Amateur Hour Continues

[37L1]

No. I've been giving lots of consideration as to how to have discussions with people who either refuse to use logic or can't use logic, and show an ability to only use emotional rhetoric in discussions.

I've had enough go rounds with Luther to know that he refuses logic, he lies, moves goal-posts, lies more, ignores logic, lies more, and always argues from emotional rhetoric. So I figure I'll use logic for the sake of the audience and speak rhetoric for his benefit.

Don't let the turkeys bring you down to their level.

I find luther is usually willfully ignorant and posts from that position, but otherwise is a nice guy.

I know, how passive-aggressive of me.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's what you came up with after giving lots of consideration? Urine-burns?
The second-dimension has always claimed the third-dimension is just a myth and a lie.
Two-dimensional concrete - quite the anomaly.

Everyone see what I mean? No logicial or rational substance. Just pseudo-crap that distracts from discussions. Luther wants to hide from objectivity in gradients, not realizing that his rejections of objectivity invalidates everything he's here trying to convince us from and convince us to.

Morality is a relative social construct, yet he's a SJW trying to enforce his relative opinion to change the moral social constructs he says are wrong, for the one he says is right. He tries to hide in supposed gradients because he just can't traverse the law of non-contradiction that destroys his every argument.

Everyone is equal and no one is special. But diversity is of inherent benefit. Both can't be true.

Lying is wrong and Trump is evil. But some people aren't evil because they do evil things less. And by the way, Luther has argued that he thinks lying is justified (not evil) if the ends justify it. (i.e. His "gradient" is that it's evil if he disagrees with the motives.)

Back to morality. Everyone here that can't see how despicably evil Trump is are mental and despicable as well... Yet, remember that morality is relative and no one's morality is any better than anyone else's. So, all he's saying that you all disagree with him. That's his "gradient".

When I point these things out, Luther has no argument because Luther can't overcome the laws of noncontradiction. So, he resides firmly in his safe space-- non-defined gradients and emotion rhetoric--i.e. arational arguments meant to win based on emotional bloodletting as opposed to rational, logical discourse.

So, Luther, as my posts indicated, after much consideration, "urine burns" aren't what I've come up with. What I came up with was pointing out your self-defeating arguments and hypocrisies--i.e. Clinton's investigations as proof of guilt vss Trumps. etc... But knowing that you are one of those that Plato describes as incapable of learning via knowledge, I am dealing with you in your dialect... emotional rhetoric.

So, go buy some salve for that urine burn if you're going to be peeing yourself in fear over corruption in government.

 

[37L1]

luther doesn't want to understand therefor, he won't.

 

[luthervol]

Everyone see what I mean? No logicial or rational substance. Just pseudo-crap that distracts from discussions. Luther wants to hide from objectivity in gradients, not realizing that his rejections of objectivity invalidates everything he's here trying to convince us from and convince us to.

That's a very long winded way of saying that the 3rd dimension is beyond your grasp.

In between black and white are infinite shades of gray to which you are willfully blind. But I understand your necessity for blindness.

And what's the whole fear over corruption in government nonsense? I think I fear government corruption less than most everyone in the PF. Once again, you miss the whole point.

 

[Orange_Crush]

luther doesn't want to understand therefor, he won't.

You're probably right, and definitely right that the way that I used emotional rhetoric with Luther was most likely in dischord with Peter's command not to return insults for insults, so I apologize publicly to @luthervol.

Luther, having done that, I'll invite you to a retreat from your arational rhetorical appeals to "concrete" insults and deal with your internal contradictions any time you feel ready. Until then, just know that the concrete insults are only seen as worth a laugh and a good deal of pity since they're so clearly a safe space escape route for you and an admission that you haven't a rational leg to stand on.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's a very long winded way of saying that the 3rd dimension is beyond your grasp.

In between black and white are infinite shades of gray to which you are willfully blind. But I understand your necessity for blindness.

And what's the whole fear over corruption in government nonsense? I think I fear government corruption less than most everyone in the PF. Once again, you miss the whole point.

What's instructive, as always, are the parts you cut out and refused to respond to. You retreat to your gradients without every rationally defining or defending them. You can't, so you retreat from logic to rhetoric. It's sad.

From your relative morality gradient, you have to admit that the accusations you make against Trump are nothing more than a profession that he disagrees with you. yes or no? And why? Define and defend the gradient that changes that.

From a relative social morality structure, you have to admit that the social morality of cartel slavery was no better or worse than the one you're championing for change. yes or no. Any why? Define and defend the gradient that rescues you.

Trump is evil for lying, but lying is justified depending on the motives. Morality is relative so his motives are no better or worse than yours. So, either you are as evil as him and vice versa, or this is all just accusatory language for differences of opinion. True or false? Defend your answer. Define and defend the "gradient" that rescues you from the laws of contradiction.

And please try to do so logically and without escapes to emotional rhetoric as a replacement.

Thank you in advance.

(Please understand that I have my beliefs about the source of objective morality, but am willing to meet you based on your moral underpinnings. So, I'm not making the argument here that you opinions are worse than Trumps, or mine. I'm merely asking you to prove whether your moral accusations are actually moral judgments or mere whining that someone disagrees with you and does things you don't like. Again, for the sake of clarity and specificity, I'm asking you to define and defend the gradients that rescue form being just an intolerant bigot of anyone who disagrees with you, or whether you truly are the moral standard that your accusations present you to be. Again, thanks in advance.)

 

[luthervol]

You're probably right, and definitely right that the way that I used emotional rhetoric with Luther was most likely in dischord with Peter's command not to return insults for insults, so I apologize publicly to @luthervol.

Luther, having done that, I'll invite you to a retreat from your arational rhetorical appeals to "concrete" insults and deal with your internal contradictions any time you feel ready. Until then, just know that the concrete insults are only seen as worth a laugh and a good deal of pity since they're so clearly a safe space escape route for you and an admission that you haven't a rational leg to stand on.

lol....Even in your "apology" you embedded multiple insults. Talk about the hidden admissions............
I'll agree to using just one insult for every three you use.

 

[Orange_Crush]

lol....Even in your "apology" you embedded multiple insults. Talk about the hidden admissions............
I'll agree to using just one insult for every three you use.

There were no insults there. If I had wanted to insults you, I would have told you that you aren't pretty enough to be this dumb. Or that dealing with you makes me suicidal enough to jump off of your self image and land on your IQ.

There were just accusations there and information on what it does to you. But you prove that you don't care by t refusinging to deal with the criticisms and instead live in multidimensional soupy concrete.

 

[Velo Vol]

The much-promised affordable healthcare hasn't come yet, but we do have this.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What's instructive, as always, are the parts you cut out and refused to respond to. You retreat to your gradients without every rationally defining or defending them. You can't, so you retreat from logic to rhetoric. It's sad.

From your relative morality gradient, you have to admit that the accusations you make against Trump are nothing more than a profession that he disagrees with you. yes or no? And why? Define and defend the gradient that changes that.

From a relative social morality structure, you have to admit that the social morality of cartel slavery was no better or worse than the one you're championing for change. yes or no. Any why? Define and defend the gradient that rescues you.

Trump is evil for lying, but lying is justified depending on the motives. Morality is relative so his motives are no better or worse than yours. So, either you are as evil as him and vice versa, or this is all just accusatory language for differences of opinion. True or false? Defend your answer. Define and defend the "gradient" that rescues you from the laws of contradiction.

And please try to do so logically and without escapes to emotional rhetoric as a replacement.

Thank you in advance.

(Please understand that I have my beliefs about the source of objective morality, but am willing to meet you based on your moral underpinnings. So, I'm not making the argument here that you opinions are worse than Trumps, or mine. I'm merely asking you to prove whether your moral accusations are actually moral judgments or mere whining that someone disagrees with you and does things you don't like. Again, for the sake of clarity and specificity, I'm asking you to define and defend the gradients that rescue form being just an intolerant bigot of anyone who disagrees with you, or whether you truly are the moral standard that your accusations present you to be. Again, thanks in advance.)

Bump @luthervol . I couldn't help but notice that you bothered to post about how my questions and accusations affect you emotionally, but you seem slowed by your multi-dimensional soupy concrete quicksand to actually deal with the rational portion of it?

 

[luthervol]

Bump @luthervol . I couldn't help but notice that you bothered to post about how my questions and accusations affect you emotionally, but you seem slowed by your multi-dimensional soupy concrete quicksand to actually deal with the rational portion of it?

Sorry, actually had to do a little business. The rational part? I must have missed it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sorry, actually had to do a little business. The rational part? I must have missed it.

That's what I thought. You're incapable of responding on anything but an emotionally fragile and deflecting level, and you know it. Too bogged down in your multi-dimensional quicksand to keep up, I guess. When you're tired of advertising to the board that you're a contradictory mess, hit me up and I'll walk you through the issues one at a time.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sorry, actually had to do a little business. The rational part? I must have missed it.

What's instructive, as always, are the parts you cut out and refused to respond to. You retreat to your gradients without every rationally defining or defending them. You can't, so you retreat from logic to rhetoric. It's sad.

From your relative morality gradient, you have to admit that the accusations you make against Trump are nothing more than a profession that he disagrees with you. yes or no? And why? Define and defend the gradient that changes that.

From a relative social morality structure, you have to admit that the social morality of cartel slavery was no better or worse than the one you're championing for change. yes or no. Any why? Define and defend the gradient that rescues you.

Trump is evil for lying, but lying is justified depending on the motives. Morality is relative so his motives are no better or worse than yours. So, either you are as evil as him and vice versa, or this is all just accusatory language for differences of opinion. True or false? Defend your answer. Define and defend the "gradient" that rescues you from the laws of contradiction.

And please try to do so logically and without escapes to emotional rhetoric as a replacement.

Thank you in advance.

(Please understand that I have my beliefs about the source of objective morality, but am willing to meet you based on your moral underpinnings. So, I'm not making the argument here that you opinions are worse than Trumps, or mine. I'm merely asking you to prove whether your moral accusations are actually moral judgments or mere whining that someone disagrees with you and does things you don't like. Again, for the sake of clarity and specificity, I'm asking you to define and defend the gradients that rescue form being just an intolerant bigot of anyone who disagrees with you, or whether you truly are the moral standard that your accusations present you to be. Again, thanks in advance.)

...

 

[evillawyer]

Wow! Over $1 trillion in stock buybacks in 2018. Just like the reputable economists predicted when the corporate tax cuts were passed. They also predicted that corporations would not magically start passing out bigger paychecks just because they were sitting on more cash. Of course, GOP hacks claimed it would be otherwise. Guess who was right (pssst, it wasn't the redhat partisan hacks)?

 

[luthervol]

That's what I thought. You're incapable of responding on anything but an emotionally fragile and deflecting level, and you know it. Too bogged down in your multi-dimensional quicksand to keep up, I guess. When you're tired of advertising to the board that you're a contradictory mess, hit me up and I'll walk you through the issues one at a time.

You do that.....and I'll try my best to introduce you to that third dimension. Maybe even get you to perceive some shades of gray. Baby steps. We can end with working through your phobia of the abstract.

 

[0nelilreb]

Wow! Over $1 trillion in stock buybacks in 2018. Just like the reputable economists predicted when the corporate tax cuts were passed. They also predicted that corporations would not magically start passing out bigger paychecks just because they were sitting on more cash. Of course, GOP hacks claimed it would be otherwise. Guess who was right (pssst, it wasn't the redhat partisan hacks)?

I’m curious why you didn’t include the article with your post . I’m guessing that it sounds a lot worse coming from your left leaning view than the actual article does ?

 

[Orange_Crush]

You do that.....and I'll try my best to introduce you to that third dimension. Maybe even get you to perceive some shades of gray. Baby steps. We can end with working through your phobia of the abstract.

That's what I've been asking you to do. I listed a half a dozen questions as a starting point for you to do just that. Why do you keep talking about it and refuse to actually do it?

I wonder...Mr. Trans-dimensional quicksand.

 

[Matt2496]

You do that.....and I'll try my best to introduce you to that third dimension. Maybe even get you to perceive some shades of gray. Baby steps. We can end with working through your phobia of the abstract.

You, of all people, have no room to be lecturing anyone on "shades of gray" lol.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You, of all people, have no room to be lecturing anyone on "shades of gray" lol.

I'm just patiently waiting. I've given him several specific areas of gradiation for him to explain for me. It's funny that he never gets around to doing that. He just keeps that ill-defined safe space to retreat into when facts and logic get in the way of his narrative.

 

[luthervol]

I'm just patiently waiting. I've given him several specific areas of gradiation for him to explain for me. It's funny that he never gets around to doing that. He just keeps that ill-defined safe space to retreat into when facts and logic get in the way of his narrative.

Why don't you go with a specific question.

 

[luthervol]

You, of all people, have no room to be lecturing anyone on "shades of gray" lol.

What? I see almost exclusively gray.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Why don't you go with a specific question.

Take a pick as a place to start. Balls in your court, coward.

 

[Matt2496]

What? I see almost exclusively gray.

I'm sure you do looth, in your mind at least.

 

[evillawyer]

I’m curious why you didn’t include the article with your post . I’m guessing that it sounds a lot worse coming from your left leaning view than the actual article does ?

LMGTFY

 

[Orange_Crush]

What? I see almost exclusively gray.

That's called blindness.