[W:592] How is being kind and inclusive a bad thing? Aren't those things objectively good?

[Ouroboros]

Still confusing facts for feelings again. It's a fact that a poster asked me about the white wing and a fact that I answered. This squirming thing is what you imagine my emotions to be.

Nope, your disordered emotions are evident despite your pose of objectivity.

Says the guy who thinks there are real proper words and fake art analysis.

Yes, those are two of your sophisms, all right.

It means without personal biases to most people, if you're using a different defintion you should want to tell people but I've made you so frail that you're afraid to take an honest position on anything. Now whenever I call you out you just claim your defintion means something else without any attempt to explain what that meaning is.

Your inability to process my definition still does not invalidate it, and you are the last poster who could ever claim an absence of personal biases in your loaded and superficial arguments.

Feelings are what's used to interpret art. The meaning of a piece of art is subjective (based on personal sentiment). I'm not pretending to be baffled by your confusion over this, I'm genuinely amazed every time you get it wrong.

No, art is interpreted by a combination of feeling and reason. Guess you fell asleep in lit class as you did in the movie theater.

No, I said it was funny that you wanted the ACLU to show up and of course I know what the ACLU does.

If you understand what the group does why were you so confused by my use of the group as an example of pushback against the Anti-Woke Evil of Gunn's American government? (I like how Gunn worked a Black guy into the cabal. That's DEI at its finest.)

What?

Since you started trying to reinterpret my term, it must give you pleasure, since it doesn't do anything to bolster your weak-ass arguments.

What? Why dont you just not be frail and be honest about what your arguments are about?

I asked you if you meant proper as an objective or subjective thing for clarification. I'm happy to give you the space to explain yourself but I cant make you be confident in yourself, that's something you have to find on your own.

And I'm happy to repeat that you Mad Libs define "honesty" as total capitulation to your fantasies.

There there.

Fake solicitude merely signals desperation.

What?

What is fake publicity first of all? Can you explain that one to me? I'd love to understand what fake publicity is in your mind.

In this case it's James Gunn trying to virtue signal without having shown any virtue, even by the definition of Mad Lib fanatics.

See I don't see that scene as doing any of that. To me its setting up Superman questioning what type of man he's going to be, the one his parents sent him here to be or the one his earth parents raised him to be. This is what it means that interpretations to art are subjective and personally biased. I dont think your analysis of the scene is wrong just different from mine or Gunn.

If Gunn wanted to send a message there was no one who could tell him not to do so. He didn't do so, which is at least an improvement over his PEACEMAKER. But he wanted to pretend he'd sent a message about kindness, so that's on him.

It means what I saw in the movie is different than what you saw in the movie. Its speaking to the nature of subjectivity. If you didn't know you could of just asked.

See remarks on reason and feeling.

 

[Ouroboros]

What you dont use it for is explaining your real arguments.

Already did. Too bad you fall asleep whenever you're not virtue signaling.

Whats the logic behind proper and improper words or real and fake art analysis? I dont care about the logic that supports your imagination.

But you care about the logic that claims that religions don't exist because you don't believe in them.

So because I didn't invent the word frail that means every time I use it I'm parroting someone else's argument? Is that your logic?

Whoa, you got one! Now tell us who told you anyone was justified to invent meanings for some words while insisting that other words should be defined by dictionary use.

How many of the words did you originate?

Not even close to the argument.

Again, I don't care how you prefer throat things so long as you're swallowing.

And you still don't follow the idea of resistance because it's now clear, pursuant to the topic here, that moviegoers only fell into "swallowing mode" for a very brief period, though only under the pressure of a Chinese conspiracy and the Mad Libs' endorsement of a resultant fanaticism. James Gunn neither forced nor eased any political message into LEGACY, but he falsely claimed that he at least "eased" a message about "kindness" into his folderol. The couple of years in which Mad Libs gained the catbird seat are over and you're going back on the dung heap.

What inconsistency? Let's see you demonstrate that.

Sorry, I don't speak your Calvinball concept of language.

I just wanted you to admit again that they didn't actually name a country they were okay with bombing for shits and giggles.

Actually, they probably did fail to provide a name just because they knew almost everyone would draw the right conclusions, but it gave them shits and giggles to deny Mad Libs their favorite narratives.

Sure, whatever that is....

It's the only world you'll ever live in.

 

[Ouroboros]

You seem a little obsessed by this whole thing. You can't seem to talk about anything else?

I love how Mad Libs come up with countless narratives of liberation for a tiny minority of people and then claim that Conservatives are obsessed with the topic.

 

[Ouroboros]

Governor Ptrizker put it well:

"Empathy and compassion are evolved states of being. They require the mental capacity to step past our most primal urges. This may be a surprising assessment because somewhere along the way in the last few years, our society has come to believe that weaponized cruelty is part of some well-thought out Master plan. Cruelty is seen by some as an adroit cudgel to gain power. Empathy and kindness are considered weak. Many important people look at the vulnerable only as rungs on a ladder to the top. I'm here to tell you that when someone's path through this world is marked with acts of cruelty, they have failed the first test of an advanced society. They never forced their animal brain to evolve past its first instinct. They never forged new mental pathways to overcome their own instinctual fears. And so their thinking and problem solving will lack the imagination and creativity that the kindest people have in spades. Over my many years in politics and business, I have found one thing to be universally true. The kindest person in the room is often the smartest."

Link

A conclusion invalidated by every Mad Lib on this thread.

 

[bythoughts]

There's no doubt that Superman was an immigrant - and an illegal immigrant. "Clark Kent" is a made up person. Birth certificate is a lie unless it lists a hospital on Krypton. Letting somebody into the country infected with superheroism has known risks and downsides, including but not limited to attracting attention of powerful enemy entities, having him get turned evil by the wrong mineral, posing a clear and present danger to women with the shotgun-like force of his masculine functions, and having him completely undo time so that you were never even born. AND he came here to take jobs away from hard-working I.C.E. agents and other police and first responders! There is a right way to do alien immigration, and that involves loyal citizens turning over any babies they find in stray asteroids to the nearest military vivisection lab to strengthen America's defensive capabilities.

 

[The Brad Dad]

oh so hating is ok and good .... we can probably also extend that and say that NOT being kind is ok and not being inclusive is ok too

its just who's making the decisions right ?


its just who's making the decisions right ?

Judgement and morality makes those decisions.

 

[The Brad Dad]

It came from the movie's lack of honesty about what would have happened if a hero like Superman was renditioned, to use a word that you used for the arrest (one the movie did not use).

So you felt the new Superman movie where he fights a kaiju failed to properly explain how a government rendition would work.

 

[Master Debator]

Exactly. It’s an anomaly. It’s not a gender or sex unto itself. That’s been clear from the beginning. You have implied otherwise. Your argument has been subjective from the start but you have deflected throughout. Also known as splitting hairs.

Calling them an anomaly means what to your argument? That the intersex have no sex or gender?

Here's what anomaly means. Red heads, left handed people, they are also anomalies. So ****ing what?

 

[Master Debator]

Sure, the same way you're the arbiter of all those extra sexualities you like to believe exist.

Did I ever claim to be?

Google can be your friend, but you have to reach out. I might give you an answer if you ever address the origins of your fake use of the word "frailty."

I'm asking you what you mean so there isn't any confusing from that defintion and your own.

Right, because in your world Irish Catholics do great business in voodoo dolls.

They do have a ritual where they consume the body of Christ. To me all religions are voodoo. I have an equal disbelief in all of them. It's your personal bias that elevates the mysticism of one religion over the other.

It came from the movie's lack of honesty about what would have happened if a hero like Superman was renditioned, to use a word that you used for the arrest (one the movie did not use).

The movie lied to you because the superhero movie deviated away from real life? Oh my! There there.....

Nope, you're the one adhering to Mad Lib reasoning so it's all you.


Religions still don't cease to exist because you don't believe in them. I guess when you were a kid and refused to clap to show belief in Tinkerbelle, you extended that sense of omnipotence to religions in general.

I wasnt saying religions don't exist, I'm saying their practices are no different than a bunch of kids LARPing wizards and dragons in the park.

So what you said remains meretricious.


Nothing coy about relying on the dictionary when it's appropriate. Now ask what "appropriate" means.


No, that would be your subjective definition of what constitutes objectivity.

I'm happy to repeat that you are not in any way interested in clarity of any kind. Your Church Lady game remains obvious. (You can google that one too.)

Or you just don't want to be clear. I'll keep asking for clarity and you keep dodging at your leisure....

After the government has objectively imperiled the whole planet, sure. Why ever not?

Because that's not really how laws work? Are you arguing for reality or are we okay with fantasy now? Pick a lane.

Of course you do, because you think words are governed by your subjective interpretation of them.

I ask, I cant force you to be confident enough to be honest and clear with your arguments.

Nope, your disordered emotions are evident despite your pose of objectivity.

So you have evidence then....?

Yes, those are two of your sophisms, all right.

Your inability to process my definition still does not invalidate it, and you are the last poster who could ever claim an absence of personal biases in your loaded and superficial arguments.

I can't process what you won't give. I assumed that you meant the dictionary use of the word proper which would make your argument silly and about your feelings, because there is no such thing as real, proper word use, but then you claimed that wasnt the case. So it that isn't the case I can't really process a defintion you're too frail to give.

 

[Master Debator]

No, art is interpreted by a combination of feeling and reason. Guess you fell asleep in lit class as you did in the movie theater.

I don't care about your highschool lit class. Art can have whatever meaning you want. Facts.

If you understand what the group does why were you so confused by my use of the group as an example of pushback against the Anti-Woke Evil of Gunn's American government? (I like how Gunn worked a Black guy into the cabal. That's DEI at its finest.)

I understood your Mad Lib desire to see the ACLU just fine. It brought me great amusement. It still does....

I never said I didn't understand it. I thought the suggestion was wonderful.... from you.

Since you started trying to reinterpret my term, it must give you pleasure, since it doesn't do anything to bolster your weak-ass arguments.

I'm asking you what it means and you're being coy for some reason.

And I'm happy to repeat that you Mad Libs define "honesty" as total capitulation to your fantasies.

You do all the things you accuse Mad Libs of doing. That's what's so funny about you. I'm here asking you for clarity that you won't give while you tell me about how I define honesty all while complaining I'm trying to redefine your terms.

Christ man act like less of a joke. It's hard to get through your posts without tears in my eyes.

Fake solicitude merely signals desperation.

Fake and desperate represents your feelings towards me, objectively I did just ask for clarification. Stop confusing your feelings from facts.

In this case it's James Gunn trying to virtue signal without having shown any virtue, even by the definition of Mad Lib fanatics.

Again, this represents your feelings and not any objective truth. What you find virtuous probably isn't the same as Gunns.

If Gunn wanted to send a message there was no one who could tell him not to do so. He didn't do so, which is at least an improvement over his PEACEMAKER. But he wanted to pretend he'd sent a message about kindness, so that's on him.

If you want to know what Gunns message was just listen to him talk about it instead of pretending and fantasizing that your feelings are his own.

 

[Master Debator]

See remarks on reason and feeling.

See the defintions of objective and subjective.

Already did. Too bad you fall asleep whenever you're not virtue signaling.

Does virtue make you feel insecure? There there.

8But you care about the logic that claims that religions don't exist because you don't believe in them.

You've constructed this fantasy where I was saying that religions don't exist and are off and running with it even though you acknowledged from the start that you knew I was referring to religious beliefs.

Why are you so frail?

Whoa, you got one! Now tell us who told you anyone was justified to invent meanings for some words while insisting that other words should be defined by dictionary use.

What? I cant tell you what happens in your fantasies. Thats for you to tell us.

Not even close to the argument.


And you still don't follow the idea of resistance because it's now clear, pursuant to the topic here, that moviegoers only fell into "swallowing mode" for a very brief period, though only under the pressure of a Chinese conspiracy and the Mad Libs' endorsement of a resultant fanaticism.

You're the one who mentioned swallowing, i just laughed at it.

James Gunn neither forced nor eased any political message into LEGACY, but he falsely claimed that he at least "eased" a message about "kindness" into his folderol. The couple of years in which Mad Libs gained the catbird seat are over and you're going back on the dung heap.

And because you dont feel the same way Gunn does that means it really wasnt there.....

Sorry, I don't speak your Calvinball concept of language.

Thats ironic. I don't even know what Calvinball is.

Actually, they probably did fail to provide a name just because they knew almost everyone would draw the right conclusions, but it gave them shits and giggles to deny Mad Libs their favorite narratives.

So they were being frail and subservient to the feelings of the Left? I can dig that.

It's the only world you'll ever live in.

I hope I never live in a world where you understand your feelings from facts. The day that happens will be a sad one.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Judgement and morality makes those decisions.

you do realize everyone has different judgements and morality though right ?

 

[The Brad Dad]

you do realize everyone has different judgements and morality though right ?

Yes, that's why as a society we constantly evaluate what kindnwe want to be. It's why we vote.

 

[j brown's body]

Being kind and inclusive is a good thing as long as it is reciprocated. For example, we have two new neighbors. Our neighborhood is booming. Both families are gay. During Pride Month, both families put up lights in the same style as Christmas lights to celebrate Pride Month. They violated our HOA rules when both got carried away and were turned in by a neighbor. I signed a petition created by these two new families to allow them to keep their light displays up. In fact, the majority of our neighborhood signed the petition, and by the time the HOA moved on a fine or any other action, Pride Month had passed. These families were not hurting anything with their light displays. My neighborhood has Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, along with every race imaginable. The doctors I have commented on in my neighborhood who refuse to take care of their lawn are Hindu and from India.

The problem today seems to be when politics enters the equation. Finally, one issue that I have and might, at some point, make a thread about is the idea of equality. I don't believe in equality. I believe that you get what you earn in life and are entitled to your success or responsible for your failures. I have worked my entire life trying to prove that I am unequal to others.

I disagree. One is kind and inclusive for oneself, because it reflects one's own values, not for others.

You're right about the politics. No one cared about transgenders using bathrooms and playing sports until the righ-wing turned it into a political issue.

 

[notquiteright]

I'm not sure there's enough blue for that to come out of.

I guess that makes sense to you....
I fear so many so-called christians from red states willfully ignore major parts of their religion to push hate....

 

[dairyair]

Fixed it for you.

LOL. That's so pathetic. You can't stand your own words, so you have to alter posts and take things out of context. Weak weak childish.
You don't like non white nor non males. Your words clearly show that.

Now, what childish comeback alteration will you do to make you feel impotent.

dumb-ass race-swapping, but because of dumb-ass ultra-feminism

dumb-ass race-swapping, but because of dumb-ass ultra-feminism

 

[Ikari]

Moderator's Warning:

Let's knock off the personal comments/attacks going on here. We're just going to say no to B/F/T all together. Discuss the topic, not each other, no more little snide stabs and little flamebaits moving forward. There is the topic, and that is what shall be discussed. Failure to abide by this warning may result in Moderator action and/or a thread ban. Posts made prior to this warning are still subject to Moderator review and action.

 

[Crunchtime]

I disagree. One is kind and inclusive for oneself, because it reflects one's own values, not for others.

You're right about the politics. No one cared about transgenders using bathrooms and playing sports until the righ-wing turned it into a political issue.

The right brought trans athletes using the wrong bathrooms and the unfair competition more to light. It wasn’t because no one cared because obviously people do care. To the tune of more than 70% opposed. It’s a moral issue first.

 

[Ouroboros]

LOL. That's so pathetic. You can't stand your own words, so you have to alter posts and take things out of context. Weak weak childish.
You don't like non white nor non males. Your words clearly show that.

I don't *like* posts that tell lies, and the posts you made were full of them.

Now, what childish comeback alteration will you do to make you feel impotent.

LOL. That's so pathetic. You can't stand your own words, so you have to alter posts and take things out of context. Weak weak childish.
You don't like non white nor non males. Your words clearly show that.

Now, what childish comeback alteration will you do to make you feel impotent.

Nope, I refuted your weak points and even gave a specific example as to when race-swapping might not be dumb-ass. You ignored that post because you didn't want to answer me.

And I really think you meant in your last sentence to write "potent." I have seen many Mad Libs post comebacks that make them look impotent, but they're not aware of so doing, but actually believe the contrary. Just a helpful grammar hint.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you felt the new Superman movie where he fights a kaiju failed to properly explain how a government rendition would work.

So the presence of a kaiju in a movie nullifies any critique it makes of politics? I'd say that the makers of the 1954 Godzilla would laugh at your post but I think most of them are dead now.

 

[Ouroboros]

Did I ever claim to be?

That's the upshot of all your phony claims to superior knowledge of the subject.

I'm asking you what you mean so there isn't any confusing from that defintion and your own.

Such a sad lie. It was only loosely true the first time you made the fake inquiry; every other time, it's just sealioning.

They do have a ritual where they consume the body of Christ. To me all religions are voodoo. I have an equal disbelief in all of them. It's your personal bias that elevates the mysticism of one religion over the other.

The religions still exist regardless of your beliefs in their precepts. That's a fact you can't seem to assimilate thanks to your uncontrolled emotions.

The movie lied to you because the superhero movie deviated away from real life? Oh my! There there.....

A movie can't lie; it's the product of a dishonest creator, and you bought into his lies thanks to your soppy emotionalism.

I wasnt saying religions don't exist, I'm saying their practices are no different than a bunch of kids LARPing wizards and dragons in the park.

Another sad lie, where you try to deny what you said because you're drowning in subjective wants.

Or you just don't want to be clear. I'll keep asking for clarity and you keep dodging at your leisure....

Your rampant emotionalism prevents you from judging clarity.

Because that's not really how laws work? Are you arguing for reality or are we okay with fantasy now? Pick a lane.

But you're a Mad Lib, you believe in soul-crushing conspiracies against Poor Abused Immigrants at every turn. That's your stated interpretation of the movie; that Gunn wanted viewers to hate the Evil American Government for daring to take an alien hostile into custody. So why would you claim to care about how laws work?

I ask, I cant force you to be confident enough to be honest and clear with your arguments.

Clarity is always wasted on you. I only continue to engage waiting for your next funny goofup.

So you have evidence then....?

Your wacky definition of "evil" as metaphysical in nature would be evidence enough, even if you hadn't constantly used a rationale of evil to condemn "Slaver America." I asked you for a word you pretended to favor over "evil" to denote your confused condemnation and you were silent, thus rendering yet more evidence of your wild emotionalism.

I can't process what you won't give. I assumed that you meant the dictionary use of the word proper which would make your argument silly and about your feelings, because there is no such thing as real, proper word use, but then you claimed that wasnt the case. So it that isn't the case I can't really process a defintion you're too frail to give.

I agree that your repeated indecision about when you will or won't endorse dictionary definitions shows the emotionalism you seek to deny. And yet you keep claiming to be the judge of the objective, while endorsing your subjective preferences at every turn.

 

[reinaert]

The cosmos generates order in order to annihilate it. The cosmos is a nihilism machine. Empathy, like beauty, ennobles existence not in spite of its meaningless, but because of it. If a person cannot manage empathy, s/he can at a minimum respect the otherness, and the autonomy, of all others.

 

[The Brad Dad]

The religions still exist regardless of your beliefs in their precepts. That's a fact you can't seem to assimilate thanks to your uncontrolled emotions.

Where did they claim religions don't exist?

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't care about your highschool lit class. Art can have whatever meaning you want. Facts.

Nope, a tired lie.

I understood your Mad Lib desire to see the ACLU just fine. It brought me great amusement. It still does....

More phony amusement to cover your frenzied emotionalism.

I never said I didn't understand it. I thought the suggestion was wonderful.... from you.

Nope, you couldn't process the concept of pushback because it weakened your fake narrative, which wasn't anywhere in Gunn's movie.

I'm asking you what it means and you're being coy for some reason.

Another proof of your desperate emotionalism! You never asked what I meant by "Mad Lib" at all, to you it's just like any other word whose meaning you distort because it makes you feel powerful.

You do all the things you accuse Mad Libs of doing. That's what's so funny about you. I'm here asking you for clarity that you won't give while you tell me about how I define honesty all while complaining I'm trying to redefine your terms.

Nope, you've been given definitions over and over and you just keep on sealioning to suit your emotions.

Christ man act like less of a joke. It's hard to get through your posts without tears in my eyes.

Those aren't tears; they're big-ass beams irritating your membranes.

Fake and desperate represents your feelings towards me, objectively I did just ask for clarification. Stop confusing your feelings from facts.

Your emotions keep your claims to objectivity from being anything but amusing nonsense.

Again, this represents your feelings and not any objective truth. What you find virtuous probably isn't the same as Gunns.

Your fake feelings coming to Gunn's defense are also not indicators of whatever Gunn meant-- not that you care about anything but sealioning.

If you want to know what Gunns message was just listen to him talk about it instead of pretending and fantasizing that your feelings are his own.

Yes, everyone should totally believe every bit of publicity coming out of Hollywood! Thanks, I knew you wouldn't let me down!

 

[Master Debator]

That's the upshot of all your phony claims to superior knowledge of the subject.


Such a sad lie. It was only loosely true the first time you made the fake inquiry; every other time, it's just sealioning.


The religions still exist regardless of your beliefs in their precepts. That's a fact you can't seem to assimilate thanks to your uncontrolled emotions.

No one is arguing religions don't exist. Don't be frail.

A movie can't lie; it's the product of a dishonest creator, and you bought into his lies thanks to your soppy emotionalism.

Its a subjective piece of art, not a statement of claimed truths. It's not lying to you frail one.

Another sad lie, where you try to deny what you said because you're drowning in subjective wants.

Like the movie lied...

Your rampant emotionalism prevents you from judging clarity.

But you're a Mad Lib, you believe in soul-crushing conspiracies against Poor Abused Immigrants at every turn. That's your stated interpretation of the movie; that Gunn wanted viewers to hate the Evil American Government for daring to take an alien hostile into custody. So why would you claim to care about how laws work?

Again, I don't use evil in my posts. That's the voodoo you do.

But no... I don't feel like the message was that you should hate the government. You just fan fictioned that out of your own limited imagination. I think it's saying we should be anti denying people rights and renditioning them to private determination facilities run by wealthy government contractors but I don't think the movie is about hate at all. As I said before the message I got from it was that kindness and empathy are punk rock. That's the opposite of hate in my opinion.

Also I'm not suggesting I in any way embody this. I'm not without hate and there are plenty of people I have little to no empathy for, but that's why I'm inspired by the people who do. MLK jr. said he didnt just want to end segregation to end the suffering of black people but also to free segregationists from the hatred in their hearts. Thats a level of empathy thats beyond me but Im glad there are people in the world the embody it.

Clarity is always wasted on you. I only continue to engage waiting for your next funny goofup.

Your wacky definition of "evil" as metaphysical in nature would be evidence enough, even if you hadn't constantly used a rationale of evil to condemn "Slaver America." I asked you for a word you pretended to favor over "evil" to denote your confused condemnation and you were silent, thus rendering yet more evidence of your wild emotionalism.

Yes, so whacky to connect evil with mysticism. I wonder where I ever got that idea from....

As for what I'd call the slaver Founders instead of evil well that's easy. Id call them tyrants.

I agree that your repeated indecision about when you will or won't endorse dictionary definitions shows the emotionalism you seek to deny. And yet you keep claiming to be the judge of the objective, while endorsing your subjective preferences at every turn.

I'll endorse whatever defintion you want to give me for your arguments. What i won't accept is you defining the meaning of other people's arguments.