Amateur Hour Continues

#4,502
#4,502
evillawyer said:
LMGTFY
Click to expand...

I had already the article from CNN I was just curious why you didn’t post it . Lol

Edit : I’ll just put it here so people can read the “ horrible news “ about the economy for themselves . Companies did give out extra money to their employees in the form or pay raises and bonuses . Looks like they are still giving money back to people in buyback form now . Investors should be happy . They get the cash plus buying back makes the stock worth more since there’s less of it out .
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/investing/stock-buybacks-trillion-dollars/index.html
 
Last edited:
#4,506
#4,506
Orange_Crush said:
Take a pick as a place to start. Balls in your court, coward.
Click to expand...
Coward? lol.......You claim to have a list of questions to which I refuse to respond and when you're asked to give one, you can't.
This juvenile back and forth that we engage in must drive the rest of the board insane.
Now call me another name and be sure to throw in "liar" a few times........sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#4,508
#4,508
luthervol said:
Coward? lol.......You claim to have a list of questions to which I refuse to respond and when you're asked to give one, you can't.
This juvenile back and forth that we engage in must drive the rest of the board insane.
Now call me another name and be sure to throw in "liar" a few times........sad.
Click to expand...
OK. You're a liar to claim that I can't produce any, as I have indeed produced several.
 
#4,509
#4,509
Orange_Crush said:
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.
Click to expand...
@luthervol
 
#4,510
#4,510
Orange_Crush said:
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.)
Click to expand...
@luthervol

You're a liar to claim that I can't produce any questions when you actually edit my post in your response to actually remove the questions.

Happy now? Liar?
 
#4,512
#4,512
Orange_Crush said:
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.)
Click to expand...
@luthervol

Seriously? You're asking me what the questions are?
 
#4,516
#4,516
Obsessed said:
You need to use smaller words my friend, maybe some pictures if you have them readily available
Click to expand...

Nah. I'm washing my hands of him for another micro-season. He knows he's a fraud. I just wanted to remind him again.

He's one of the top three judgmental morality-police sjw leftists on this site, judging everyone and their supporters as evil and despicable, while also professing a relative morality where nobody's opinion is any better than anyone else's, as well as a fluid morality where evil isn't evil if your ends justify the actions.

He couches himself and his accusations in moral superiority when literally all he has is an inflated view of his own opinion and a bigoted intolerance of the opinion of others.

That's why he won't engage at the rational level but instead retreats from conversations with undefined and indefensible short-cut insults about multidimensional concrete and such. It's easier than having to face others with the knowledge that they see him for the fool that he is.
 
#4,518
#4,518
Orange_Crush said:
Nah. I'm washing my hands of him for another micro-season. He knows he's a fraud. I just wanted to remind him again.

He's one of the top three judgmental morality-police sjw leftists on this site, judging everyone and their supporters as evil and despicable, while also professing a relative morality where nobody's opinion is any better than anyone else's, as well as a fluid morality where evil isn't evil if your ends justify the actions.

He couches himself and his accusations in moral superiority when literally all he has is an inflated view of his own opinion and a bigoted intolerance of the opinion of others.

That's why he won't engage at the rational level but instead retreats from conversations with undefined and indefensible short-cut insults about multidimensional concrete and such. It's easier than having to face others with the knowledge that they see him for the fool that he is.
Click to expand...
Those are some pretty words.....meaningless, but darn pretty.
Obsessed couldn't even pull a question out of the nonsense you wrote.
 
#4,519
#4,519
luthervol said:
Those are some pretty words.....meaningless, but darn pretty.
Obsessed couldn't even pull a question out of the nonsense you wrote.
Click to expand...



And... I rest my case.


Orange_Crush said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
#4,520
#4,520
luthervol said:
Coward? lol.......You claim to have a list of questions to which I refuse to respond and when you're asked to give one, you can't.
This juvenile back and forth that we engage in must drive the rest of the board insane.
Now call me another name and be sure to throw in "liar" a few times........sad.
Click to expand...
I swear Ignore is great with this one. He would be Crushed! Get it? lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#4,524
#4,524
evillawyer said:


Maybe the rats are starting to see the Titanic is taking on water
Click to expand...


The waiting room full of candidates for Trumps administration.

898705-63511120142834384847c6ed6962d89a.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423 and NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top