- Joined
- Jan 22, 2019
- Messages
- 10,697
- Reaction score
- 4,014
Exactly. So why be frail about your bigotry? Be proud of it.
Exactly. So why be frail about your bigotry? Be proud of it.I have indeed said there is no such thing as benign Islam. Islam is a totalitarian and absolutist word view with a cruel and unjust legal system, Sharia attached. It criminalises dissent or criticism. It is totally intolerant of any form of democracy. Islam oppresses all who come under its rule and seeks seeks to inflict terror on the rest. Islam is the enemy of decency and humanity and if we are so foolish to let it thrive we do so at our peril.
Exactly. So why be frail about your bigotry? Be proud of it.
Exactly. So why be frail about your bigotry? Be proud of it.
To oppose the evil that is Islam is not bigotry but rather a wise precaution.Exactly. So why be frail about your bigotry? Be proud of it.
Frail is the perfect word to describe you not so proud boys.To oppose the evil that is Islam is not bigotry but rather a wise precaution.
(Where did you become infected with word 'frail'? Why not try something else for a change?
It's an exact quote from your post 302. Your notion that I made it up shows your capacity to let subjective judgments sway you.I don't care if you don't agree with my interpretation, that's what subjectivity is and what I've been arguing for. Why are you pretending that's some quote of mine?
What did the passage I quoted mean to you, before you forgot you'd said it?Me asking you what it means to you is an acknowledgement of the subjectivity.
Nope, the joke has only one possible interpretation-- a shot at Liberal priorities. With more complicated works, subjective interpretations can indeed be dicey: "Is Moby Dick just a whale or is he a vessel of the God Ahab rejects?" But Macdonald's simple joke is too straightforward to have hidden ambiguities. You want to judge all interpretations as equally subjective, but you have to be able to demonstrate that the author meant to suggest conflicting interpretations. The burden of proof is on the person arguing for the hidden ambiguity, and you've not been able to show any.Failed at what? A subjective interpretation? Make up your mind guy. Subjective things aren't right or wrong. My interpretation isn't wrong and yours right, they're just different. Your argument can't even remain consistent paragraph to paragraph.
No, the question was a loaded one, and I answered it, several times now. I like how you keep using the word "frail" incorrectly, BTW. In no dictionary will anyone find your DiAngelo-esque distortion, where it's "frail" or "fragile" to push back against someone else's narrative, to not accept it as Gospel truth.My first comment about the joke was a question, not a declaration. I even quoted it for you. Do you need me to do it again frail pretender?
Nope, the argument remains that you had no justification for your fake interpretation, and you made it for no reason but to muddy the waters.So the "everyone has to receive it the same way you do" is actually your argument?
You either did not understand the simple logic of the joke or pretended that you did not. The proof of that assertion is that you can't show, in the joke, any support for your adversarial interpretation.Prove what? How I felt about the joke. I explained how I felt with my response which was to mainly be confused about whether or not I supposed to assume there were no innocent Muslims. You're the one accusing my perspective of being a lie without proof.
Loaded questions always encode the false conclusions of the person who formulated them.Did you manage to read the question mark at the end? Guess what a question mark signifies? It's not a declarative statement. That's hint.
You had the chance to demonstrate hidden ambiguity in the joke and you didn't even try to do so, because you knew there was none. Expecting others to take your word when you post nonsense remains your chosen brand of frailty.What is a faux interpretation? Is there only your interpretation that me must all accept? How hilariously frail of you.
I think he either got "frail" from Robin DiAngelo or some similar activist who reinterprets the established meaning of words to confuse the issues. It's a lot like how urban Blacks can call someone "scary" when they mean that the other person is frightened, not that he/she is frightening to others. It's a simple Orwellian distortion of meaning in order to gain some perceived advantage.To oppose the evil that is Islam is not bigotry but rather a wise precaution.
(Where did you become infected with word 'frail'? Why not try something else for a change?
That quote was me making fun of you for wanting everyone to see it the same way you do. I don't care if you see if differently than me. I said so in that same post!It's an exact quote from your post 302. Your notion that I made it up shows your capacity to let subjective judgments sway you.
Its me laughing at you.What did the passage I quoted mean to you, before you forgot you'd said it?
^ This is what I'm laughing at you for.Nope, the joke has only one possible interpretation-- a shot at Liberal priorities.
The burden of proof is not on me to prove that yours is the only valid interpretation. Thats your claim so the burden of proof is yours. It's like you don't know how debate works....With more complicated works, subjective interpretations can indeed be dicey: "Is Moby Dick just a whale or is he a vessel of the God Ahab rejects?" But Macdonald's simple joke is too straightforward to have hidden ambiguities. You want to judge all interpretations as equally subjective, but you have to be able to demonstrate that the author meant to suggest conflicting interpretations. The burden of proof is on the person arguing for the hidden ambiguity, and you've not been able to show any.
That's my interpretation. There there frail one.No, the question was a loaded one, and I answered it, several times now. I like how you keep using the word "frail" incorrectly, BTW. In no dictionary will anyone find your DiAngelo-esque distortion, where it's "frail" or "fragile" to push back against someone else's narrative, to not accept it as Gospel truth.
What makes my interpretation fake other than your frail emotions?Nope, the argument remains that you had no justification for your fake interpretation, and you made it for no reason but to muddy the waters.
What is the simple logic according to you? Give us an example of what you think logic is if for nothing more than our amusement.You either did not understand the simple logic of the joke or pretended that you did not. The proof of that assertion is that you can't show, in the joke, any support for your adversarial interpretation.
I never said anything at all about hidden ambiguity. That's your thing.Loaded questions always encode the false conclusions of the person who formulated them.
You had the chance to demonstrate hidden ambiguity in the joke and you didn't even try to do so, because you knew there was none. Expecting others to take your word when you post nonsense remains your chosen brand of frailty.
And because you had lost control of this debate long ago, you tried to claim that I wasn't quoting you, when I totally was-- though I'm sure you would have changed your earlier post were it not for DP preventing posters from going back and correcting posts after a certain amount of time.That quote was me making fun of you for wanting everyone to see it the same way you do. I don't care if you see if differently than me. I said so in that same post!
Its me laughing at you.
As I've said, I don't even think you believe your "alternative explanation" of the MacDonald joke. It was just a weak-ass attempt to turn things around after I cited the joke as an example of spoofing Mad Lib priorities.^ This is what I'm laughing at you for.This frail insistance that there's only one interpretation. Yours. How frail.
The joke has only one possible target: Libs who are more worried about backlash against Muslims rather than citizens being killed by permissive Liberal attitudes toward jihadists. Your mangling of that simple joke-logic is not a real interpretation, and this is demonstrated by the fact that you haven't even tried to defend your interpretation. Again, you imagine that you can win a debate with the clever retort, "nuh-uh."The burden of proof is not on me to prove that yours is the only valid interpretation. Thats your claim so the burden of proof is yours. It's like you don't know how debate works....
Nope, you have no interpretation, and you must enjoy being doubly frail because all your dopey ad hominems bounce off me and stick to you.That's my interpretation. There there frail one.
The fact that you can't defend it logically, thus revealing your scariness.What makes my interpretation fake other than your frail emotions?
What is the simple logic according to you? Give us an example of what you think logic is if for nothing more than our amusement.
Another sad lie, like the one where I directly quoted you and you tried to pretend I made it up.I never said anything at all about hidden ambiguity. That's your thing.
You did that after you defended Sweden who said there was no such thing as benign Islam. You made the point about Sharia later.Master Debator you make many incorrect and out and out false statements about what I stated.
1-You stated about what I said as follows: "You're talking about an entire religion with billions of followers." No in fact I did not. In the references I used I was specific in referencing sharia law states with high illteracy rates.
I haven't denied the former.As you are also aware it can also be used to oppress people. spy on them, control them through fear, and be used because of its insitutional framework a method of operation that can perpetute and cover up sexual abuse, financial corruption and control not just of people but governments/ You again deflect from the latter to falsely assert I deny the former. I do not and did not.
I said it because it's true.3-You stated: "Correlation isn't causation. I don't have to pretend you haven't shown causation because you haven't. Did you even read that?I'll quote the summary for you. "
What insecurity and anxiety?Perhaps if you did not keep showing me your insecurity and anxiety and feeling threatened with your emoticons and just read what you think you summarized you would see how it stated concepts where in fact it showed both correlation and causation and that to explain causation one must use correlations.
And religious texts aren't open to interpretations? Do all Christians have to interpret the Bible with the same ferocity as the Crusaders?4-Next you stated: "Sharia law doesn't speak for all of Islam any more than fundamentalist Christians speak for all of Christianity."
You could not be more wrong. That is exactly what the Koran says Sharia law MUST do.
You misrepresent yourself when you defend bigots like @Sweden. Go read what they've said since about all Muslims.I would state since you seem intent on misrepresenting what I stated that not all Muslims live in Sharia Law states, not all Sharia law states impose and interpret Islam the same way but the majority of Sharia law states implement fundamental principles of belief in regards to non Muslims, gays/lesbians/transgenders, trade unionists, women, in a manner that would be considered in violation of human rights laws and oppressive in the Western world.
Im okay with anyone reading my response.In nregards to all your comments to me you have indeed argued my explanationd as to why Islam can oppress is bigoted and untrue. Anyone can your responses back.
Sweden has. I quoted them directly.I repeat that in regards to your responses to Sweden. Neither Sweden nor I have argued Islam can't be benign. I have said the exact opposite and given examples of the Amidyah and Ismaili Mulsims and any progressive Muslim or any Muslim that disagrees with extreme fundamental interpretation of their Koran.
If they took the time to read your link they'd see that it credits Islam with helping to increase literacy rates.No anyone can read what I have provided and if you took the time to open your mind from its preconceived bias and slowed down and read what I stated, you would see I use personal anectdotes to both support that Islam can be used for positive influence on growth as well as preventing growth but never independently and always backed up by another source.
If religious texts are open to interpretations then there is no inherent bigotry, just interpeted bigotry.I never presented Muslim by itself as a negative influence on growth inherently. I argued it does have inherently bigoted and hateful passages in its Koran that can and are being used to oppress through sharia law regimes.
You're saying that now after I called out your defense of a bigot who did in fact say there is no such thing as a benign Islam.I have then also argued because of that, the more literate Muslims become and are able to critically analyze all the passages of the Koran and not rely on extremist interpretations told to them...
Plenty of good Muslims but no such thing as benign Islam.
That because you assume everyone is as frail as you.And because you had lost control of this debate long ago, you tried to claim that I wasn't quoting you, when I totally was-- though I'm sure you would have changed your earlier post were it not for DP preventing posters from going back and correcting posts after a certain amount of time.
Wrong again. I made a mistake about the quote because I forgot the context. And? Believe it or not I don't think about our arguments once I leave here.And the laughter remains hollow because you screwed up and would rather act frail rather than admit your incontrovertible mistake.
You believe whatever you need to but you're the one calling people who simply have different priorities than you Mad Libs and insisting your interpretation is the only valid one. I'll leave it up to audience to decide which of those mentalities is weak.As I've said, I don't even think you believe your "alternative explanation" of the MacDonald joke. It was just a weak-ass attempt to turn things around after I cited the joke as an example of spoofing Mad Lib priorities.
What makes my interpretation not real other than your frail emotions? By the way my interpretation isnt me trying to speak for author of the joke who's meaning I expressed confusion over, it's just how I received the joke. Is there only one real way to receive that joke? Is that what your frail psyche needs you to believe?The joke has only one possible target: Libs who are more worried about backlash against Muslims rather than citizens being killed by permissive Liberal attitudes toward jihadists. Your mangling of that simple joke-logic is not a real interpretation, and this is demonstrated by the fact that you haven't even tried to defend your interpretation. Again, you imagine that you can win a debate with the clever retort, "nuh-uh."
I have none because you say so? Why shouldn't I think that position frail? Why shouldn't everyone?Nope, you have no interpretation, and you must enjoy being doubly frail because all your dopey ad hominems bounce off me and stick to you.
I absolutely can defend differing perspectives with reason and logic.The fact that you can't defend it logically, thus revealing your scariness.
And even with the little attention and brain power I use in exchange with you I still make more logical arguments.Already did so. I'd say you might reread my posts, but hey, you can't even remember what you posted.
Quote me saying anything about hidden ambiguity.Another sad lie, like the one where I directly quoted you and you tried to pretend I made it up.
Admitting your failing is only half the solution, as is seen from your attempt to downplay it. I don't care what is or isn't a "big deal" to you, and the only "fragility" on display is you trying to claim that your error just wasn't important. Take out the beam in your own eye before going after the motes in the eyes of others.That because you assume everyone is as frail as you.Im okay admitting I didn't recognize the quote because the quote was me paraphrasing you. Do you imagine that's some big deal for me? Why? Your own fragility?
I'm sure "not thinking" is a specialty of yours both during and after debate.Wrong again. I made a mistake about the quote because I forgot the context. And? Believe it or not I don't think about our arguments once I leave here.
Let's play your fake interpretation game with another subject. When Robin DiAngelo claims that it's "fragility" that makes a White person resist being blamed for the actions of their ancestors, she really didn't mean what she said she meant. She was secretly pointing out the stupidity of Libs who would believe such an absurdity. This is the sort of reversal you projected onto the MacDonald joke. I don't believe the reversal of Di Angelo any more than you believed your reversal. But by your inconsistent credo, DiAngelo COULD have meant to satirize the attitudes of credulous race-baiters, desperate to accept any flawed argument to shore up their fragile egos.You believe whatever you need to but you're the one calling people who simply have different priorities than you Mad Libs and insisting your interpretation is the only valid one. I'll leave it up to audience to decide which of those mentalities is weak.
See above, and see if you can make a new argument I haven't already demolished.What makes my interpretation not real other than your frail emotions? By the way my interpretation isnt me trying to speak for author of the joke who's meaning I expressed confusion over, it's just how I received the joke. Is there only one real way to receive that joke? Is that what your frail psyche needs you to believe?
Everyone should perceive that your use of the term "frail" is as meaningless as the reversal you don't really believe.I have none because you say so? Why shouldn't I think that position frail? Why shouldn't everyone?
You haven't cited reason or logic yet. Keep trying though.I absolutely can defend differing perspectives with reason and logic.We are not a hive mind. We have our own individual sensors and processing device (the brain). See i just did with me reason and logic than whatever the **** you're doing here....
I agree that you only use a little brain power in these exchanges: I doubt that you have any more than you have displayed.And even with the little attention and brain power I use in exchange with you I still make more logical arguments.
Hidden ambiguity is the only possible defense of your fake contrarian reading.Quote me saying anything about hidden ambiguity.
It's not important to me. If it's important to you that's only funny to me.Admitting your failing is only half the solution, as is seen from your attempt to downplay it. I don't care what is or isn't a "big deal" to you, and the only "fragility" on display is you trying to claim that your error just wasn't important. Take out the beam in your own eye before going after the motes in the eyes of others.
Again, what's fake about how that joke landed with me? You're confusing the speakers intent with my feelings for the sake of your frail argument but carry on...I'm sure "not thinking" is a specialty of yours both during and after debate.
Let's play your fake interpretation game with another subject.
I didn't make any reversal of the MacDonald joke. I said and then quoted again later me saying I don't know what was meant by the joke. What I gave you was how the joke landed with me.When Robin DiAngelo claims that it's "fragility" that makes a White person resist being blamed for the actions of their ancestors, she really didn't mean what she said she meant. She was secretly pointing out the stupidity of Libs who would believe such an absurdity. This is the sort of reversal you projected onto the MacDonald joke.
I don't believe the reversal of Di Angelo any more than you believed your reversal. But by your inconsistent credo, DiAngelo COULD have meant to satirize the attitudes of credulous race-baiters, desperate to accept any flawed argument to shore up their fragile egos.
See above, and see if you can make a new argument I haven't already demolished.
I don't know what MacDonald meant by that joke and he isn't around to tell me.
Trying to tell everyone how to feel is so frail....Everyone should perceive that your use of the term "frail" is as meaningless as the reversal you don't really believe.
Is that why you had no counter for my we are not a hive mind argument? There there....You haven't cited reason or logic yet. Keep trying though.
So no actual quote then? Who didn't see that coming?I agree that you only use a little brain power in these exchanges: I doubt that you have any more than you have displayed.
Hidden ambiguity is the only possible defense of your fake contrarian reading.
You did that after you defended Sweden who said there was no such thing as benign Islam. You made the point about Sharia later.
I haven't denied the former.
No you said it because you disagree with what Sweden or I argue and rather than debate, simply throw out the labels "true" and "untrue". We can all now see "true" as you apply it means only your subjective opinions are to be accepted and "untrue" means any position you think you disagree with can not be accepted. Anyone can read that back to see how you use the labels true and untrue.I said it because it's true.
Your need to pose as the only person telling truth.What insecurity and anxiety?
No one has argued texts aren't open to inyterpretations. In fact Sweden and I have argued when those interpretations are extremist they lead to oppressive beliefs.And religious texts aren't open to interpretations? Do all Christians have to interpret the Bible with the same ferocity as the Crusaders?
What I have read and what I do quote and what I do argue has never once claimed to apply to all Muslims and in fact I go out of my way to explain the specificity and context of what I argue or contend to avoid doing that.You misrepresent yourself when you defend bigots like @Sweden. Go read what they've said since about all Muslims.
In fact when you have responded to my words or Sweden;s you have removed them from their full context and references so as to change their meaning.Sweden has. I quoted them directly.
You clearly did not read them in their entirety and try remove them from their full context so as to change their meaning. The links I provided indicated there are different kinds of literacy-one kind enables someone to read at a literal level, i.e., functional and the level of functionality is determined by how much it helps the person know how to engage in the specific function explained in the writings. It goes on to explain further levels of literacy called intellectual literacy then deal with whether the reader has learned to can see more than just one literal meaning to the words and can interpret the words in different ways when applying them to different fact situations. The situation as those sites explained are that if there are no wide spread levels of intellectual literacy in the society examined, the less likely its people will be able to question any ideology imposed upon them and os develop a country rich in variable approaches required to develop a nation.If they took the time to read your link they'd see that it credits Islam with helping to increase literacy rates.
If religious texts are open to interpretations then there is no inherent bigotry, just interpeted bigotry.
You're saying that now after I called out your defense of a bigot who did in fact say there is no such thing as a benign Islam.
Here's the full quote from Sweden, no context taken out.No I did not although you may believe that.
Yes you did and in my opinion are being intellectually dishonest and lazy in trying to deflect from the points Sweden or I made to label them as bigoted. Sweden and I use the exact same standards of criticism in regards to extremist Christianity and Judaism and any other extremist and violent ideology.
No you said it because you disagree with what Sweden or I argue and rather than debate, simply throw out the labels "true" and "untrue". We can all now see "true" as you apply it means only your subjective opinions are to be accepted and "untrue" means any position you think you disagree with can not be accepted. Anyone can read that back to see how you use the labels true and untrue.
Your need to pose as the only person telling truth.
No one has argued texts aren't open to inyterpretations. In fact Sweden and I have argued when those interpretations are extremist they lead to oppressive beliefs.
What I have read and what I do quote and what I do argue has never once claimed to apply to all Muslims and in fact I go out of my way to explain the specificity and context of what I argue or contend to avoid doing that.
In fact when you have responded to my words or Sweden;s you have removed them from their full context and references so as to change their meaning.
You clearly did not read them in their entirety and try remove them from their full context so as to change their meaning. The links I provided indicated there are different kinds of literacy-one kind enables someone to read at a literal level, i.e., functional and the level of functionality is determined by how much it helps the person know how to engage in the specific function explained in the writings. It goes on to explain further levels of literacy called intellectual literacy then deal with whether the reader has learned to can see more than just one literal meaning to the words and can interpret the words in different ways when applying them to different fact situations. The situation as those sites explained are that if there are no wide spread levels of intellectual literacy in the society examined, the less likely its people will be able to question any ideology imposed upon them and os develop a country rich in variable approaches required to develop a nation.
That makes no sense. An interpretation that is fundamentalist and literal can be bigoted from the get go or become applied in a bigoted manner and passed on-bigoted interpretations passed on to others through tradition or cultural accepted norms are then inherent. If someone invents anew form if bigoted interpretation that has not yet been passed on to be used in a widespread manner and accepted in a society as a cultural norm, yes you could argue is not inherent.
No I am still arguing Sweden is not a bigot and its lazy to call him one because by calling him a bigot, you think it enables you to not have to debate what he actually said.
Is there or isnt there such a thing as benign Islam? Yes or No. Its real simple. And if No, what do you call it when you make a blanket statement about an entire religion with billions of people who have disagreements among themselves? Is that not bigotry?Plenty of good Muslims but no such thing as benign Islam.
Sorry, to say it bae. You are wrong on Islam. Islam, for a long time, has been hijacked by extremists who dislike other Muslim tribes-so, it makes sense to call others 'terrorists' even for them. So, the tribe does not 'dilute'.I have indeed said there is no such thing as benign Islam. Islam is a totalitarian and absolutist word view with a cruel and unjust legal system, Sharia attached. It criminalises dissent or criticism. It is totally intolerant of any form of democracy. Islam oppresses all who come under its rule and seeks seeks to inflict terror on the rest. Islam is the enemy of decency and humanity and if we are so foolish to let it thrive we do so at our peril.
I'm sure your mistakes are never important to you, and that, as much as denying them, proves that Frailty is Thy Middle Name.It's not important to me. If it's important to you that's only funny to me.
As I said, you created the contrarian reading of the joke just as a lame comeback to my putdown of your skewed priorities. You, not I, are confusing your false interpretation with the clear intent of the comedian.Again, what's fake about how that joke landed with me? You're confusing the speakers intent with my feelings for the sake of your frail argument but carry on...
And I repeat that you reversed the obvious meaning of the joke as a lame comebackI didn't make any reversal of the MacDonald joke. I said and then quoted again later me saying I don't know what was meant by the joke. What I gave you was how the joke landed with me.
I'm not attempting to speak for either one of them. This is just your frail strawman. Do I need to quote myself saying I don't know what MacDonald meant a second time? Aren't you embarrassed to trot this same strawman out again?
See above, though I'm sure you'll continue to pointlessly defend your fakery.
God damnit you are going to make me quote myself again. Ok hold up while I find it...
Demolished what?
Nothing's more frail than telling a lie for the sake of a lame comeback.Trying to tell everyone how to feel is so frail....
I didn't remember you tossing out "hive mind" in 335 because it was just empty rhetoric. It just sounds like a dozen other Mad Lib arguments I've destroyed; you all blend together. And it's in that same post you claimed you never think about these arguments after you log off.Is that why you had no counter for my we are not a hive mind argument? There there....
I used the actual phrase "hidden ambiguity," but you advocated its principle when you falsely claimed that more than one interpretation of the joke was possible. To make a case for more than one meaning, you have to be able to point to ambivalent content. You showed none.So no actual quote then? Who didn't see that coming?
Not precisely a response to your post, but I think it's very interesting that we saw some of that sectional "dislike" when Saudi Arabia helped Israel defend against a missile attack by Iran. Not that the King didn't seek to pacify intolerant elements in his own culture by scorning Israel's aggression, But Still.Sorry, to say it bae. You are wrong on Islam. Islam, for a long time, has been hijacked by extremists who dislike other Muslim tribes-so, it makes sense to call others 'terrorists' even for them. So, the tribe does not 'dilute'.
But, I do believe in Him. And that Him is Saladin. A great worshipper of Islam and representative of Islam. Islam is meant to be very welcoming of individuals and to show them extreme hospitality. But, it is when they are suppose to live on Islamic lands they have to practice Islam. So, Islam has been perverted by those that seek to profit from it once again.
Except I didn't deny it. Why are you this bad at discerning reality? Especially when it's right in front of your face?I'm sure your mistakes are never important to you, and that, as much as denying them, proves that Frailty is Thy Middle Name.
What false interpretation? Do you think all jokes land with people the same way?As I said, you created the contrarian reading of the joke just as a lame comeback to my putdown of your skewed priorities. You, not I, are confusing your false interpretation with the clear intent of the comedian.
The joke teller isn't here to tell me what they meant by it and I expressed as much. All I can tell you is how it landed with me, which is what I did. You're carrying on like I shit on your favorite TV show. We all don't have to enjoy the same things guy.And I repeat that you reversed the obvious meaning of the joke as a lame comeback
Well that's demonstrably false. I believe my first response was in the form of question which if you weren't aware is an expression of confusion and uncertainty.Your supposed ignorance of the joke's meaning is proven by the fact that you only considered the most outrageous possible interpretation, rather than considering the countervailing interpretation:
Other peoples perspectives arent fake, just different than yours. Why are you so frail about these differences that you have to pretend they aren't real?a satire of Lib priorities. You can CLAIM that you don't know what MacDonald meant, but you only considered the most unlikely interpretation for sake of a comeback. Your obviously fake interpretation remains the only strawman.
Again, what fakery?See above, though I'm sure you'll continue to pointlessly defend your fakery.
What lie?Nothing's more frail than telling a lie for the sake of a lame comeback.
You haven't destroyed anyone's arguments that I've seen. I saw you run away from providing evidence to your own claims in your own atheist thread. You don't ever have any evidence to support your claims.I didn't remember you tossing out "hive mind" in 335 because it was just empty rhetoric. It just sounds like a dozen other Mad Lib arguments I've destroyed; you all blend together. And it's in that same post you claimed you never think about these arguments after you log off.
Is your contention that everyone has to see the joke the same way as you do? There there.I used the actual phrase "hidden ambiguity," but you advocated its principle when you falsely claimed that more than one interpretation of the joke was possible.
Or the existence of different perspectives. Are we all allowed to have one or just you?To make a case for more than one meaning, you have to be able to point to ambivalent content. You showed none.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?