them drown you, than ever self reflecting and changing.
I noticed you only said "overt", and didn't say "uncalled for" or "cruel". So, you'd rather I die, because I disagree with you. Absolutely incredible, and you purport to be the moral and good person in this? Your positions are so weak that if they meet one iota of scrutiny and disagreement, you'd rather your opponent die, or commit suicide, than ever changing your mind. This is yet another condemnation of your own character, sprouted forth from your own mouth. I'm not the one condemning you, I only point it out in words. It's you that condemns you.
Debate, even futile debate, if truth is prioritized, is never a wasted effort. Good men, just like ideas, are honed and strengthened in challenge and hardship. Weak men, just like ideas, have never been challenged, and both shirk away from all hardship, and lash out at any who dare put them through it, like you are.
That was my point entirely. The fact that you kept trying to drag it in every direction possible just to avoid the fact that you couldn't beat it and have long since started talking just to stroke your own ego. Including now when I openly admitted to ceasing to read your spiels, you continue to write them.
So I'll repeat, please do kill yourself. Not for any grand reason, only because I hope you report me to Dom for it and he bans me for doing it. Because the idea of that is really fucking funny to me.
You're displaying that you're not reading, as this was directly addressed a few times in my previous replies. Why even continue a conversation if you're not even bothering to listen? Just go talk to yourself in a corner, as how much you're willing to partake.
Oh look, another display of "I didn't read anything that disagreed with me, and I'm proud of it" line of argumentation. I directly addressed your points, and connected it to the relevant related topics.
This was also directly addressed in previous replies, which you didn't read. Congratulations on your impediment, I guess. You seem to be proud of it.
Oh look, ANOTHER topic directly addressed in previous replies. Engaging a debate to the bitter end, even with an unwavering opponent, holds great merit. But, you are entirely afraid to do this, because you, your ideas, and your arguments are weak, which is why you become so hostile to anyone who disagrees with you, why you refuse to read anything in contradiction to your position, and why you constantly use logically fallacious arguments.
Another admission and prideful declaration of your own failings, with another topic directly addressed in previous replies.
Your positions are so weak, and so are you, that you want anyone that disagrees with you to commit suicide. Out of the preponderance of what lies in the heart, spills forth from the mouth. By your own words, you reveal yourself, and what lies in your heart is poison, hubris, vitriol, and unrighteous hatred.
To answer your demand: no. I will not. I do not acquiesce to your demands. I only answer to God, and you are not God.
I don't censor people who disagree with me. I don't report them. I don't block them. I engage them. Precisely for the reasons I mentioned previously, which you didn't read.
No it's not. You're not laughing. This angers you, deep down, which is why you keep replying. My responses anger you, which is why you became so hostile and vitriolic toward me, and why you've twice now told me to kill myself. Perhaps, if you get angry enough, something will actually snap in your head, and you might, by some miracle, be forced to self reflect and change. One can hope. But you don't show much promise in that hope.