You were right to avoid it....it was a pointless display of vanity on both sidesI’ve avoided this thread like syphilis infected $10 whore. I was just clicking on it to clear it from my cue and thought I would drop some funny.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You were right to avoid it....it was a pointless display of vanity on both sidesI’ve avoided this thread like syphilis infected $10 whore. I was just clicking on it to clear it from my cue and thought I would drop some funny.
On the internet....you like to prove your manhood do you? Lowlife little bitch, IMO. I wonder, if you have any original thoughts...ever?
Go through and pull out every belittling comment you made towards me and my thinking? Nah, that would be too honest for a man like you
on the internet....you like to prove your manhood do you? Lowlife little bitch,
His filth is worse than mine....at least unlike you he owns itFind something I said boom even remotely close to this filth.
it is Cantonese language to you
Know what I'm learning from you during our exchanges? How to avoid directly answering a tough question. I gotta hand it to you, your relativistic approach to everything means you'll never get caught in any absolutes except the ones you create.
Serenade me with some more of your eloquent relativism so I can delve into the deep dark crevices of your inventive mind.
So let me try an absolute that I think you might be able to handle
All of those belittling, condescending statements were leveled on me prior to anything negative I said today. And I made a legitimate attempt to answer personal questions about my beliefs without judging yours....all the while you were constantly comparing mine to yours, but I never once chose to tear down any of yours. Until you decided to begin speaking to me like that
All of those belittling, condescending statements were leveled on me prior to anything negative I said today. And I made a legitimate attempt to answer personal questions about my beliefs without judging yours....all the while you were constantly comparing mine to yours, but I never once chose to tear down any of yours. Until you decided to begin speaking to me like that
atlkvb said: ↑
So let me try an absolute that I think you might be able to handle
His filth is worse than mine....at least unlike you he owns it
Honestly, I don’t think you GET much outside your rigid opinions and limited vision.
it’s important for you to understand that not everyone that isn’t like you ..... is wrong.....or lost. You make too many generalizations, and too many assumptions.
Don’t start going off again on some “better than you” tangent please. My spirituality is not available for you to dissect....it’s my journey.
You have very little vision, and must have your truths dictated to you
I never once chose to tear down any of yours
You were right to avoid it....it was a pointless display of vanity on both sides
Was that comment to you? No. It was to the man calling saying my wife is more of a man than me, and that my children will resent mereally boom...oh!!! Now that's really nasty like "lowlife little bitch"!!!!!!!
I'm sorry I almost forgot you're speaking relatively now...so my "Cantonese language" remark means the same thing to you as "low life little bitch"
How could I be so forgetful?
Sure. Lie to yourself if you like, just like Professor was a complimentYou are a very confused young man my friend. I'm simply asking you to clarify some of the more unusual beliefs you hold and I'm "attacking" you boom? That's rich.
1) that was yesterday during our heated exchange.How 'bout this one boom:
"I have no hostility towards religion. Just people like you" You weren't attacking me there boom?
Where did I say something similar like this to you to entertain that remark from you?
Differences in opinion are met by you with accusations of deflection.Yes, because you NEVER answer a direct question without qualifying it, revising it, reshaping it, or placing several possibilities onto your answer to the point where the question itself doesn't get answered directly.
Boomer are Democrats Socialists? (I asked you earlier in the thread....) "It depends on how Socialism is defined"...then you went on to define several ways Socialists are defined. Funny how they don't have a problem defining themselves. There are many many more examples of you avoiding simple direct declarative questions.
Who are the rich boom? "Well that depends on how they are defined relative to how much money they pay relative to their budgets relative to what others who have smaller budgets have and can therefore afford to pay more"
What?
Glory glory. You perfect little thing youI asked you that once before boomer if you'd prefer if I talked to you in disgusting derogatory language and you said YES! I refused, and let you have that stage to yourself. You do like performing as well as perfecting your craft boomer. The more of it you do it, the better at it you get.
Count me out.
Once the line was crossed....I speak the truth no matter how offensive.Very open and accommodating remark there boom.
Making judgements boom.
Condescending boom.
attacking boom.
What relativistic term would you describe all of the above boom?
Did I say nasty? No. I said condescending, I said belittling, and I pulled out several.Are you having trouble finding my "nasty" quotes boomer to match yours? I admit I'm not as good as you are at it.
And as a whole, how ridiculous it is to wear the disguise of an understanding, curious person who rages against anyone who dare attacks his religion....while asking another person to explain their beliefs, only so you can dissect and conquer them by wielding your own ideology. You weren’t curious, you were eager. You were discussing, you were setting me up......so you could belittle my thinking.Are you having trouble finding my "nasty" quotes boomer to match yours? I admit I'm not as good as you are at it.
And as a whole, how ridiculous it is to wear the disguise of an understanding, curious person who rages against anyone who dare attacks his religion....while asking another person to explain their beliefs, only so you can dissect and conquer them by wielding your own ideology. You weren’t curious, you were eager. You were discussing, you were setting me up......so you could belittle my thinking.
IMO, only lowlifes would do such an underhanded thing. Esp while posing as someone who accepts and discusses openly.
And as a whole, how ridiculous it is to wear the disguise of an understanding, curious person who rages against anyone who dare attacks his religion....while asking another person to explain their beliefs, only so you can dissect and conquer them by wielding your own ideology. You weren’t curious, you were eager. You were discussing, you were setting me up......so you could belittle my thinking.
IMO, only lowlifes would do such an underhanded thing. Esp while posing as someone who accepts and discusses openly.
You don’t seek to learn the differences, you just want to tear mine down.If you can't defend what you believe in my friend why is that my problem? If I'm asking you to explain your beliefs and you're explaining and I still don't understand is it OK if I ask for further clarification?
Why am I "attacking" you if I compare what I believe to what you believe and then I get this?
"I’m not perfect, because perfection is a bullshit term, IMO. Sin and salvation are religious concepts and do not hold firm in my spiritual landscape. I tried to draw parallels in order to foster discussion and understanding between the two of us. If you don’t seek that....if you only seek to belittle my beliefs through a comparison of your own....than my time is better spent doing almost anything else. If I choose to question theology and examine the doctrines of organized religion, I will find someone well versed in multiple doctrines to school me"
So I'm not qualified to defend my Faith to you but you of course are perfectly free to not only defend your beliefs, but in so doing attack mine simply because I seek to learn our differences?
Then you accuse me of being insincere! Schizophrenia is not a relative term boom, but in your case I'll make an exception.
You are lying to yourselfI asked you several questions in an attempt to not only understand what you believe, but have you define it in terms one can realize practically. I NEVER said your beliefs were invalid. I wanted YOU to defend them. If that's attacking you, then you're not very firm in what you believe.
You however attacked me & my Faith with this little gem;
"I’m not impressed with your intellect. I’m not impressed with your beliefs. I have not one reason to cater to your ideology or your idea of what mine should be. I find your entire approach manipulative and lacking any real substance"
Now if we were having a true dialogue, then why am I the only one who is being "manipulative"? In what way were you trying to understand me with that remark and where did I attack your beliefs like that simply asking you to explain yourself?
You don’t seek to learn the differences, you just want to tear mine down.
I never attacked your faith. I said multiple times that you can believe what you want. I never said Jesus didn’t exist or that your religion was wrong. I never attacked your family. I only attacked you.
You are lying to yourself
Did I ever ask you to explain your beliefs? Did I want your explaination? No. You asked me. I explained. You decided to give me a lesson in your beliefs. For what reason? Dialogue? No no no. It was in order to use your ideology to dwarf mine. Absolutism (your truth) versus my relativism (as you put it - in what was an extremely negative way). I thought you were curious to my beliefs, and sought to know more about me. I was wrong. No such legitimate reason was behind your motivation. Only the motivation to point out to the board how superior you are in thought. Another righty beating a lefty. It’s bullshit.I asked you several questions in an attempt to not only understand what you believe, but have you define it in terms one can realize practically. I NEVER said your beliefs were invalid. I wanted YOU to defend them. If that's attacking you, then you're not very firm in what you believe.
You however attacked me & my Faith with this little gem;
"I’m not impressed with your intellect. I’m not impressed with your beliefs. I have not one reason to cater to your ideology or your idea of what mine should be. I find your entire approach manipulative and lacking any real substance"
Now if we were having a true dialogue, then why am I the only one who is being "manipulative"? In what way were you trying to understand me with that remark and where did I attack your beliefs like that simply asking you to explain yourself?
Because of your religion’s doctrine being forced onto my life? That’s some liberty you pretend to love and respectYou don't know what a lie is because Truth to you is a relative term.
Really? You could at least own it. You most certainly attacked me, as a weak thinker and someone who “invents” by belief system for debate.I didn't attack you or what you believe...I simply asked you to explain it and in your relativistic world I was attacking you.
Sure. Repost it....the WHOLE two posts. Do it.What is a human being boomer?
"It can mean many things to many people"
That is how you began your answer to my question to you about the unborn and if they are Human...if not what are they?
Would you like me to re post it boom or would I be attacking you?
There you go again. But that’s not an attack is it, to say I don’t know what truth means. Have I ever once said that truth is relative?You don't know what a lie is because Truth to you is a relative term.
Do pro-choice Democrats Believe The Unborn are human beings?
If they are not what are they?
Pro-choice Democrats believe many different things about the unborn.
I’m going to stop trying to help you see that opinions differ by offering others opinions in a group, and just simply give you my personal opinion.
I believe that the conception of a life begins with energy....I believe that energy has been displaced from a source (of which I might never know) and initiated into a human life. I believe there are many pregnancies that simply do not come to birth for many reasons. I believe that energy returns and is displaced again in another form. Consciousness and existence are not concepts that are easily defined, unless done within the strict perimeters of an organized religion. Not every American shares the same religion, or the same ideas of consciousness, energy, life, or existence. These differences of opinions exist within the Democratic Party as well, believe it or not.
I answered you as best I could, honestly, from my own personal beliefs and knowledge.....and you claim I’m either faking or trying to cater to your personal viewpoints of what is right. Why would I ever fake my beliefs for the likes of you? I’m not impressed with your intellect. I’m not impressed with your beliefs. I have not one reason to cater to your ideology or your idea of what mine should be.
I've been asking you what their differences are since I see them all essentially believing varying degrees of the same thing. Socialists believe the State is supreme in Human affairs. No God. You don't believe in God....and I find few Leftists who do either especially when it comes to the supremacy of the State.
The original draft didn’t use the word Creator, an adaptation from Adams used the phrase “in their creation”, and the final draft uses men.....by THEIR creator
That’s absolutely plural....each man’s creator, being something different to the individual. Go ahead and rail against the beauty and genius of our Declaration - Constitution - and founders if you will.....but I prefer to illuminate their genius, not smother it in my own personal religious beliefs.
Jefferson and Franklin.....even Adams had serious questions with Christian doctrines. They were some of the most genius thinkers of their time, and sought a nation that allowed ideas to grow....,not to be smothered by the tenants of any organized religion.
What you do is typical of situational relativists. The definition of what "is" never remains permanent so as to fit the current orthodoxy. Morals, right, wrong, even simple economic terms can be massaged to fit whatever the arbiter believes it to be or wishes it to be.
I tell you what.....I’ll give you one more for the road.....you are about as big of a fraud as I’ve ever come across, chubbs
You’re bullshit. And much of this rambling tantrum were outright lies - or you’re too obtuse to give answers their legitimate read. Chubbs
I have no hostility towards religion. Just people like you. Religion offers limits to thought an exploration. In a philosophical sense and in a scientific sense as well
I don’t know, nor do I care which of my students believe in Jesus. That is a personal journey that public education has no place is in effecting in any way.
Faith absolutely limits what a person can believe in certain aspects.
No boomer. I asked about the source of your belief of where our rights came from as YOU described it. I described what we who believe in Almighty God know of him. Your source is not even close as you described it and I doubt very many others know what it is either. But rock on Dude.
I was only commenting on your statement that people of Faith or Religion are limited. I see nothing limitless on what you say you believe. In fact it is quite the opposite because as near as I can tell, this source of energy as you describe it is limited to only you boom.
OK fair enough boom. But my Bible says anything that was ever made or known to be made came from Yaweh God. In fact it says nothing that ever was or can be exists without first coming from that source.
Does your energy source make such a claim? Where is its origin or is it also similarly limitless as Yahweh God is?
Your Faith in the energy source limits your belief in a Creator boom.
My Faith in a Creator allows for your energy source. Who is limited by their Faith boomer?
My rights are inalienable due to my existence, these rights are granted by MY creator (which is the undefined source of energy of which all exists, including the perpetual motion generated by that source which creation is a part.
The form of this energy is substantially undefined by my spirituality. In that space, any spirituality (and even lack of spirituality) can exist. Any religious doctrine can be allowed to exist. Any spiritual practice can exist. Any derived philosophy of government, sexuality, gender identity, business practices, ethics, etc can exist. Is it the same for your religious beliefs?
I'm just confused what you believe boom.
I already said that my spirituality exists in a space that language and human concepts struggle to define. When a person tries to examine the beginning of existence or the parameters of time and space, unless dictated by a religious doctrine, there is a point at which one must abandon the concepts currently accepted in matters of existence, energy, space, time and structure. That abandonment is essential to my spirituality.
we should use terms and concepts that exist within our human consciousness to address what we consider to be frailties, not the spiritual. If there was a savior, he was energy brought to human form in order to address our frailties in this plane of existence.
Your direct question is based on your viewpoint of spirituality, perfection, sin, and Jesus.....I don’t share those viewpoints.
I’m not perfect, because perfection is a bullshit term, IMO. Sin and salvation are religious concepts and do not hold firm in my spiritual landscape.
Truth is, your absolutism is the problem. And it’s sad that you can’t inderstand how unAmerican it is.
I never said Jesus didn’t exist or that your religion was wrong.