Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

[jonesthecurl]

Wait, so trolling isn't saying something the other person disagrees with? Good to know.

No it's not.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Wait, so trolling isn't saying something the other person disagrees with? Good to know.

No it's not.

reported for trolling.

[jonesthecurl]

Wait, so trolling isn't saying something the other person disagrees with? Good to know.

No it's not.

reported for trolling.

no I wasn't.

[AndyDufresne]

Wait, so trolling isn't saying something the other person disagrees with? Good to know.

No it's not.

reported for trolling.

no I wasn't.

Trolling for reported.


--Andy

[crispybits]

Wait, so trolling isn't saying something the other person disagrees with? Good to know.

No it's not.

reported for trolling.

YOU SIR ARE AN IDIOT!!!

(trolled for reporting)

[Nola_Lifer]

To make yourself not a bigot and still believe in your church you can simply say, "I believe that marriage between a man and a women is a holy sacrament; however, if a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to get married so that they can obtain their rights through the government then let them."

No one here is saying that you should change your religious or moral views. Just don't infringe on others rights.

[Phatscotty]

To make yourself not a bigot and still believe in your church you can simply say, "I believe that marriage between a man and a women is a holy sacrament; however, if a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to get married so that they can obtain their rights through the government then let them."

No one here is saying that you should change your religious or moral views. Just don't infringe on others rights.

So have the rights you speak of been infringed on since the beginning of time?

[Phatscotty]

[TDK]

Only a society on the decline would choose to frame a moral question in terms of spending money at a for-profit corporation. I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to patronize this or that company other than a strict cost-benefit analysis that ends in my favor - which is precisely the same thing that motivates those companies. Anything else is propaganda.

[Phatscotty]

Only a society on the decline would choose to frame a moral question in terms of spending money at a for-profit corporation. I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to patronize this or that company other than a strict cost-benefit analysis that ends in my favor - which is precisely the same thing that motivates those companies. Anything else is propaganda.

Could you imagine a government discriminating against a business because of their religious beliefs? Because of the owner's speech? No need to imagine, because that is exactly what happened concerning chik-fil-a.

Nobody is taking a moral stand based on a chicken sandwich All across the country, millions of people showed their support for the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the freedom of association.

The issue is Freedom and Liberty

Just curious, does your opinion change when the subject becomes building a Mosque near Ground Zero? Where do you stand on that?
(welcome to the forum)

[Haggis_McMutton]

To make yourself not a bigot and still believe in your church you can simply say, "I believe that marriage between a man and a women is a holy sacrament; however, if a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to get married so that they can obtain their rights through the government then let them."

No one here is saying that you should change your religious or moral views. Just don't infringe on others rights.

So have the rights you speak of been infringed on since the beginning of time?

Not at all, homosexuality was encouraged for instance in the Spartan army.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece

And gay marriage/unions have been around since ancient times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Or by "beggining of time" did you mean 200 years ago in North America?

[Phatscotty]

To make yourself not a bigot and still believe in your church you can simply say, "I believe that marriage between a man and a women is a holy sacrament; however, if a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to get married so that they can obtain their rights through the government then let them."

No one here is saying that you should change your religious or moral views. Just don't infringe on others rights.

So have the rights you speak of been infringed on since the beginning of time?

Not at all, homosexuality was encouraged for instance in the Spartan army.

Oh, you wouldn't be dishonestly changing the subject again from the "right" for gays to marry to the "right" to be gay would ya?

Or are you offering evidence that gay Spartan soldiers got married, and Spartan society accepted it? Can you please provide a source?

[Woodruff]

I do not have a history of ignoring other people's pertinent questions.

The hell you don't. In fact, that is almost a full summation OF your history.

I am always reasonable, and I acknowledge other points from time to time.

You are easily the least reasonable person in these fora. I'm sure there may be a couple, but I don't happen to remember a single time when you have acknowledged opposing points of view as potentially valid, so they certainly are fleetingly small.

If you want to put up some examples, I will address them.

We've done this. We've done this many, many times. Every time with the same non-answering result. I, for one, have decided to stop playing this stupid game with you. I wish you'd stop trying to play it too.

[Woodruff]

Only a society on the decline would choose to frame a moral question in terms of spending money at a for-profit corporation. I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to patronize this or that company other than a strict cost-benefit analysis that ends in my favor - which is precisely the same thing that motivates those companies. Anything else is propaganda.

Could you imagine a government discriminating against a business because of their religious beliefs? Because of the owner's speech? No need to imagine, because that is exactly what happened concerning chik-fil-a.

No, it didn't. Please point out where Chick-Fil-A was discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

Nobody is taking a moral stand based on a chicken sandwich All across the country, millions of people showed their support for the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the freedom of association.

And because God said so.

The issue is Freedom and Liberty

The issue, for you Phatscotty, has never been Freedom and/or Liberty.

Just curious, does your opinion change when the subject becomes building a Mosque near Ground Zero? Where do you stand on that? (welcome to the forum)

How about you?

[GreecePwns]

Does granting this as a right fit within my ideology? Then its a right. If not, it's not a right.

[BigBallinStalin]

Only a society on the decline would choose to frame a moral question in terms of spending money at a for-profit corporation. I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to patronize this or that company other than a strict cost-benefit analysis that ends in my favor - which is precisely the same thing that motivates those companies. Anything else is propaganda.

...

The issue is Freedom and Liberty

...

(welcome to the forum)

(1) Why must equality before the law not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage?


(2) How is Freedom and Liberty promoted when Christians demand the State to force minority groups to abide by particular Christian beliefs?


(3) You support States' Rights, as we all know. However, how does majority rule, which supports certain Christian beliefs, results in unjust discrimination, and denies equal benefits to minority groups, promote Freedom and Liberty?


There is a difference between promoting Freedom and Liberty for your group and promoting Freedom and Liberty for all.

[Phatscotty]

Only a society on the decline would choose to frame a moral question in terms of spending money at a for-profit corporation. I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to patronize this or that company other than a strict cost-benefit analysis that ends in my favor - which is precisely the same thing that motivates those companies. Anything else is propaganda.

...

The issue is Freedom and Liberty

...

(welcome to the forum)

(1) Why must equality before the law not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage?


(2) How is Freedom and Liberty promoted when Christians demand the State to force minority groups to abide by particular Christian beliefs?


(3) You support States' Rights, as we all know. However, how does majority rule, which supports certain Christian beliefs, results in unjust discrimination, and denies equal benefits to minority groups, promote Freedom and Liberty?


There is a difference between promoting Freedom and Liberty for your group and promoting Freedom and Liberty for all.

Not in this case. Freedom of speech for all, freedom of religion, for all, and freedom of association, for all. My group, whatever you think it is, has nothing to do with this. Is it hard to be dishonest while appearing to be honest?

Discrimination is not upheld. That is invented and exaggerated by militants

The state is not enforcing Christian beliefs, or Islamic beliefs, or Jewish beliefs, or any religious beliefs. They all have similarly policies, so to pick Christians out and put them front and center is folly.

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief? That the state supports Christianity if it punishes murderers? I cannot accept your example, and maybe you shouldn't try so hard to center your response over the biblical support of traditional marriage. That is not my position, and I have not argued it, so I cannot address the states rights part, as the example you provide is inaccurate, at least in my case. Many other non religious people understand marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and not only because that is clearly what the dictionary defines it as either.

Best of luck arguing against the dictionary. I will at least give you credit in that I won't expect you to declare the dictionary as bigoted.

[Woodruff]

Not in this case. Freedom of speech for all, freedom of religion, for all, and freedom of association, for all. My group, whatever you think it is, has nothing to do with this. Is it hard to be dishonest while appearing to be honest?

I would suggest that you seem to handle it quite easily, but that discounts the fact that you don't really appear to be honest.

Discrimination is not upheld. That is invented and exaggerated by militants.

It is undeniably discrimination.

The state is not enforcing Christian beliefs, or Islamic beliefs, or Jewish beliefs, or any religious beliefs. They all have similarly policies, so to pick Christians out and put them front and center is folly.

I have no problem putting equal blame on all of those, but Christians are certainly far from blameless in this regard. I doubt I'm alone in that view.

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief?

I have two questions, which will make the point I have:

1. Is "murder is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?
2. Is "homosexuality is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?

[BigBallinStalin]

Only a society on the decline would choose to frame a moral question in terms of spending money at a for-profit corporation. I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to patronize this or that company other than a strict cost-benefit analysis that ends in my favor - which is precisely the same thing that motivates those companies. Anything else is propaganda.

...

The issue is Freedom and Liberty

...

(welcome to the forum)

(1) Why must equality before the law not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage?


(2) How is Freedom and Liberty promoted when Christians demand the State to force minority groups to abide by particular Christian beliefs?


(3) You support States' Rights, as we all know. However, how does majority rule, which supports certain Christian beliefs, results in unjust discrimination, and denies equal benefits to minority groups, promote Freedom and Liberty?


There is a difference between promoting Freedom and Liberty for your group and promoting Freedom and Liberty for all.

Not in this case. Freedom of speech for all, freedom of religion, for all, and freedom of association, for all. My group, whatever you think it is, has nothing to do with this. Is it hard to be dishonest while appearing to be honest?

Discrimination is not upheld. That is invented and exaggerated by militants

The state is not enforcing Christian beliefs, or Islamic beliefs, or Jewish beliefs, or any religious beliefs. They all have similarly policies, so to pick Christians out and put them front and center is folly.

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief? That the state supports Christianity if it punishes murderers? I cannot accept your example, and maybe you shouldn't try so hard to center your response over the biblical support of traditional marriage. That is not my position, and I have not argued it, so I cannot address the states rights part, as the example you provide is inaccurate, at least in my case. Many other non religious people understand marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and not only because that is clearly what the dictionary defines it as either.

Best of luck arguing against the dictionary. I will at least give you credit in that I won't expect you to declare the dictionary as bigoted.

It appears you are again being a dick and are holding contradictory views. This may be due to your inability to grasp concepts, but I'll pause this discussion until you successfully respond to the following post:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175768&start=345#p3853286

You have about a day left.

Remember the consequences of your own choices, PhatLooter.

[Phatscotty]

Well, I hope I do not HAVE to agree with you, because I disagree. I do not have a history of ignoring other people's pertinent questions. I am always reasonable, and I acknowledge other points from time to time.

If you want to put up some examples, I will address them.

Before that, we need to address the content of your argument/position. From there, we can proceed in a reasonable fashion.


(1) So you want to compare Hate/Bigotry between the pro-gay marriage crowd and the pro-Chick-Fil-A/anti-gay marriage (i.e. bigots--in a bad way) crowd?
With some modification to my qualifiers, this comparison is basically your goal--as expressed through your three questions above the pictures.


(2) You list some examples of some tweets by about 10 people, who are assumed to be the of pro-gay marriage crowd (it is possible that they're fake accounts). Anyway, do you think this sample is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd?

(2a) If yes, please argue why it is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd.
(Then please realize that you're exhibiting sample bias, which in turn means that your position on the entire gay marriage crowd would be false. In other words, your poor evidence would fail to support what you're insinuating with your question: "Who are the real haters?" --Apparently, only a few people. Big deal, amirite?).

(But the most accurate answer to that question would be the neo-Nazis, or the Top 10 Player Haters Hall of Fame. It's a toss-up between those two groups).

(2b) If no, then what's the point? About ten people of a group are being mean? Since that's true for almost all groups, then we can reasonably reject/ignore your post. <shrugs>


Next, we'll compare the general positions of each group, and see which one is bigoted--in a bad way. Wait, we already did that here, and the conclusion so far is that the anti-gay marriage crowd, who base their reasoning on Christianity, are bigoted in a bad way. Feel free to overcome the main obstacles here. Until then, they're reasonably deemed as bigoted--in a bad way.

and we are already clear that from a pro-gay marriage position, every religious person is a bigot....starting....NOW!!!!

Since you failed to acknowledge or address the first question, then I'll assume that you agree with its presentation of your goal. And, you ignored the question for #2b, so that's strike one and two.

(re: underlined) I didn't say that. I said, "the anti-gay marriage crowd, who base their reasoning on Christianity, are bigoted in a bad way." And then we provided, in accordance with CC-standards, a reasonable series of arguments which supports that conclusion (note: this is a reasonable example of providing evidence in support of one's claims). Anyway, my quote does not say that "every religious person is a bigot" unless you truly think that anyone, who (1) is against gay marriage and (2) uses Christianity to justify this stance, includes "every religious person." (A) Do you really think so? (if you say yes, you admit to being nonsensical).

(B) Have you made an honest mistake in interpreting my post, or are you intentionally twisting my words?

My answer to your question is no, and I would add "Of course not!" PFF wtf? who the hell thinks that way? That because someone shows an example, someone else assumes they are calling out every single person on the planet, and not just the 10 people I demonstrated as bigots, and in today's confusion, "real bigots".

I think the thing that most people would most ignore would be your assertion that because I show 10 examples I am talking about the views of an entire population. That's like the dumbest thing ever, and I feel shame for even responding to such stupidity.

(C) Since you admit that the evidence which you provided is insufficient--in regard to your questions, then what was the purpose of your questions?

(D) You implied that the goal of your questions was to compare bigotry/hate across these two groups, but obviously and you also admit, that your evidence has failed to do so. So, what's the purpose of your post?

(E) Nevertheless, even if you don't agree that a valid comparison was your goal, what was the purpose of your post?

Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade

[insert pics]

(1) "Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this?" + (2) "who are the real haters?" + (3) "Time to call a spade a spade!"



(F) Are you aware of what your questions imply?

Here's what they imply to me. (1) 'The supporters/customers of Chik-Fil-A don't say such mean things. Prove me wrong, (which is difficult because sufficient empirical evidence is either lacking or not worth it finding).'

(Why is it not worth it? Because the standard of evidence which PS gave (~10 tweets) is complete crap, which he admitted; therefore, no one will take him seriously. Nevertheless, he expects people to take him seriously--which to me is ridiculous, and is proper grounds for labeling him a dick.).

(2) 'Ah-ha! So the real haters are not the Chick-Fil-A people, but apparently... Ooooo, (a) the pro-gay marriage crowd, (b) the crowd who admonished the activities of those who support anti-gay marriage businesses, or (c) only the people mentioned in the tweets are the real haters.'

Some people don't take PS seriously due to his (un)intentional ambiguity. You can't argue against this if he can easily change positions, which makes him appear incoherent to us but correct in his mind. This (un)intentional ambiguity plus the inevitable shifting tactics is a common occurrence with PS and a fine example of PS on the verge of being a dick).

(3) "Time to call a spade a spade" = stop being hypocrites.

Who's being a hypocrite? It's unclear from the ambiguity of the second question, but obviously, if PS poses this question to this community, then he's definitely blaming someone--and for poor reasons too. (Thus, another example of PS being a dick).

If you don't respond to these questions A through F, all of which are important for us to accurately understand you, then my previous description of you will hold true. Phatscotty, this is a rare opportunity for you to convince me to temporarily discontinue my Phatism Awareness Campaign and also temporarily treat you with respect--on the condition that while on BBS-sanctioned parole, you exhibit good behavior.

I did not ignore your first question, or 2b, which is why this is a waste of time. I address your NASA application questionaire, and then you just go on about how I did not address anything.

Answers, in order. (A) no (B) no (C) I don't think my evidence is insufficient. (D) I don't think my evidence is invalid. (E) I was pointing out bigotry. (F) yes

If I am going to be privileged with a response, please, for the love of Pete, one thing at a time.

[BigBallinStalin]

PS, if you did not ignore my first question, then your goal to compare both crowds is true. I've already mentioned this, and without responding in the negative, while continually to clearly imply a positive "yes," then this goal of yours holds true.

Earlier, you admit that the evidence you provided is not sufficient for comparing these two crowds (due to sample bias), then you say "I don't think my evidence is insufficient." Since you are contradicting yourself, then no one has to take your seriously, until you clarify what your stance actually is---after (what?) three of five back-and-forth posts, and your ambiguity is still a problem?


From earlier: "My answer to your question is no, and I would add "Of course not!" PFF wtf? who the hell thinks that way? That because someone shows an example, someone else assumes they are calling out every single person on the planet, and not just the 10 people I demonstrated as bigots, and in today's confusion, "real bigots"."

But you just admitted that the goal of your post is to compare the groups of pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage.

And, you state "(D) I don't think my evidence is invalid"; however, given your above response, clearly your evidence is not even relevant, and it is insufficient.

So, you admit that you are comparing the two groups, which I clearly stated, but then you're saying that you aren't. Clearly, you were being ambiguous (which is similar to being a dick), and clearly, you were dodging the point by posting questions which don't suggest only a show-and-tell of bigotry (which also constitutes as being a dick).



Q: (E) Nevertheless, even if you don't agree that a valid comparison was your goal, what was the purpose of your post?

(E) I was pointing out bigotry.

Okay, after all this back-and-forth, now you admit that you're just showing bigotry---bigotry of one group of course, because based on the now clarified information, that's all one can reasonably conclude from your evidence, which totals 10 Tweets of allegedly pro-gay marriage individuals, some of whom may be multies. Finally. (I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself because your stream of reasoning is ridiculously tortuous.).

But wait a minute. If your post was about bigotry, then why not answer my 1st question to clarify? Obviously, you're being a dick. You chose to ignore my 1st question, and now you finally answer it through this ridiculous back-and-forth. Anyone at this point is justified in calling you a dick.


(1) So why ask the questions which imply more than you showing bigotry?


You admit that you are aware of what your questions imply:

"Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade"

Then it's reasonable to assume that you are aware of some of the implications of your sentences--as perceived by me and most likely many others--mayhaps, not in totality, but at least a few of the implications.
Implications:

show

But wait. Your question #3 isn't about only showing bigotry. It's clearly blaming someone in here; otherwise, why post it in here? To show that "omg, some people in the pro-gay marriage crowd are jerks? As has already been mentioned, everyone knows that almost every group has a few dickheads (including CC), so there's really no point to your post. It's pointless--as far as you're willing to honestly say so. Some would say you posted your third question is to incite rage (which is trolling, thus constitutes as being a dick).

How about the ambiguity of your questions and throughout this exchange? It took me several days and several posts for you to clarify only a few things, yet much remains unclear. I had to drag the supposed truth from you after all this effort, and still ambiguity persists. With patience like this, I deserve a CC medal. Anyway, this would lead people to conclude that you're being a dick, and they're justified in doing so.


Question 2 is clearly comparing groups here, yet you said that you aren't. You're just showing bigotry--supposedly, but you never state which crowd. (e.g. (a) the pro-gay marriage crowd, (b) the crowd who admonished the activities of those who support anti-gay marriage businesses, or (c) only the people mentioned in the tweets)? Which one? PS has failed to clarify still. Still! Conclusion: Most likely PS is being a dick. I guess he's aware of being a dick?


Question 1 begins the entire analysis from a group, the Chick-Fil-A crowd, and you juxtapose this crowd with the pro-gay marriage crowd, for who else could we logically assume? A group of that size would imply a group of equivalent size. Certainly, PS wouldn't unfairly compare an entire group to a few individuals within the opposing group? No, for he would be dick for making such a comparison! But wait, he just did make that comparison, so he is being a dick.

At this point, you are still remaining ambiguous, thus confirming that you're being a dick.


Until I could clarify anything from you, you had contradictory and/or really dickish positions. Now, you have some likely contradictory positions, although I've exposed a few for your own benefit, and also you're still ambiguous on the purpose of your post--in light of the implications of your questions. I'm not willing to spend more days and multiple posts with you to drag the truth from you again. If you were being honest, it would be extremely easy for you to simply say it, without having us guess all the time.

(A) We can either conclude that you post dumb stuff and make dumb points because... that's all you can muster?

(B) Or we can conclude that you enjoy being a dick because people have to extract the "truth" from you very slowly while you can reformulate your positions. This is the essence of being a dick. If this is true, then you're hardly ever intellectually honest in any debate; therefore, anyone can justifiably treat you like crap--or give you the respect you deserve.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________


The tl;dr Diagnosis:

Phatscotty's mind is like a Rubik's Cube of constantly changing colors, which would be really cool if the cube couldn't speak.

With all my best efforts, I've exhausted my patience and have better things to do then deal with his intentional ambiguity and/or apparent stupidity.


Naive Optimistic Scenario: PhatScotty is unintentionally being a dickhead because he suffers from a cognitive disability, e.g. some learning disability, or real mental health problem.

Solution: We should feel sorry for PS and recommend he see a doctor. Any time he posts, we should ask him about it.


Actual Scenario: PhatScotty is being a dick, and the comments of mine in this link have held true about him, which means that almost everything by others about PS is holding true, unless he responds with a brilliant post which clearly shows that we have been completely wrong, and furthermore, he must continue to provide such evidence with every post.

Solution: Since that isn't bloody likely, then we're justified in calling PS a dick and other names like PhatLooter and what not. We don't have to lend him any respect until he stops bankrupting his credibility with his own intellectual dishonesty and unreasonable demands on others.


Conclusion: We must contain Phatism wherever it arises. We can't let CC be contaminated by his type. We have to place PhatLooter on a pedestal and throw rotten vegetables and fruits at him--whenever he posts. I'm open to other similarly creative suggestions.


tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr



Constantly color changing Rubik's Cubes that don't talk are cool.

[BigBallinStalin]

Only a society on the decline would choose to frame a moral question in terms of spending money at a for-profit corporation. I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to patronize this or that company other than a strict cost-benefit analysis that ends in my favor - which is precisely the same thing that motivates those companies. Anything else is propaganda.

...

The issue is Freedom and Liberty

...

(welcome to the forum)

(1) Why must equality before the law not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage?


(2) How is Freedom and Liberty promoted when Christians demand the State to force minority groups to abide by particular Christian beliefs?


(3) You support States' Rights, as we all know. However, how does majority rule, which supports certain Christian beliefs, results in unjust discrimination, and denies equal benefits to minority groups, promote Freedom and Liberty?


There is a difference between promoting Freedom and Liberty for your group and promoting Freedom and Liberty for all.

Not in this case. Freedom of speech for all, freedom of religion, for all, and freedom of association, for all. My group, whatever you think it is, has nothing to do with this. Is it hard to be dishonest while appearing to be honest?

Discrimination is not upheld. That is invented and exaggerated by militants

The state is not enforcing Christian beliefs, or Islamic beliefs, or Jewish beliefs, or any religious beliefs. They all have similarly policies, so to pick Christians out and put them front and center is folly.

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief? That the state supports Christianity if it punishes murderers? I cannot accept your example, and maybe you shouldn't try so hard to center your response over the biblical support of traditional marriage. That is not my position, and I have not argued it, so I cannot address the states rights part, as the example you provide is inaccurate, at least in my case. Many other non religious people understand marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and not only because that is clearly what the dictionary defines it as either.

Best of luck arguing against the dictionary. I will at least give you credit in that I won't expect you to declare the dictionary as bigoted.

Wait, why should I argue with an intellectually dishonest dick?


I should probably hold my mouse instead.

[Phatscotty]

Oh, but we have seen this kind of smearing slime before.....

When Barry Goldwater was deemed unfit to lead based on 1,189 Psychiatrist's diagnosis, even though not a single one of them had ever met or analyzed him. In this case, just as in those, I am going to have to confidently and without malice recommend that BigBallinStalin be disbarred for violation of his own code.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, but we have seen this kind of smearing slime before.....

When Barry Goldwater was deemed unfit to lead based on 1,189 Psychiatrist's diagnosis, even though not a single one of them had ever met or analyzed him. In this case, just as in those, I am going to have to confidently and without malice recommend that BigBallinStalin be disbarred for violation of his own code.

Aw, sorry PhatLooter, but this response fails to show that you are not a dick. Since you failed to refute anything in my post--except a joke about being a doctor, then our claims about you will hold true. Actually, this makes it look worse for you. Since you refuted the Naive Case, then we can only conclude that:

(1) you're being a dick, and have been a dick for awhile
(2) you're intentionally ambiguous
(3) you have a history of ignoring other people's pertinent questions (sometimes this is not true; however, even when answering, your dickishness is not cleared up)

(4) you have neglected to maintain the reasonable debate when it goes poorly for you.
---> Why can't you be honest when you debate? If showing bigotry was the main point, then why not say it earlier instead of having me drag it out of you? Obviously, you were being a dick

(5) frequently fail to concede or acknowledge any of your opponent's points
----> the evidence is overwhelm, PhatLooter. You're a dick.

(6) you unjustifiably demand from others that which you refuse to provide through yourself (PhatLooter)

I know you have trouble at times about how a logical argument works, but it's okay. We understand, but we won't take you seriously.

[Phatscotty]

Well, I will try to address more questions. I will try not to be a dick. If anyone thinks I am being ambiguous, they can ask me to clarify at any time. If they are going to be a dick and trash n bash me and then ask me to clarify, then I will probably still continue to ignore that. I will try to be more honest. I will try to acknowledge more points of other people. I will try to keep my demands of others down, except for their money!

I will try logic