- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterSo you mean to say that sleeping with someone that is not your partner when you are married is not cheating?
Yo are missusing the word “cheating” in your second point.
This is an example of why you are called out for being intellectually dishonest by almost every poster who bothers to engage with you.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerOf course cheating on my wife would be morally unsound; what on earth is the matter with you ~ we talked about this in great detail before. Why are you asking me about it again?
Yes the operative word is "cheat". Would it always be morally unsound for you to 'cheat' on your wife or not?
24 Jan 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @dj2beckerBy "cheating" you presumably mean there is deception, or perhaps psychological coercion [to create 'consent' or acquiescence], and also probably emotional harm, right? That's what you are alluding to with the words "cheat" and "cheating", yes?
So you mean to say that sleeping with someone that is not your partner when you are married is not cheating?
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @divegeester to dj2beckerHe knows exactly what I mean and what I am referring to because we had an in depth discussion about it before. He's pretending that we did not, it would seem.
You are misusing the word “cheating” in your second point. This is an example of why you are called out for being intellectually dishonest by almost every poster who bothers to engage with you.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120159
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThis is another example of you being intellectually dishonest. It is also an example of why you get called a jerk and prick.
So you mean to say that sleeping with someone that is not your partner when you are married is not cheating?
You already know the answer to your question.
24 Jan 18
FMF: So you mean to say that sleeping with someone that is not your partner when you are married is not cheating?Is he a conscious and willful jerk simply getting kicks by trolling people rather than talking to them in good faith or is he a damaged perma-teenager too encumbered by the chip on his shoulder to take stock and just grow up?
Originally posted by @divegeester
This is another example of you being intellectually dishonest. It is also an example of why you get called a jerk and prick. You already know the answer to your question.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleSo, do you admit the whole "regardless of who it is towards" bit was somewhat reckless?
I'd never have a problem with self-defense. It'd be ridiculous to not be able to legally defend yourself.
24 Jan 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemMay I be so bold as to suggest that young Master Verville's answer might be something along the lines of 'There's no need to be emotional about it. It doesn't take rocket science to work out that when I said anyone who uses violence, regardless of who it is towards, needs to be punished, I did not actually mean anyone who uses violence, regardless of who it is towards, needs to be punished.' 😛
So, do you admit the whole "regardless of who it is towards" bit was somewhat reckless?
24 Jan 18
When I said "regardless of who it was towards," the concept of hate crimes had been mentioned shortly before. We were discussing homosexuality actively, and the point was that we all deserve equal protection of the law...
I think that isn't a good debate tactic: decontextualizing something and then saying, "Oh, but look at that... You spoke generally and do not account for self-defense! WHAT A FOOL!"
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @fmfI am above the age of 30 but younger than you. I guess I still sound young at heart -- that's just fabulous.
How old are you? Do your parents work in Seoul?
I'm in my 50s by the way. And my parents have passed away.
The reason I ask: it may be something you are not aware of, but there's your funny little pejoratives with self-conscious bumper sticker grammar and your [like it or not] Alex Jones dog whistles & schtick and your dream of taking over the TV and brow ...[text shortened]... ke the exact counterpart of the yobbish late-teens leftie 'no-platform' students on UK campuses.
I am a traditionalist and I just employ some funky reactionary banter here and there. I am new to the forum and was wondering if I'd catch the eye of any like-minded individuals.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @suzianneI think we might disagree about a lot of things but I make an effort to never try to tie all of Christianity to me. I think you should be totally entitled to your own political views and to live happily and freely as that.
I've been reading this conversation between the two of you, and I only have one question for you.
Do you still miss the point I was making in my initial post in this thread?
I think Jacob here represents that horrible side of religion (and yes, of course I mean Christianity in particular) that a lot of atheists (like the one in the video) take ...[text shortened]... eager to nitpick and take issue where none is intended.
EDITS: Lots of little grammar errors.
I just want to say that.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @fmfNo, SJW is an abbreviation that is in common usage.
Wikipedia writes it as "social justice warrior" but you say you are using 'proper grammar' when you capitalize each word? It seems that it is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes change the user of the word doesn't like. So, "the cluster of ideas" you are seeking to communicate is first and foremost that you feel the need to use a pejorative word to ...[text shortened]... eed to emphasise its derogatory sense and impact by capitalizing the three words, is that right?
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI believe in communities striving to improve their lot in life, protecting their environment from degradation and short-term gain and shark-eyed exploitation, along with seeking social justice not only through their faith and their families and communities but through improved health, education, and collective action through their own efforts - but also through legal and political processes where necessary.
No, SJW is an abbreviation that is in common usage.
As it happens, my Christian principles were part of the reason why I embarked on such a mission in life, back when you were in your nappies.
Is your "Social Justice Warrior"-"Muh Rights" sneering aimed at people like me too?
It's OK by me if it is. I support your freedom to whack off like a duckspeaking Alex Jones fan online and try and mould the world as you see fit. 😉
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-verville"Funky"?
I am a traditionalist and I just employ some funky reactionary banter here and there. I am new to the forum and was wondering if I'd catch the eye of any like-minded individuals.
24 Jan 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @jacob-verville to SuzianneI will keep my eyes peeled for when your government, which 'does not really believe in asociety having an extensive network of rights and freedoms' [as you put it on page 7] takes over the TV stations in your country [pages 8 and 9] so it can condemn homosexuals for not providing your theocracy with any kind of evolutionary advantage [page 3], and teach your superstitious ideology about "perfect history" and the "mental sicknesses" [page 3] of the different, the dissenters and the misfits to the throng of surfs unencumbered with "rights" and glued to your one TV channel. I'll think to myself: Ooh, I chatted with him online once. Hasn't he done well for himself?
I think you should be totally entitled to your own political views and to live happily and freely as that. I just want to say that.