Spammers wasteland

[annabenedetti]

Oh I agree ... though I was speaking to the reference of Biden being creepy. Considering the confessions caught on the Access Hollywood tape ...

Oh, of course that's not creepy, because it was said by Trump. Can you imagine if Biden had said that? But Trump was right about one thing, he really could stand in the middle of 5th. Avenue and shoot someone and his base would still vote for him.

 

[Rusha]

Oh, of course that's not creepy, because it was said by Trump. Can you imagine if Biden had said that? But Trump was right about one thing, he really could stand in the middle of 5th. Avenue and shoot someone and his base would still vote for him.

I can ... though I no longer do. My views of the current occupation of the WH is based on his actions PRIOR to the election and after. They have only grown stronger. There is nothing he can *promise* that would make me see him as anything less than the greatest threat America is currently facing.

 

[quip]

....listen to that hot air as it fills up that bubble!

 

[Fred Eans]

Let me begin with, allow Caesar that which is Caesars’ and to God that which is God’s. The commandments in the Bible, belong to God. The death penalty in the Bible is God’s. However man disagrees and we are not to break that law. So when a person is murdered, the soul goes back to God, and they have to wait on the murderer to die in time before God’s trial. This is a minor problem that God must endure of man’s ignorance. More important, is abortion. Abortion steps on God’s toes, and He doesn’t like it. We are so close to the end, that God will wait. Why is abortion so important. It makes God’s Plan unimportant to His Children. When Satan fell, God could have destroyed him and the one-third of God’s Children that Satan deceived. But since God is love, He was determined to save as many as He could. Hence, flesh man enters the Plan. Don’t forget God is all knowing, so if such a predicament happened, He was ready to alter His Plan. Flesh man was created in God’s image, as was the angels. This image contained a body, a Soul, and a spirit. In heaven, the body was a different mass than the flesh. His Plan was to send us to the flesh world with no remembrance of prior thins. Those things will be restored later. We were to come here and experience a whole new thing, that would allow our freewill to choose between God and Satan. The war continues. When a murder takes place, the murderer robs the victim that choice. Accidental death is a different story. Thank you. Fred Eans.

 

[Right Divider]

Let me begin with, allow Caesar that which is Caesars’ and to God that which is God’s. The commandments in the Bible, belong to God. The death penalty in the Bible is God’s. However man disagrees and we are not to break that law. So when a person is murdered, the soul goes back to God, and they have to wait on the murderer to die in time before God’s trial. This is a minor problem that God must endure of man’s ignorance. More important, is abortion. Abortion steps on God’s toes, and He doesn’t like it. We are so close to the end, that God will wait. Why is abortion so important. It makes God’s Plan unimportant to His Children. When Satan fell, God could have destroyed him and the one-third of God’s Children that Satan deceived. But since God is love, He was determined to save as many as He could. Hence, flesh man enters the Plan. Don’t forget God is all knowing, so if such a predicament happened, He was ready to alter His Plan. Flesh man was created in God’s image, as was the angels. This image contained a body, a Soul, and a spirit. In heaven, the body was a different mass than the flesh. His Plan was to send us to the flesh world with no remembrance of prior thins. Those things will be restored later. We were to come here and experience a whole new thing, that would allow our freewill to choose between God and Satan. The war continues. When a murder takes place, the murderer robs the victim that choice. Accidental death is a different story. Thank you. Fred Eans.

Have you ever heard of paragraphs or line breaks?

 

[Stripe]

I'm continuing to leave off responding to the personal junk.

"Personal junk." :AMR:

Dude, get over yourself.

I'm adding in the "nope"s and likened declarations, mostly. We'll see if it leaves much to comment on.

"Comment on"? You're supposed to be in a discussion. If all you're interested in is comments, do us all a favour and go away. :up:

What do you mean by numbers based?

Seriously? You don't know what "numbers-based" means?

You should put that in your signature. I think it's a profound statement.

OK.

When you've figured out why, let us know. :up:

An argumentum ad passiones would be trying to get you to feel your way to a conclusion that reason cannot support.

First of all, I initially called your argument emotion-based. Big difference.

I also said that it is right and good to prevent the execution of innocent people. But because you're only commenting, you have no respect for a discussion.

However, upon reflection, the logical fallacy is exactly what you've presented. You focus on a numerically insignificant form of injustice and ignore the wider discussion of justice.

In many jurisdictions, historically and to a lesser extent the present, we have had laws in place that allowed and allow for life in prison without the possibility of parole.

That's nice.

The problem? Lawyers.

Traditionally it's used where the crime is premeditated. I would advocate for that application in the case of anyone who has committed murder.

Here's a guarantee: For every one premeditated murderer given life without parole, there will be 10 who do get parole.

Neither of those two points is an appeal to your emotion, though both are understandably tied to our emotions if we care about the topic.

You have an emotion-based argument.

Repeatedly addressed.

Nope.

The epidemic is in your head, it's a subjective standard without some comparison/scale to establish it.

The lack of an epidemic is all in your head.

Our murder rates have trended down for some time now. It's comparable to the opening period when we had sufficient information to reasonably understand the rate. Again, twenty plus years ago and a bit further he'd have a comparatively strong case to make, when homicide numbers reached double digits. Then, compared to what we knew about the years preceding, it would have been an alarming surge, doubling within a generation. Today, no.

This is all fluff to give you a way out of addressing the challenges you face.

The concept you raise isn't too be ignored, but it is far more important to address it within the context of the murder epidemic.

You keep "addressing" my characterization of society and ignoring the substance of what is being discussed.

Probably because you're only interested in "commenting" or looking for ways to be offended.

 

[Stripe]

Have you ever heard of paragraphs or line breaks?

:chuckle:

The best maths doesn't need numbers.

 

[Town Heretic]

"Personal junk." :AMR:

Dude, get over yourself.

Thanks for the illustration. More personal junk. Anything else?

"Comment on"? You're supposed to be in a discussion. If all you're interested in is comments, do us all a favour and go away.

You spoke to me. I was talking to Jacob. You don't care for it, stop talking to me. You don't like my rhetorical style? Stop reading me.

I'm fine with either.

Seriously? You don't know what "numbers-based" means?

I don't know what you mean by it, which is a bit different.

First of all, I called your argument emotion-based. Big difference.

As errant. I addressed your charge under the fallacy proffer because it didn't rest on subjective valuations that can't be examined dispassionately and logically. How you feel about my argument is your business and until you can put it into an argument of parts it's nothing more than that.

I also said that it is right and good to prevent the execution of innocent people. But because you're only commenting, you have no respect for a discussion.

More personal junk. What else?

However, upon reflection, the logical fallacy is exactly what you've presented. You focus on a numerically insignificant form of injustice and ignore the wider discussion of justice.

I didn't, but name and actually set out the alleged fallacy so that it can be rebutted in parts or it's only an empty sleeve waved with verve.

That's nice.

The problem? Lawyers.

More personal junk. What else?

Here's a guarantee: For every one premeditated murderer given life without parole, there will be 10 who do get parole.

No one doubts your ability to declare and speculate. Anything empirical to proffer? Also, I called for an end to paroling murderers.

You have an emotion-based argument.

Declaration, not argument. Anything else?

The lack of an epidemic is all in your head.

You're making the claim of an epidemic. You have to establish the reasonableness of the claim or it's just a subjective declaration.

This is all fluff to give you a way out of addressing the challenges you face.

More personal junk and declaration sans reason in support. You're entitled to feel any way you want about it, but until you demonstrate it and make an argument it's only that. Anything else?

You keep "addressing" my characterization of society and ignoring the substance of what is being discussed.

That's just general enough to be impossible to answer while appearing to be serious. Anything else?

Probably because you're only interested in commenting or looking for ways to be offended.

More personal junk and projection...anything else? Anything at all? lain:

 

[Stripe]

Thanks for the illustration. Morepersonal junk.Anything else?You spoketo me. I was talking to Jacob. You don't care for it, stoptalking to me. You don't like myrhetorical style? Stopreading me.I'm finewith either. Idon't knowwhat you mean by it, whichis a bit different.As errant. I addressed your charge under the fallacy proffer becauseit didn'trestonsubjective valuations that can't be examined dispassionatelyandlogically. How you feel about my argument is your business and until you can put it into anargument of parts it's nothing more thanthat.More personal junk. What else?I didn't, butname and actually set out the allegedfallacy sothat it can be rebutted in partsor it'sonlyan empty sleeve waved with verve.Morepersonal junk.What else?No one doubts your ability to declare and speculate. Anythingempiricalto proffer? Also, I called for an end to paroling murderers.Declaration,not argument. Anything elseYou're making the claimof an epidemic. You have to establish the reasonableness of the claim or it's just asubjectivedeclaration.More personal junk and declaration sans reasonin support. You'reentitledtofeelanywayyou wantaboutit,butuntilyoudemonstrateitand makeanargumentit'sonlythat.Anything else?That'sjustgeneralenoughtobe impossibletoanswerwhileappearingtobe serious.Anythingelse?Morepersonaljunkand projection...anythingelse?Anythingat all?lain:

The concept you raise isn't too be ignored, but it is far more important to address it within the context of the murder epidemic.

Cue dissembling, I mean "personal junk."

The best maths doesn't need numbers.

 

[Town Heretic]

The concept you raise isn't too be ignored, but it is far more important to address it within the context of the murder epidemic.

Which you've yet to establish as more than a subjective impression.

Cue dissembling...

More personal junk. Anything else?

The best maths doesn't need numbers.

Seriously, you need to consider that for your signature line. It's just great.

 

[Stripe]

Which you've yet to establish as more than a subjective impression.

Why are you most ignorant on matters that you are most assured. :think:

The best maths doesn't need numbers.

 

[Town Heretic]

Why are you most ignorant on matters that you are most assured.

More personal junk then. Anything else?

The best maths doesn't need numbers.

Anything substantive or is this about it for you?

 

[Stripe]

Anything else?

The challenge you keep avoiding. Feel free to stop running from it. :up:

The best maths doesn't need numbers.

 

[Town Heretic]

The challenge you keep avoiding.

You et a unicorn. As much support for either. Anything else?

Feel free to stop running from it.

More personal junk then. Anything else?

The best maths doesn't need numbers.

So you keep saying.

 

[Stripe]

You et a unicorn.

:AMR:

Wake us up when you're ready for a sensible discussion.

The best maths doesn't need numbers.

 

[ok doser]

artie considers the case of the woman taken in adultery:

What do you suppose Jesus wrote on the ground that convicted the mob to slowly shuffle off and why was such even mentioned?

Leviticus 20:10

(those of lesser intelligence) think it was something like "adultery is ok now!"

obviously you're not a (man of lesser intelligence) artie, you're a brilliant man with a keen intellect

what do you think he wrote?

did we ever get artie's answer to his own question?

 

[Stripe]

artie considers the case of the woman taken in adultery:






did we ever get artie's answer to his own question?

Are you trying to get me banned? :sibbie:

The best maths doesn't need numbers.

 

[ok doser]

Are you trying to get me banned? :sibbie:

The best maths doesn't need numbers.

repeat after me - arthur is a brilliant man with a keen intellect, who intuitively knows that the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers

 

[Stripe]

Must. Not. Speak. Truth. :shut:

The best maths doesn't need numbers.

 

[Arthur Brain]

artie considers the case of the woman taken in adultery:






did we ever get artie's answer to his own question?

Hmm, you really are on some sort of bonkers crusade with this "keen intellect" shtick. I dunno what you think you're accomplishing with it (so I guess I don't have such after all) but if you wanna spell things out whereby you don't need to repeat yourself so much and make an actual point then it would be kinda helpful.

:idunno: