< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 74 OF 74 ·
|Jun-14-17|| ||harrylime: Bring it on
lol lol lol
|Jun-14-17|| ||Big Pawn: I didn't delete any of your posts.|
|Jun-14-17|| ||Nisjesram: Anyone here , other than <big pawn> , who thinks omv morality argument is not stupid ?|
Anyone here , other than <big pawn> ,who thinks omv morality argument has not been thoroughly refuted by me and <johnlspouge> ?
No one ?
Thought so :)
<Life is Good , life is fair> :
|Jun-15-17|| ||jessicafischerqueen: |
<Hozza> I never noticed <The Crispy Prawn> deleting any posts from anyone in his forum?
Unlike me, who deletes up to 90% of the posts in my forum.
|Jun-15-17|| ||Big Pawn: When old <harry the limey> falls asleep in the loo at the pub and then wakes up seeing sideways, he has a hard time finding his posts on my forum, thumbing up and down the screen on his phone.|
|Jun-17-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: Here is a web site that you might want to take note of:|
|Jun-17-17|| ||Big Pawn: <Tga>, I've long known about that site, and <abby> boy looks old enough to be my father. When he says he is still an editor, that means that he edits his website.|
|Jun-18-17|| ||OhioChessFan: Interesting at first reading. I will study it out a little tomorrow:|
<Regarding morality, some atheists have argued that natural selection has hard wired us to act in certain ways that are conducive to human flourishing. Okay, but even if we grant that claim, it would only explain what is, not what ought to be....Often, atheists misunderstand the challenge, so they respond by saying that they clearly can recognize what is moral without belief in God. This is irrelevant. Yes, atheists can correctly identify many things that are right and wrong. But our argument is not that you need belief in God to acknowledge morality, or even to act morally. It is that God must exist in order for morality to exist. This is a question of ontology (being), not epistemology (knowing)...Other atheists claim that objective morality is a brute fact, or something that exists necessarily but does not need to be grounded in God—a Platonic ideal. But this seems incoherent, since such things as love and mercy are properties of persons, not things that can exist independently as abstract objects.>
|Jun-18-17|| ||Big Pawn: I've written a paragraph similar to that one on the <rogoff> I would guess, say, 100 times. |
I think there are two types of responses and respondents.
1. Those that genuinely do not understand the nuances of the moral argument and what it implies, esp in regards to mixing up the ontological question and the epistemological ones.
2. Those that eventually realize the difference, but they've invested so much pride in their arguments that they refuse to say, "OHHHHHHHHHHH! I get it now!" and simply pretend to never get it. It's better to do that than to have to wipe egg off your face.
What are we to make of this?
First of all, we don't care about satisfaction. That is, we don't care that they don't say, "Gee Big Pawn, I guess you were right". We know that that's not going to happen from the git go.
All we really want is for the non-invested reader, the impartial observer, the man with questions who doesn't have his pride at stake but follows along, we want that guy to see that atheism is not tenable under scrutiny.
We also want to the person on the other end of our debates to be forced to dry heave information. Keep bashing them over the head with questions they can't answer so that it gets through their thick heads. Be merciless. True, they won't admit to learning anything, but maybe 1 out of 100 will think about their debates later on, in passing even, and slowly open themselves up to the fact that atheism may not be so true after all.
But satisfaction is never our game, that's for sure.
|Jun-21-17|| ||diceman: I thought this was hilarious.
The terrorist sympathizer, Richard Taylor.
Mr. 9/11, party hats and horns.
Likes the “female” chess commentators.
Likes the way when they lose, they take their losses.
She loses a game online and then praises here opponent and happily criticises herself! Things we men can learn from women. O.k. women are less aggressive than men but they probably in these things have a little less stress although I cant prove that.>
He understands how "crude" men are.
He knows what he can "learn" from women!
Meanwhile, he thinks Loek van Wely
has just a bit too much testosterone!
I see Loek van Wely's attitude is testeronically fueled as he comes to conclusions that he is winning when (I could see he wasn't and subsequently actually lost on time)...he made one of those John Watson routine evaluations (or the kind Watson warns against shall we say, and which we all fall into...): but in contrast to the women he was not very gracious to his opponents. Men I think see everything as a fight, a competition. It has its advantages (some women do also), but do we have to be conditioned by our chemical make up? I suppose it might be the case or there wouldn't "la difference"....and so on...>
You cant really make this stuff up!
|Jun-21-17|| ||Big Pawn: Lord have mercy. <Richard Taylor>, the terrorist sympathizer from NZ, is put off by testosterone. He looks up to the women, because they're so unmanly. He's the kind of guy that has been brainwashed to believe that it's BAD to be masculine. |
Just look at his pathetic commentary!
Isn't he sorry he was born a man!
|Jun-21-17|| ||Bobsterman3000: <Big Pawn> you are so right about grudges. In Rogoff these snowflake pussywill*ows hear one thing they don't like and stomp off like a lil sissy*, when they had been throwing out vulgar insults like a sailor just 5 seconds prior. My point is that we are all men here, just say your piece and we can discuss it like adults, no need to whine like a little siss*y.|
What a shame that our once proud country is now devolving to this... I blame our immigration policies... lol
|Jun-21-17|| ||Big Pawn: It has to do with liberalism infecting the thinking of once normal Americans. Liberalism makes them think that men and women are the same, and that if a man is manly, he's *acting manly* and needs to be trained to be softer, like a woman. This leads to masculinity being punished and effeminacy being rewarded. Plus, due to liberalism informing feminism, many boys grow up without the father in the house. |
Even still, you have families where the husband has been demoted to "partner" (the gay word), and the kids see mommy in charge. In other words, weak fathers traumatize their children in many ways.
Then what we get is a country full of girly men, ruled by their emotions, into their emotions, vulnerable, weak, crying, sad, depressed, needy - all of that female stuff. They hold grudges, get angry, huff and puff and carry on just like angry women.
Some are even proud to be weak men. They wear their weakness like a badge of honor. Just look at <hmm>, <unf>, <bureaucrat>, <abdel> and others. They are all the same, wearing their weakness as though it is strength.
Every bit of this is traced back to liberalism.
|Jun-21-17|| ||TheFocus: The two last posts are right on the button!!|
|Jun-22-17|| ||Dr Winston OBoogie: Focus! Thanks mate!
BP. You may have all the charm and sophistication of a sleep deprived crack baby Rhinoceros and the thought process of a racist sexist delusional wanker but I do have a soft spot for you folks. You're a good old boy.
You will now call me WOB. It sounds like Bob and if you really lose your train of thought just look in the mirror and it also sounds like that large object on your forehead that most of us have down our trousers.
|Jun-22-17|| ||diceman: <Bobsterman3000:
My point is that we are all men here, just say your piece and we can discuss it like adults, no need to whine like a little siss*y.>
They aren't men. They plan and hide their language. They pretend and imply.
Just try getting a series of straight
answers out of them. BP has already brought several to their knees, with
the "horror" known as a direct question.
I see liberal liars like trial lawyers.
They say, "how do I use this" and present their case. If the facts change, their "case" will.
They told me when Obama ran for President. It was "racist" to disagree
with a black candidate. The trial
lawyers changed their lies when,
Herman Cain/Ben Carson were candidates.
|Jun-24-17|| ||Big Pawn: Erroll Garner plays Misty - Really old
For real musicians only.
|Jun-24-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Big Pawn: Lord have mercy. <Richard Taylor>, the terrorist sympathizer from NZ, is put off by testosterone. He looks up to the women, because they're so unmanly. He's the kind of guy that has been brainwashed to believe that it's BAD to be masculine.|
Just look at his pathetic commentary!
Isn't he sorry he was born a man!>
Here is a short video clip of a strong woman talking to <Richard Taylor>:
|Jun-24-17|| ||Big Pawn: LOL! That is so messed up!|
|Jun-24-17|| ||Dr Winston OBoogie: <Beatrice Potty>. Trump gets manicures and pedicures. Real talk! Any comment?|
|Jun-25-17|| ||Big Pawn: <OhioChessFan: Interesting at first reading. I will study it out a little tomorrow:>|
You ever get around to studying up on that?
|Jun-25-17|| ||Bobsterman3000: Classic video of Jim Bartle and his California liberalism:|
|Jun-26-17|| ||diceman: <Bobsterman3000:
Classic video of Jim Bartle and his California liberalism:>
Since then she's gained, 150 lbs,
purple hair, and 16 cats.
|Jun-26-17|| ||Big Pawn: Exactly, and that's why Author <Jim Bartle> gets no respect. He's a girly, anti-America, terrorist sympathizer. Homeland security should watch such people when they come in and out of the country. These liberals are behind all the political violence today, and people like Author <Jim Bartle> add to the problem by spreading divisive rhetoric online that incites people to violence. I put him in the same category as <Mort> and <Richard Taylor>. |
Not good people.
|Jun-27-17|| ||Big Pawn: You would think that idiots would know they are idiots, and, knowing this, they would reduce the number of words they say or type in a day, every day. But this is not what happens in real life. |
Somehow it seems that the idiots are unaware that they are idiots and have no shame in expressing their naked stupidity. Just look at the post counts for <Jim Bartle> and <hmm>.
It's like if you *know* you have bad breath today. If you are in an elevator, you don't start yapping to beat the band, breathing all of your bad breath all over everyone in that little enclosed space. You know better. This is how it should be with the fools but it's not!
The fools have bad breath of the intellect but do they care? NOOOOOOO! They just open up their mouths and let all the bad air of their intellect fill whatever forum they are in.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 74 OF 74 ·
Daily puzzles, news, and more!