I think Town has a skill with language and humor that few others do -
YouTube censorship
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i think town's struggle with clear communication is rooted in his insecurity and need to be seen as superior
i think it's further complicated by his reluctance to be clear and straightforward, a byproduct of his training as a lawyer
as for his humor, on the rare occasions that it's self-deprecating, it can be amusing
but usually it's a mean-spirited swipe at the expense of another
Last edited:
You imply all without exception (100%), while the dictionary says "majority" (51% or higher). Or do you mean "general rule" in your statement above instead of "rule"?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
:rotfl:
Says the crank who's vocabulary pretty much starts and ends with 'retard'. You really are one dozy git SOD.
Get a life and stop obsessing over Town you silly freak.
:freak:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
He certainly does, and that winds up those like SOD who have nowhere near the same capacity for either.
You can almost see the seething jealousy drip down the screen...
Good point. But attempting to hurt someone with intent still makes them guilty of what they did wrong. So they would still be guilty of censorship via fraud even if they didn't stop the speech via another pathway.
It's kind of like promoting content in China to people that use VPNs there.
Of course not. But then we aren't really talking about all Muslims, we're talking about Yor's mistaken notion of the norm. He believes that to be a Muslim is to believe in the conversion or killing of non-Muslims. He believes that liberals don't hold absolutes. Neither of those is the rule. Both mistakes are easily contradicted by reason and authority.
No. The only struggle in evidence is yours, the ongoing attempt to find and/or create a pretext for speaking to and/or about me.
lain:
I not only don't, I noted your later use of "weak" and "irrational" exceptions to your view of Muslims, though you gave that late and as it stood (given the irrational nature of the claims) for all I knew you believed that all Muslims and all liberals/leftists were of a piece. It's not much better to believe what you do about most, but it is room for some hope.
You've been clear enough you believe only weak and irrational minority of Islam is something other than the violent, kill or convert expression of the religion established in your bias, but contrary to demonstrable fact. You've been clear that you believe most if not all liberals are moral relativists. The latter is established by your response to my rebuttal on the point where I noted over half of declared liberals also believe in God and you suggested their actions indicate the declaration is lip service, instead of simply writing, "Well, not all of them, but I still believe it's most and that some of those purporting to believe are lying." That sort of thing.
There's really no ambiguity in my statement. Absent qualifier when you say Muslims believe X you're noting your impression of the rule, of the orthodoxy, just as when you say liberals are Y you're stating a belief that most or all liberals are that thing.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
muslims killed americans on 911
no qualifiers
and yet, most normal people have no problem understanding what's being said
additionally, most normal people, if they were confused about the meaning, would clarify it before banging on for post after post insisting they were right :chuckle:
So it wasn't a one time drop when you didn't get the other thing. You really are this stunted...
The qualifier is built right into it, doofus. It would be weirdly irrational to suggest that every Muslim, that most Muslims, that more than a sliver of Muslims had any actual hand in the deaths of Americans (and others you don't consider) on 911.
You don't have to tell people that it's hot in a desert at noon. The desert and noon bit will do it.
Seriously, what's wrong with you?
When you said "irrational" you meant "rational", right?
Pretending that this is the thing that simply has to be addressed before you really dig in, yes you credit a minority of Muslims with rationality provided they believe in the alteration of a rule/orthodoxy that only exists demonstrably in your mind and not in the evidence of conduct outside of it. You consider those Muslims weak as well. As you put it and I noted:
I was considering framing the majority by inference under those lights but decided against it for clarity's sake and that's how the "irrational" worked its way into my process and why I didn't see the error, though you did easily enough and could have as easily done something novel, which is meet the argument in parts in relation to the empirical evidence that rebuts you.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
town admits his argument is rooted in irrationality:
he does seem to be confused on the point :chuckle:
he does seem to be confused on the point :chuckle:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
except you didn't present "empirical evidence"
| Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). wiki |
you presented subjective opinion, unsupported by verifiable evidence
Sure I did. You're just too dumb or dishonest to recognize it, which is getting plainer by the day (and funnier).
Speaking of funny.
Outside of this sort of bizarrely cobbled little nothing he has even less.
Didn't mean to interrupt the gossip break. Have fun thinking about me you two. :noid:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
How did I ever begin to take you seriously?like the pompous fat guy in the tux in a three stooges short
You should really begin your posts, "Dear Diary...drove by his thread again..."