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

[Master Debator]

Where did they claim religions don't exist?

In his mind movie's....

Or was it head movie's? Whatever the line is from Tropic Thunder.

 

[Ouroboros]

See the defintions of objective and subjective.

And those interpenetrate one another in philosophy even as do reason and feeling in art. No one with a mind has believed in your fantasy of complete objectivity since the Positivists.

Does virtue make you feel insecure? There there.

If I follow your example, "virtue" is a metaphysical concept and your use of it demonstrates your deep love of a Creator God.

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.

The beliefs also exist within culture. You're confusing the beliefs with what they're predicated upon. And you still attempted to conflate the general concept of "evil" with a belief in a specific religion, voodoo. And that's still a micro-aggression according to the Mad Lib Bible.

Why are you so frail?

Orwell still can't save your doomed argument.

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

Your fantasy of omnipotence re word-use is entirely of your invention.

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

Nope, it's your gross metaphor. "Shoved down one's throat" is what I used, which, if you understood words, does not connote anything but the attempt of an ideologue to control an argument. That you immediately went to the gross image of anyone willingly accepting such an imposition is just another of your Orwellian attempts at reversal, where one is "frail" if one resists the imposition of a hostile agent. Truly hilarious.

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

Gunn is a creator capable of mounting a reasoned argument and he didn't do so here because he was afraid of losing money. I like his new argument: that SL is not doing well internationally because they don't know who Superman is. Didn't keep the foreign market from buying tickets to MAN OF STEEL, though, did it James?

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

Google is still your potential friend.

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

Another fantasy, but you can do better. Keep trying.

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

I hold out hope that someday we will live in a world where your rampant emotionalism is laughed at by everyone, so that others can share my joy.

 

[Ouroboros]

Where did they claim religions don't exist?

MD may consider himself a "we" since that would fit with his fantasies of omnipotence, but I don't think you should encourage him.

As for your sealioning, you can either go back and look at earlier posts with the back-button, or you can try to come up with a salient response, for once.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

And your side lost in 2024, so that means your evaluations were faulty.

 

[The Brad Dad]

And your side lost in 2024, so that means your evaluations were faulty.

Only if your beliefs are measured in one election. I’m sorry?

 

[The Brad Dad]

MD may consider himself a "we" since that would fit with his fantasies of omnipotence, but I don't think you should encourage him.

As for your sealioning, you can either go back and look at earlier posts with the back-button, or you can try to come up with a salient response, for once.

So you made something up then. Makes sense. You’re flailing pretty bad.

 

[Master Debator]

Nope, a tired lie.

More phony amusement to cover your frenzied emotionalism.

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

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.

I don't care how you mean Mad Lib. I use Mad Lib to make fun of how you rewrite other people's posts with your own nouns and adjectives and verbs to come up with something like me suggesting religions don't exist and no one has to ask me what that means because we all did those as kids and recognize the comedy of your posts.

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

You mean to suit my argument. That's correct. I use words to construct these things called sentences and I use these sentences to convey my ideas. Welcome to the basics of communication.

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

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

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

Gunn can tell you himself what he meant and I believe you accused him of being fake as well. Why are you pretending you care about what he has to say?

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

Yep. That's what I said. Everyone can clearly see that I did indeed say that very thing.

 

[Master Debator]

MD may consider himself a "we" since that would fit with his fantasies of omnipotence, but I don't think you should encourage him.

As for your sealioning, you can either go back and look at earlier posts with the back-button, or you can try to come up with a salient response, for once.

What I consider myself is your superior. If you didnt think so either you wouldnt have to pretend about my arguments so much.

 

[Master Debator]

And those interpenetrate one another in philosophy even as do reason and feeling in art. No one with a mind has believed in your fantasy of complete objectivity since the Positivists.

They interpentrate one another?

What the **** does that even mean? Did I stumble on to the Penthouse Forum website?

If I follow your example, "virtue" is a metaphysical concept and your use of it demonstrates your deep love of a Creator God.

Is this "example" from another one of your head movies?

Virtue is imaginary and subjective.

The beliefs also exist within culture. You're confusing the beliefs with what they're predicated upon. And you still attempted to conflate the general concept of "evil" with a belief in a specific religion, voodoo. And that's still a micro-aggression according to the Mad Lib Bible.

As do beliefs in Santa Claus but that doesnt mean a jolly fat man is really taking one night to deliver gifts to all the good children all over the world. Try not to hurt your head thinking about it too much. You're only confusing yourself.

Orwell still can't save your doomed argument.

Your fantasy of omnipotence re word-use is entirely of your invention.

I do have omnipotence over the words I use. That's how that works. Words don't have autonomy.

Nope, it's your gross metaphor. "Shoved down one's throat" is what I used, which, if you understood words, does not connote anything but the attempt of an ideologue to control an argument.

I agree. I did turn your comment into an amusing metaphor that you found gross. And?

That you immediately went to the gross image of anyone willingly accepting such an imposition is just another of your Orwellian attempts at reversal, where one is "frail" if one resists the imposition of a hostile agent. Truly hilarious.

I think you might have missed the message of that book. I'm not the government. I'm just some guy running my mouth on the internet. I have no power over you that you don't concede to me by being frail.

Gunn is a creator capable of mounting a reasoned argument and he didn't do so here because he was afraid of losing money. I like his new argument: that SL is not doing well internationally because they don't know who Superman is. Didn't keep the foreign market from buying tickets to MAN OF STEEL, though, did it James?

How did you come to be so intimately familiar with his emotions? Did you gleam this from another one of your head movies?

Google is still your potential friend.

Another fantasy, but you can do better. Keep trying.

I hold out hope that someday we will live in a world where your rampant emotionalism is laughed at by everyone, so that others can share my joy.

Well you keep hoping...

 

[dairyair]

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

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.

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

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

There was nothing of mine to refute.
I merely posted your words about non white and non males.
See your words above.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

If "frail" ever meant what you claim it means now, frailty-- better termed "weak-assedness"-- would inhere in your comparison between a generic use of the word "evil"-- which you sought to characterize as metaphysical for no reason but to confuse the issue of your fake relativism-- and the religion of voodoo. It's entirely your claim that evil, which you claim to be non-objective, to be synonymous with the voodoo religion, which exists objectively no matter what you think of its precepts. The conflation was entirely yours, as we weren't even discussing religions. You constantly insist on precision in definitions but when you bollix up one of your own private definitions, you can't practice what you preach.

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

Another example of your confused emotional fantasies. Do you think you were using "emotion" when you made the insubstantial argument that SL must be pro-immigrant because the movie showed the hero being renditioned by the government on the theory that, as an alien, he had no civil rights? You weren't using emotion when you mounted that defense, though I'm sure the rendition scene charged up your emotions and made you ignore other aspects of the movie's content. You were using a very limited form of reason in defending your interpretation of the film, just as Gunn used in constructing the scene of the rendition. Gunn weakened any consistency in his film by playing things down the middle, as I already demonstrated, so he lied when he tried to imply he'd made a film about showing kindness to immigrants. If you hadn't fallen asleep in your high school lit class you might have realized that the role reason plays in fiction.

Like the movie lied...

I will say that the movie, however confused, is less hypocritical than your posts are, thanks to your rampant subjective wants.

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

But you curiously don't suggest a word that would better apply to all those things you inveigh against, like slavery. You've gone on record as claiming that you reject all cultures that practiced slavery. right? You falsely claim that "evil" is metaphysical, but what word would you use to describe slavery? Don't be weak-ass, you've never had any restrictions about re-interpreting established words to mean whatever you please. What's the secret word?

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Why shouldn't people be renditioned if they've broken the law? You say you don't characterize such an action as "evil," since you take the position that evil is metaphysical. So do you have a word to characterize all those actions you don't like, or do you (as I anticipate) sidestep the question?

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.

Did you think Gunn's Superman embodied such idealized empathy? Ok, but if Gunn was serious about such an ideal, why does he have Hawkgirl kill off the Boravian dictator? Hawkgirl's decided, for no clear reason, to throw herself into helping the oppressed people of Whatsisstan after declining to do so earlier. Then she parts company with Superman in taking a life for pure reasons of vengeance. So in your jumbled metaphor, this would be the same as MLK empowering Bobby Seale to go out and kill his perceived enemies if he pleased. What a great strategy to "free segregationists from the hate in their hearts!"

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

Well, I know you didn't get the connection from a dictionary, since you use those only when you think it's to your advantage.

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

But is slavery the only manifestation of tyranny? Is "tyranny" also your go-to word for politicians who don't want trans females to play in female sports? If so then your word-choice is just as insubstantial as your conflation of generic evil with metaphysical evil.

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.

Your endorsement is valueless, and I've never sought it, knowing that it's merely a pretense for your always unjustified superiority dances, these days msotly taking the form of sealioning. You can refuse to accept my characterizations of your arguments but you can only refute me with logic, and you remain unable to mount logical arguments.

 

[Ouroboros]

Only if your beliefs are measured in one election. I’m sorry?

Were you deeply concerned with the beliefs of the other side when your guy was in power? You brought up the idea that majority rule determined the country's values, right? Or is that only when your side wins?

 

[Ouroboros]

So you made something up then. Makes sense. You’re flailing pretty bad.

MD liked your post but he didn't deny that he'd conflated evil and voodoo. If asked he'll come with some sloppy excuse, and I guess you'll jump up to endorse it. Try using the phrase "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" when you do so and maybe you'll get another "like."

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't care how you mean Mad Lib. I use Mad Lib to make fun of how you rewrite other people's posts with your own nouns and adjectives and verbs to come up with something like me suggesting religions don't exist and no one has to ask me what that means because we all did those as kids and recognize the comedy of your posts.

I know you don't care how words are used because you falsely believe that rewriting their meaning gives you some rhetorical advantage. In truth it only makes you look weak-ass and vulnerable to all the 'reduction ad absurdums" I have used to exemplify the underlying absurdity beneath your fake logic.

You mean to suit my argument. That's correct. I use words to construct these things called sentences and I use these sentences to convey my ideas. Welcome to the basics of communication.

You use words and sentences badly and that only communicates being weak-ass.

Gunn can tell you himself what he meant and I believe you accused him of being fake as well. Why are you pretending you care about what he has to say?

He told me what he meant but didn't put that meaning in his movie, so he lied for publicity's sake, just like most Hollywood flacks.

Yep. That's what I said. Everyone can clearly see that I did indeed say that very thing.

Thanks for agreeing that you made no distinctions about Hollywood truthfulness.

 

[Ouroboros]

What I consider myself is your superior. If you didnt think so either you wouldnt have to pretend about my arguments so much.

Thanks for confirming how important it is to you to do your little superiority dances, even when you can't justify them. I've never "pretended" about your emotionally confused arguments, but have used logic to expose their pretensions.

 

[Ouroboros]

There was nothing of mine to refute.
I merely posted your words about non white and non males.
See your words above.

No, you stated a false conclusion and continue to do so after being shown your error.

So, your argument is just that of another Mad Lib doubling down on the race narrative. Big surprise.

 

[Ouroboros]

They interpentrate one another?

What the **** does that even mean? Did I stumble on to the Penthouse Forum website?

Common words seem to confuse you when you don't get to assign meaning to them, don't they?

Is this "example" from another one of your head movies?

Virtue is imaginary and subjective.

Then you admit that whenever you virtue signal against what you're now calling "tyranny," you are indulging in your belief in an imaginary and subjective concept. So you do validate the metaphysical when you think it's to your advantage.

As do beliefs in Santa Claus but that doesnt mean a jolly fat man is really taking one night to deliver gifts to all the good children all over the world. Try not to hurt your head thinking about it too much. You're only confusing yourself.

You're the one who just validated your belief in a non-existent abstraction.

I do have omnipotence over the words I use. That's how that works. Words don't have autonomy.

That's not even close to the way language works. I have not claimed words have autonomy-- that's your BS emotional fantasy-- but that they have established dominant usages. Small groups of people-- like the race-grifters who came up with your anomalous and illogical use of the established word "frail"-- attempted to get their meaning to become dominant. They failed, just as you have failed.

I agree. I did turn your comment into an amusing metaphor that you found gross. And?

And you were pretending about the nature of my statement, which you object to when it happens to you. But my inversions of your stated meaning show the logical inconsistencies of those statements, while you're merely blathering.

I think you might have missed the message of that book. I'm not the government. I'm just some guy running my mouth on the internet. I have no power over you that you don't concede to me by being frail.

You use the logic of the fictional government in the Orwell book, and while it's true that you have no power, you expose your fantasized desire for power by "running your mouth on the Internet."

How did you come to be so intimately familiar with his emotions? Did you gleam this from another one of your head movies?

All I needed was his movie to show his falsehoods, just as I only need your actual words to show yours.

 

[Master Debator]

If "frail" ever meant what you claim it means now, frailty-- better termed "weak-assedness"--

It means it because I'm telling you that's how I mean it. That's how that works......

How is this to confusing to you my guy? I get to tell you what I mean, not the other way around. You telling people what they mean is just you strawmaning.

would inhere in your comparison between a generic use of the word "evil"-- which you sought to characterize as metaphysical for no reason but to confuse the issue of your fake relativism-- and the religion of voodoo.

I characterized evil as being synonymous to voodoo and magic and Santa Claus, because these things are all make believe and that's what evil means to me. That's the reason. My reason. You brought up evil, not me. If you want clarify what evil means to you in regards to your question about it then by all means, clarify. No one is stopping you from telling me what evil means to you.

It's entirely your claim that evil, which you claim to be non-objective, to be synonymous with the voodoo religion, which exists objectively no matter what you think of its precepts.

Wrong. I use voodoo as synonyms to all religions not just one specific religion, and I wasnt suggesting it doesnt exist, I was suggesting it's beliefs are synonymous with a belief in a jolly fat man delivering presents to children one night out the year on his flying reindeer. You can keep fighting this strawman if you want but a crowd is gathering to wonder what the **** you're doing and why....

The conflation was entirely yours,

I know. That's how that works as well. I get to conflate whatever I want. What are you so confused about?

as we weren't even discussing religions.

We were dicussing evil, which you brought up, and to me, evil is synonymous with religion and Santa Claus as they all fit into a category labeled make believe.

You constantly insist on precision in definitions but when you bollix up one of your own private definitions, you can't practice what you preach.

No I don't. What I insist is that I get to tell you what I mean and that you're responsible for telling me what you mean. That's it. This weird fixation on what you feel the proper word use or defintion is is your thing. I'll accept whatever defintion for whatever word you want to give me in the context of your own argument. You just have to want to be clear in the ideas you're trying to express and share with others and that only comes with having confidence in the ideas you're trying to express.

Another example of your confused emotional fantasies. Do you think you were using "emotion" when you made the insubstantial argument that SL must be pro-immigrant because the movie showed the hero being renditioned by the government on the theory that, as an alien, he had no civil rights?

Of course thats a reflection of my emotions. The message that I got from the movie is ultimately a reflection of my emotions and subjective point of view. What you're confusing is the use of your internal logic to get to the truth about how you feel about the movie with using logic to determine objective truths about the world.

You weren't using emotion when you mounted that defense, though I'm sure the rendition scene charged up your emotions and made you ignore other aspects of the movie's content.

I described scenes from the movie and explained what they meant to me. I never told you that your feelings about the movie were wrong, just funny to me. I'm not mounting any defense of feeling. I don't have to defend my feelings and you don't have to defend yours. What I am saying is that your feelings arent reflections of objective truths.

You were using a very limited form of reason in defending your interpretation of the film

I was using my reasons, just as you use yours.

, just as Gunn used in constructing the scene of the rendition. Gunn weakened any consistency in his film by playing things down the middle, as I already demonstrated, so he lied when he tried to imply he'd made a film about showing kindness to immigrants.

See, this is you confusing your feelings as reflections of objective truths. Gunn didnt lie to you just because the movie hit differently for you. That's not how that works.

 

[Master Debator]

If you hadn't fallen asleep in your high school lit class you might have realized that the role reason plays in fiction.

I might not even have gone to my highschool lit class if I'm being honest. I spent most of my time in highschool gambling spades, dominoes and tonk and hitting on girls. I was one of those annoying people who didn't have to study or do homework and could show up to class to ace a test and then disappear again.

I will say that the movie, however confused, is less hypocritical than your posts are, thanks to your rampant subjective wants.

Are there non subjective wants?

But you curiously don't suggest a word that would better apply to all those things you inveigh against, like slavery. You've gone on record as claiming that you reject all cultures that practiced slavery. right? You falsely claim that "evil" is metaphysical, but what word would you use to describe slavery? Don't be weak-ass, you've never had any restrictions about re-interpreting established words to mean whatever you please. What's the secret word?

There's no secret, I've said these words to you before. I dont talk about how slavery is evil because to me its synonymous with voodoo and magic but I do describe it as tyrannical. I can make an objective argument for that. I have also described it as detestable which is a reflection of personal sentiment. Why do you care so much that I won't call it evil?

Why shouldn't people be renditioned if they've broken the law? You say you don't characterize such an action as "evil," since you take the position that evil is metaphysical. So do you have a word to characterize all those actions you don't like, or do you (as I anticipate) sidestep the question?

Its not the renditioning in and of itself that I have a problem with, it's with it being done without due process because the government has decided the person they're doing it to is undeserving of rights and as I said above I'd describe it as detestable before I described it as evil. As for why, I've explained the to you before. You ignored them because they weren't your reasons but they are my reasons so I'll explain them again. When I see the word evil to me it reads as a statement describing some aspect of the thing like if you were describing it's shape and size. That thing over there is big, red, and evil. Whereas a word like detestable I associate more as a reflection of how a person feels about a thing. I detest sour grapes. That statement is a reflection of some aspect of me, not the grapes. Some people might like sour grapes. I dont.

Did you think Gunn's Superman embodied such idealized empathy? Ok, but if Gunn was serious about such an ideal, why does he have Hawkgirl kill off the Boravian dictator? Hawkgirl's decided, for no clear reason, to throw herself into helping the oppressed people of Whatsisstan after declining to do so earlier. Then she parts company with Superman in taking a life for pure reasons of vengeance. So in your jumbled metaphor, this would be the same as MLK empowering Bobby Seale to go out and kill his perceived enemies if he pleased. What a great strategy to "free segregationists from the hate in their hearts!"

Hawkgirl isn't Superman just like Seale wasnt MLK. That they both fought for the same people doesnt mean they did so in the same way. What are you confused by?

 

[Master Debator]

Well, I know you didn't get the connection from a dictionary, since you use those only when you think it's to your advantage.

But is slavery the only manifestation of tyranny?

Of course not.

Is "tyranny" also your go-to word for politicians who don't want trans females to play in female sports?

I'd use bigot there. Tyranny I reserve for impositions of force without consent or choice. We can vote those politicians out of office or we can move to states or other countries with preferable laws or in to the wilderness and the absence of law in ways that's slaves were being forcefully prevented from doing.

If so then your word-choice is just as insubstantial as your conflation of generic evil with metaphysical evil.

And insubstantial is a reflection of your feelings, so what?

Your endorsement is valueless, and I've never sought it, knowing that it's merely a pretense for your always unjustified superiority dances, these days msotly taking the form of sealioning.

My arguments have the value of objective truths. I don't argue that you're wrong for venerating the slaver Founders. Venerate whomever you wish. (Personally, when it comes to setting it as government policy of course I'll fight you over it) My argument in regards to the slaver Founders is that they were indeed tyrants. That reflects an objective fact. I don't care how you value the truth other than to be amused at the pretense of tyrants as heroes for liberty and freedom.

You can refuse to accept my characterizations of your arguments but you can only refute me with logic, and you remain unable to mount logical arguments.

Says the guy who thinks the artist is lying to them because the artwork landed differently for you....

With logic like that I'm happy to be on the other side of whatever the **** you're on. Trust me.

 

[Master Debator]

I know you don't care how words are used because you falsely believe that rewriting their meaning gives you some rhetorical advantage. In truth it only makes you look weak-ass and vulnerable to all the 'reduction ad absurdums" I have used to exemplify the underlying absurdity beneath your fake logic.

Words have whatever meaning we give them. They dont have meaning on their own. No one stumbled on to words in the wilderness minding their own business. We created them. Their meaning is ours to define.

You use words and sentences badly and that only communicates being weak-ass.

If you believe this to be a reflection of fact and not your feelings then explain to me how someone uses words badly as an objective thing. How does that work exactly?

He told me what he meant but didn't put that meaning in his movie, so he lied for publicity's sake, just like most Hollywood flacks.

He can't make the movie mean the same thing to you as it does to him anymore than he can make you feel the same thing as him. That's not how biology works.

Thanks for agreeing that you made no distinctions about Hollywood truthfulness.

I'm trying to explain basic ****ing biological facts to you. I have no idea what you're doing but I love all of it.

Thanks for confirming how important it is to you to do your little superiority dances, even when you can't justify them. I've never "pretended" about your emotionally confused arguments, but have used logic to expose their pretensions.

The only pretense is you believing your subjective feelings are reflections of objective truths.

Common words seem to confuse you when you don't get to assign meaning to them, don't they?


Then you admit that whenever you virtue signal against what you're now calling "tyranny," you are indulging in your belief in an imaginary and subjective concept. So you do validate the metaphysical when you think it's to your advantage.

No, tyranny is an objective thing as I explained above. Its the act of forcefully denying someone the freedom of independent action.

You're the one who just validated your belief in a non-existent abstraction.

I said virtue was imaginary and subjective. That's the opposite of that.

That's not even close to the way language works. I have not claimed words have autonomy-- that's your BS emotional fantasy-- but that they have established dominant usages.

And? Being used more frequently one way does not invalidate their use in another. Those are two different ideas you're expressing there. I'm not contesting how often any word is used in any given manner. I couldn't care less.

Small groups of people-- like the race-grifters who came up with your anomalous and illogical use of the established word "frail"-- attempted to get their meaning to become dominant. They failed, just as you have failed.

I'm not attempting that at all. You just fan fictioned that. We all just watched you construct a strawman for you to wrestle and subdue to the ground you big strong man you. Oh my.

And you were pretending about the nature of my statement, which you object to when it happens to you. But my inversions of your stated meaning show the logical inconsistencies of those statements, while you're merely blathering.

Your inversions of my meaning show my logical inconsistencies? Are you sure that's how that works?

You use the logic of the fictional government in the Orwell book, and while it's true that you have no power, you expose your fantasized desire for power by "running your mouth on the Internet."

Kind of seems like having the power and the willingness to force your views on others is essential to that story. I lack both of those. I'm not forcing you to accept my meaning, I'm just stating a fact when I tell you your emotions dont invalidate mine. Objectively speaking. I can't speak on behalf of your emotions.

All I needed was his movie to show his falsehoods, just as I only need your actual words to show yours.

Those are called your feelings. Different F word.

 

[Ouroboros]

It means it because I'm telling you that's how I mean it. That's how that works......

You can say it works as many times as you like, but it will remain illogical every time.

How is this to confusing to you my guy? I get to tell you what I mean, not the other way around. You telling people what they mean is just you strawmaning.

If that were a principle important to you then you would have never attempted to rewrite anything I've said. Even your sealioning is another form of strawmanning.

I characterized evil as being synonymous to voodoo and magic and Santa Claus, because these things are all make believe and that's what evil means to me. That's the reason. My reason. You brought up evil, not me. If you want clarify what evil means to you in regards to your question about it then by all means, clarify. No one is stopping you from telling me what evil means to you.

I brought up evil in a generic sense and you deflected from that meaning because you think deflection gives you rhetorical advantage. You leaped to a metaphysical definition not because I suggested one, but because you wanted to indulge in yet another self-important private definition.

 

[Ouroboros]

Wrong. I use voodoo as synonyms to all religions not just one specific religion, and I wasnt suggesting it doesnt exist, I was suggesting it's beliefs are synonymous with a belief in a jolly fat man delivering presents to children one night out the year on his flying reindeer. You can keep fighting this strawman if you want but a crowd is gathering to wonder what the **** you're doing and why....

The only members of the crowd I value are the ones laughing at your pathetic flailings.

I know. That's how that works as well. I get to conflate whatever I want. What are you so confused about?

Sure, since you value your subjectivity so much, you should totally indulge yourself in that manner.

We were dicussing evil, which you brought up, and to me, evil is synonymous with religion and Santa Claus as they all fit into a category labeled make believe.

Still as funny as the first time out.

No I don't. What I insist is that I get to tell you what I mean and that you're responsible for telling me what you mean. That's it. This weird fixation on what you feel the proper word use or defintion is is your thing. I'll accept whatever defintion for whatever word you want to give me in the context of your own argument. You just have to want to be clear in the ideas you're trying to express and share with others and that only comes with having confidence in the ideas you're trying to express.

This is merely a transparent lie as your "acceptance" of anyone else's terms is always a precursor to mocking those terms in your weak-ass manner. And yet you insist that others should accept your anomalous terms as if they're enshrined in gold.

Of course thats a reflection of my emotions. The message that I got from the movie is ultimately a reflection of my emotions and subjective point of view. What you're confusing is the use of your internal logic to get to the truth about how you feel about the movie with using logic to determine objective truths about the world.

I described scenes from the movie and explained what they meant to me. I never told you that your feelings about the movie were wrong, just funny to me. I'm not mounting any defense of feeling. I don't have to defend my feelings and you don't have to defend yours. What I am saying is that your feelings arent reflections of objective truths.

You tried to use reason to mount a defense of a weakly written movie. Your rampant emotions motivated that use of reason but your employment of reason ended when I cited other scenes that did not support your conclusions. One would think that if you were so married to the absolute distinction of the objective and the subjective, you also would be able to distinguish between reason and emotion.

I was using my reasons, just as you use yours.

Not "reasons." Reason. There is a difference.

See, this is you confusing your feelings as reflections of objective truths. Gunn didnt lie to you just because the movie hit differently for you. That's not how that works.

Gunn lied to everyone when he said his movie was about immigrants and kindness. If you want to accept his lie there's nothing I could or would do about that. except laugh at it.

 

[Ouroboros]

I might not even have gone to my highschool lit class if I'm being honest. I spent most of my time in highschool gambling spades, dominoes and tonk and hitting on girls. I was one of those annoying people who didn't have to study or do homework and could show up to class to ace a test and then disappear again.

So you figured out how to pass tests but not how to reason about art or anything else. That does explain a lot.

Are there non subjective wants?

Sure, if you really want to have me bring up the "non-subjectivity of rape avoidance" argument that you already lost.

There's no secret, I've said these words to you before. I dont talk about how slavery is evil because to me its synonymous with voodoo and magic but I do describe it as tyrannical. I can make an objective argument for that. I have also described it as detestable which is a reflection of personal sentiment. Why do you care so much that I won't call it evil?

I continue to point out that you drummed up this private definition of evil as a deflection from the subject, and to seek to control the debate. But since you don't have the tools to win a debate, you just keep failing, and that remains funny.

Its not the renditioning in and of itself that I have a problem with, it's with it being done without due process because the government has decided the person they're doing it to is undeserving of rights and as I said above I'd describe it as detestable before I described it as evil. As for why, I've explained the to you before. You ignored them because they weren't your reasons but they are my reasons so I'll explain them again. When I see the word evil to me it reads as a statement describing some aspect of the thing like if you were describing it's shape and size. That thing over there is big, red, and evil. Whereas a word like detestable I associate more as a reflection of how a person feels about a thing. I detest sour grapes. That statement is a reflection of some aspect of me, not the grapes. Some people might like sour grapes. I dont.

And what you choose to call "the detestable" is not in any way distinguishable from the generic concept of evil that I used. Mad Libs here natter all the time that "Trump is Evil." How often do you object: "no, you should only call him detestable?" I admit that I won't bother reading all your posts here because too much emotionality becomes cloying. But I reject your claim that you did not understand my generic use of the term "evil," and the insubstantiality of your claim testifies that you are faking your righteous umbrage.

Hawkgirl isn't Superman just like Seale wasnt MLK. That they both fought for the same people doesnt mean they did so in the same way. What are you confused by?

As far as the movie is concerned, they're both figments of Gunn's mind. Thanks for admitting that he muddied his message by saying one thing and practicing another.