Town Quixote's

[Crucible]

Meme-ing is believing. :chuckle:

It happened and you all know it did. No, I am not a mind reader-
some things are just the truth and that's that. In fact, stating 'mind reader' is enough to show that I know the typical, unoriginal arguments of you all too well

 

[annabenedetti]

It happened and you all know it did. No, I am not a mind reader-
some things are just the truth and that's that.

So when the sun goes down, where does it go?

Also, didn't your mama tell you that if you kept rolling your eyes they'd get stuck like that?

 

[Crucible]

Also, didn't your mama tell you that if you kept rolling your eyes they'd get stuck like that?

It's crossing your eyes.

And
Good job providing what is so far your best attempt at argumentation. No doubt, this is what suffices as good debate by your fellow posters, because it's not about the content- but the person.

Town Heretic could type 'lsdc;woecujnawkljenc'
And you all would thank him for his amazing exposition

:chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

It's crossing your eyes.

And
Good job providing what is so far your best attempt at argumentation. No doubt, this is what suffices as good debate by your fellow posters, because it's not about the content- but the person.

Why would I expend energy on someone who believes something's true because a meme said so?

 

[patrick jane]

It's crossing your eyes.

And
Good job providing what is so far your best attempt at argumentation. No doubt, this is what suffices as good debate by your fellow posters, because it's not about the content- but the person.



Town Heretic could type 'lsdc;woecujnawkljenc'
And you all would thank him for his amazing exposition

:chuckle:

But Town doesn't type jibberish, he answers succinctly

 

[Town Heretic]

It happened and you all know it did.

No, I don't know that and until you produce more than air to sustain your declaration neither do you.

No, I am not a mind reader- some things are just the truth and that's that. In fact, stating 'mind reader' is enough to show that I know the typical, unoriginal arguments of you all too well

Setting aside the nonsensical judgment on them I'm encouraged that you can at least recognize arguments. lain:


Today's Gazette found here (link).

 

[WizardofOz]

Every terrorist attack is marked by Muslims celebrating somewhere in the 1st World- you all denied it to imply Trump as being dishonest, not because anyone actually needs proof of it.

:doh: You don't even know what claim you're defending. It was much more specific than the above generalized backtracking

So with that, I'm done with this worthless discussion.

Yes, yes. Run along. It's probably for the best.

You know it's true, and you will deny it, but you know what- that's you all's sole tactic and that's all you got with this election.

I know what is true? That some Muslims in the "1st world" somewhere celebrated 9/11 is true or the claim that Trump made is true?

You don't even know the difference between the two. That's the funniest part.

:wave:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It happened and you all know it did. No, I am not a mind reader-
some things are just the truth and that's that. In fact, stating 'mind reader' is enough to show that I know the typical, unoriginal arguments of you all too well

In other words you have no support for an erroneous assertion in the first place and then act like a little kid who's Xbox has just blown up when it's pointed out. Pompous whacko's, gotta love em'...

 

[Crucible]

Why would I expend energy on someone who believes something's true because a meme said so?

My basis for acknowledging reality did not come from a meme.

And
Arthur Brains logic is that my claim is 'erroneous' because he can't accept what is almost certainly just the plain truth.

I wonder how some of you even survive your daily routines. Denying the is no way to go through life, along with all those who thanked your post.
*half the cavalry* #mustbeadaythatendswitha'y'

 

[Crucible]

No, I don't know that and until you produce more than air to sustain your declaration neither do you.

The very fact that you all got so upset about the claim that Muslims celebrated 9/11, going through ridiculous means to call someone a liar, tells every conservative everything they need to know about you all, plain and simple.

The fact that you called it an 'outrageous claim'- based on nothing except your illogical obsession with protecting Islam, is all that is needed to see the facade beneath you all's nonsense.

You wouldn't be skeptical if this was being spoken of white people, but no, it's Muslims- the leading terrorist religion of the planet no doubt, that has you allegedly 'not believing'.

Well, that is a bunch of bull and you all know it as well as the rest, so there's no point in continuing this discussion

 

[Town Heretic]

The very fact that you all got so upset about the claim that Muslims celebrated 9/11,

Here's what actually happened:

I'm sorry that you need proof of Muslims celebrating 9/11.

I'd imagine any number of Muslims were happy about 9/11. What I asked you for was for a citation to source on the photo. A way to establish its legitimacy in relation to its claim.

going through ridiculous means to call someone a liar,

If you were as creative as your memory you'd be famous. You want me to quote you trotting out the dishonesty charge at the outset?

The fact that you called it an 'outrageous claim'-

I don't recall it. I do recall you saying:

...Liberals declared it an 'outrageous claim', not because it isn't a statistically probable and even inevitable occurrence that would stem from such an event

So maybe you're remembering your bias. Else, produce the quote if you're going to tell me I said something and if I did I'll own it.

based on nothing except your illogical obsession with protecting Islam,

Nothing in my post can reasonably be seen as protecting anything but the unvarnished truth, which requires something more than your belief.

You wouldn't be skeptical if this was being spoken of white people,

You should stick to not making your case instead of making the wrong one for others. There were "white" people aplenty in that photograph. The photograph that underscored your magical ability to discern country of origin and religion despite a lack of objective markers for any of that.

but no, it's Muslims- the leading terrorist religion of the planet no doubt, that has you allegedly 'not believing'.

Rather, Islam is the root of a disproportionate amount of religiously founded violence. Undeniably true. It remains objectively, demonstrably true as well that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are no more terrorists than you are...presuming you aren't planning an illegal and violent act.

 

[Town Heretic]

The Midnight Gazette
​

Talked blame and abortion with Cruc...

...noting is ever solely the woman's fault, but when there is fault to be had, there must be something of the man to account for.

I only know of one immaculate conception. But blame goes to everyone who participates and wills the end. Every supportive male, every demanding one (or didn't you know that many a man has insisted, suggested, or supported the abortion decision, facilitating the act. conspiring toward the tragic end?).

SD read the paper...

Anti-Trump Protester Charged with Hitting Police Horse in Kansas City

In fairness he smote it on the rear mistaking it for the candidate. lain:

Before Cruc began a familiar benediction...

...As for everything else, I'm done with it for now. It's just as productive for me to shout to the grass that it's green at this point.

All you do is shout. You don't argue or answer argument and rebuttal. You proclaim, denounce, decide the honesty of others, declare what they have to be or believe then move on.

You're just a series of odd punctuations and a (((GENIUSES!!!))) away from Letsargueland at this point. lain:

Then...

...You sit here and call abortion 'murder' now,

Did more than that. I noted (as I did then, do now and will tomorrow) that abortion is the unjustified and premeditated taking of life and asked you for a definition of murder that was something else.

It's hard to imagine how a person would want to be seen as a plain face denier than admit that I have proven you all wrong on this damn thread.
I am done with this discussion.

A discussion involves more than one person. Your internal dialogue spilling out onto a page doesn't qualify, even if you hear voices.

Continuing with Pure on abortion...

...The issue here is not that the women had sex irresponsibly

While I never said anything about irresponsible sex, I'd say the issue is about the fundamental right to be and when that right has to be protected. Because our compact has already spoken to the right. But just as we once failed blacks in not upholding the standard of equality before the law for everyone (and women too, to a lesser extent) we're failing the unborn in our present consideration.

The issue here is that you want to deny her right to decide for herself what will happen insider her own body, by replacing her autonomous personhood with the thoughts and will of your own.

No. That's how you shape the rhetoric. There's no such animal as unimpaired liberty or absolute control of person. You can't even ingest anything you want when it's completely about you and choice. You should probably limit your remarks to your position and not try to tell me my motivation. Especially if you're going to get it this wrong. It will only take up needless time, satisfying as that sort of simplification may feel. :idunno:

Anyway, again, it's about the right to be and what we do about it, where that right must be reasonably defended. Even when that defense works a hardship on others.

Because you have determined in your own mind that fetuses are autonomous persons from the moment of their conception.

Rather, I have noted that we as a compact advance the truth that right isn't conferred by the state, only recognized and protected by it. Fundamental to all right is the right to be, which we only abrogate in our society in relation to serious, horrific violations of our compact.

Or as I like to put it:

Spoiler

So, here I stand, inarguably vested with that right, innocent of any act that would abrogate it. Going back along my chain of being at what point can any man say that right is divested without applying an arbitrary valuation? And therein lies the problem. We agree on the right but no one can set out a self-evident litmus for the point where it begins. If, then, this right exists and must be protected by us as a fundamental principle of law (absent those violations that cannot be present in the unborn) then we must protect the inarguable potential right (by which I mean the arguable but inconclusive point where we have an inarguably new biological being, but only an arguable legal one) wherever it exists. And that means from conception forward.

...The law in this country regarding abortion is based on the idea of autonomous personhood.

Not exactly, but it doesn't address my point and I've already noted that I feel the legal reasoning with Roe was insufficient and a narrowed mistake made defacto law by virtue of the time and pressures of the day. If literal independence was the cornerstone of right the sleeping would have less of it and the comatose none at all.

La came out of the back alley to look for his shadow...

...IT'S Obvious that the Communists Hate Trump, and LOVES Clinton. BUT they try their Best to make it look like They LOVE America A-N-D -- D-O-N-T!!!

Because you can't love America and want to change it, even fundamentally? :think: Which way is it to the auction block where you live, LA? Not arguing for their vision, only making a distinction.

((( Watch Your N-E-W-S )))

When I have the time. But time is a precious commodity...unless, of course, you're a communist.

Okay, I have to admit the funniest part was reading: "Last edited by Letsargue; Today at 08:33 AM."

If I'd have been drinking coffee when I read that I'd be out buying a new monitor now. lain:

Got tired of chrys trying to give himself a pass and turned...chrys loose on him...

you need to work on principles

Mine are just fine. Yours...well, let's let you argue with and judge you:

I don't know what you want
I really don't but I know what I want and I know I don't have a chance of getting it unless the democrats are defeated

I don't care if someone votes republican because they hate blacks or homosexuals

we need every vote we can get to defeat the democrats and we need to defeat the democrats because their party supports abortion

christians cannot ignore that

when you don't vote republican
this is what you are supporting

Democratic Party on Abortion

we need to
destroy the democratic party
vote republican

Today?

-there were 17 candidates
-I did not like over half of them -but
-I would have voted for all of them except trump

how do you get rid of the democrats? by bashing the republicans? you need a lesson in common sense

While PJ took a politically cryptic turn...or maybe it was the hour...

Who are you talking to Town ? :chuckle:

I'm never really sure.

Trump takes AZ !!!

Well, let's just hope he has a prescription for it.

It's pretty obvious that Trump will get 1,237 delegates.

But they aren't Super Delegates...so...no capes and secret identities.

Once they call MO he picks up 12 more there,

Don't know who this MO is, but it sounds shady.

Tomorrow? Papers...publish or whatnot. oly:

Oh, and yesterday's Gazette (in case you missed it) is found here (link).

 

[Arthur Brain]

My basis for acknowledging reality did not come from a meme.

And
Arthur Brains logic is that my claim is 'erroneous' because he can't accept what is almost certainly just the plain truth.

I wonder how some of you even survive your daily routines. Denying the is no way to go through life, along with all those who thanked your post.
*half the cavalry* #mustbeadaythatendswitha'y'

Oh, now it's just "almost certainly"?

You're slipping...

 

[Crucible]

Oh, now it's just "almost certainly"?

You're slipping...

Nothing is certain :idunno:

I'm just speaking from you all's ridiculous skepticism.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nothing is certain :idunno:

I'm just speaking from you all's ridiculous skepticism.

Oh I dunno. I'd say it's pretty much certain that you're gonna continue to make gormless posts by way of...

 

[Crucible]

Oh I dunno. I'd say it's pretty much certain that you're gonna continue to make gormless posts by way of...

Rationality

Funny how that works, speaking to delusional folk like yourself lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Saturday Night Special Gazette
​

Continued on abortion with Pure...

...Personhood does require self will and the liberty to express it, to be manifested. It does not require absolute self will, nor absolute liberty. But it requires enough of these to allow the human biological entity to recognize that it has it's own will, and can exercise it according to it's own nature

That's not an objective truth. It's just your truth, your standard. Your point along that chronological ladder we climb. And in the name of your belief you'll empower women to potentially, arguably violate a right they have no right to.

I don't. My argument doesn't and it's the only one that can make that claim against any particular notion of the truth.

Until you can justify your automatic presumption of this right to usurp the autonomy of others, to their satisfaction, they will not give you that authority.

You think slave owners lost their property because in the end they agreed with their slaves? Some, to be sure and God bless them. Mostly not. My hope is for a peaceful, rational and moral victory.

Then Cruc stumbled in A Momentary Life to remind everyone...

I've made most of my deepest discoveries of reason, and epiphanies, within the confines of solitude in the night.

I'm deep like that

I think you're exactly deep like this. lain:

Then Pure said...

...I don't need to take your argument apart, because it's an opinion, not an argument.

My opinion in the matter, reflected in the argument presented, begins and ends in reason. I arrived at it and held it as an atheist. I hold it now and for the same reason, that I've never been given in rebuttal why I shouldn't that undoes it or sustains the charge that any particular in it is defective.

God, I'd hope anyone with an opinion arrived at it by that means. The fact that we believe the outcome of a reasoned course is no argument against either reason or investment in belief as regards the product.

I do not presume that my opinions should overrule everyone else's simply because it's mine

I don't presume my opinion should control because it's mine, but that reason should control because it's superior to whim.

I believe more damage is being done to humanity by this will to ignore and subjugate the autonomy of our fellow humans than will be done to humanity by allowing abortion.

Except this isn't about subjugation of right if the right doesn't exist. So you presuppose the answer to take the offense. And, again, as I noted prior, you uphold the very thing you call subjugation when you support Roe.

That led to tangential points with teeth in them...

Reason is only the arbiter if it leads to a consensus.

See, that's what's wrong with relying on something other than reason to shape law. Reason is an arbiter of what is logical, rational, reasonable. If you want to be or frame law from an illogical, irrational and unreasonable position you can go with another choice.

I believe it's far more important for me to allow other people to be wrong, than it is for me to force them to be right.

Not if you support Roe. For that matter it's not true if you believe in criminal law.

That's a false choice, of course, because nearly no one is determining this issue by whim. Most people feel pretty strongly about it, and have given it a good deal of thought.

If your choice isn't dictated by logic, by reason, it might not be a whim but it might as well be. You might as well toss darts. So no, it isn't a false choice. Insert any term that makes you comfortable in opposition to reason and it changes nothing.

Had a brief conversation with rex about the heart of the matter...

So, your vote is a kinda amoral calculation of what benefits you personally? Well, at least you're honest about it. Another thing you are is outnumbered.

Everyone votes self-interestedly. For some it's agreement with their financial ends, for others its a service to some notion they find personally satisfactory, but no one is above it. The distinction is found in what constitutes that interest.

Ending for the moment with...

If you incorporate morality into self-interest, sure. On some level, morality must be in your own interest.

Everyone serves their highest idea, even if they don't call it that.

But then, I'm not sure that's a very useful way to look at it.

I think it's essential. Makes it easier to understand what drives people and harder to skip that and go straight into judgment.

That had chrys taking a swing with a favorite shtick...

town will never understand anyone who votes republican because of abortion
-and-he will never understand why trump is an exception

Neither of those things is true, though both are self-serving. lain:

While back in the political realm...

Gary Johnson is a 3rd part candidate -

:think: That the guy from Laugh In?

I'm seriously considering Pat Paulsen at this point. lain: And yes, I know he's dead.

Summed and ended with Pure in...

Town, when you go though a post line by line, to negate each sentence, it becomes clear to me that you are not reading the post for the idea it contains, considering it, and then responding. You are instead only reading with the intent to discount, by any means that comes to mind, every individual though, therein.

Rather you're making a number of claims and I'm attempting to address all of them. I've omitted a few things, but my position has always been that if you don't want a thing answered don't post it. And if answering a posit isn't answering the idea it contains that's a new one on me.

Else, I've also answered on the macro of your position while rebutting the notion that I haven't presented an argument, that in some form or fashion the argument cobbled during my atheist years is a by product of absolutist Christian faith and/or that it's rooted in fear... and I've met and illustrated the problems inherent in your position, etc. Seems rather the point of debate.

If you feel there's a larger point you made that wasn't spoken to feel free to list it singularly and I'll happily answer it as deliberately or note where and how I believe I have met it previously. Not much else I can do except express that willingness.

Tomorrow? Well, let's just say if I make sunrise service that will be another Easter Miracle after this weekend. Have a lovely one, everyone. :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Hump Day Gazette​

Quip asked...

...where's your evidence that the issue of abortion is strictly reason-based and as such may be adjudicated by such means? Only wishful bivalent thinking (via either naiveté or political/religious posturing) would draw such a austere conclusion.

I haven't said people must be rational, only that they should be.

And...

...you're too emotionally vested in the "higher aim" of saving life through interdiction.

Rather, I'm invested in protecting against the violation of a right I am not entitled to abrogate. Beyond that, any man who says the question isn't one that moves him is lacking some essential part of his humanity that should put the rest of us on guard.

Moreover, such appeal further serves to maintain exactly why you cannot simply "reject the emotional angle" a.k.a. the personal impetus sustaining said rational advance...they're part and parcel.

Hopefully I've made it clear with my above that it isn't emotional connection I eschew at all, or reject. It's irrationality that confuses ardent feeling with reason and meets argument with declaration. By all means feel. By all means be impassioned by truth, but be certain that's the thing that leads you.

Said hello to the new guy...

Welcome to TOL, it's a bit of a Crackerjack box around here. Some sweetness to be had, but with enough nuts mixed in to make you wonder...every now and then the surprise is worth digging in for...though we do get our share of disappointing transfer tattoos. :mmph:

Here's hoping you find what you're looking for. :cheers:

Anna was still reeling from Trumpitis...

I don't know what it's like to not be committed to anything.

I only know what it it's like to not be committed to the GOP.

So, lately you know what it's like to not be committed to nothing then.

Then thomas said...

Consenting to sex doesn't mean consenting to pregnancy, as you must know.

Shooting a gun into the air to celebrate doesn't mean you're consenting to murder someone.

The fiz found a failure of omission in a line of mine and...

... said the resident grammarian. :chuckle:

Well, in the land of the blind...


Now if grammar is a point of interest for you...

It has long been posited (1) that Sci Fi was readying/urging us to embrace the future. Some felt that future to be the wishes of some men more so than any sort of (2) natural progression and I think they were right to a certain extent. You can start with H. G. Wells and work forward.

1. Avoid using a passive voice whenever possible. Passive verbs make your writing less direct.
2. You could remove this without impacting the other choices. It would actually make the writing clearer.


Or were you only making chit-chat? oly:

And Pure decided to reenter the...well, the lack of answering a challenge...

Dude, your argument wasn't that complex.

I've never held that it was, dude. In fact, I've said the opposite.

It was as follows:

1. Our "social compact" allows that human beings have a right to exist.

And yet you can't even advance the first point of it correctly.

Rather, our compact believes that human right exists independent of the state and that the state serves to advance and protect the right, not originate or allow it. Law is an obligation to right and a balancing between individuals possessing it.

2. We do not know when, exactly, a human being comes to "exist".

There's no self-apparent, objective means by which we can invest or divest right, absent an act on the part of the one possessing it (in fact or potential) to abrogate it in another.

3. Therefor, we should presume the human being exists from the earliest possible point (i.e., conception).

No. Therefore we must protect the potential or risk abrogating a right with no justification for doing so, working an injustice and offense against the foundation of our own law and understanding. My argument doesn't presume to answer the question of vestment at all.

Thus, your "argument " is simply an opinion dressed up as an argument:

No, supra. Moreover, the peculiar notion you appear to have that an opinion is contrary to reason or that having one inherently eliminates the foundation for it is an irrational and logically unsupportable position.

...intended to make your opinion look like some sort of unassailable logic.

It's a logical argument. Assail away.

And to counter my contrary observations by any and every means at hand.

Only the one has been required, reason.

Tomorrow? More spring break with Jack.

 

[Lon]

Wowch, one of these even smacked me way over here :noway: Remind me never to put on the gloves with you. Maybe pin the tail on the donkey or who can sit the longest without saying a word.... Funny? Yeah, but I'd have cried for a week.....and stayed mute the rest of my life...

 

[Town Heretic]

The Early Bird Gazette​

Continued with Pure...

...Once again, the Town-opinion forms the foundation of his "argument" via the addition of the word "potential". Because Town believes a "potential" person is the equivalent of an actual person. And thus non-demonstrated personhood is as deserving of the right to exist as demonstrated personhood

If you don't know whether or not a person is standing behind the tent flap you shouldn't thrust a sword through it.

I feel much the same about respecting the potentiality of individual personhood as you do. But I understand that this is my opinion, and as such I do not have the right to force everyone else to comply with it.

So if most people were fine with rape you'd have to go along? I don't believe you would. That's a great recipe for making Nazis but a horrible notion else.

It is your inability to acknowledge that your own opinion IS AN OPINION that I am objecting to

I've stated more than once that it is my opinion.

Your problem is you think that means something that it doesn't. So it's a bit like your notion of my argument. If you reach an opinion through a reasoned process then the reason remains. And so my argument and position, the opinion I hold being the sum of that reasoning and not the other way around.

In the Trump thread PJ said...

It;s gonna really be funny when Trump is president, holding the highest office in the land. :rotfl:

Funny in a "What's the date on that tuna salad?" way or in a background, 60s sitcom way? :think:

And after someone tried to take exception to a fairly straight forward proposition...

Why not?

Doser actually got the response to this perfectly [conception is the beginning of a new biological being]...that alone should end any argument on the point. It's the biggest mic drop in TOL history...seriously, do you realize how right I have to be for that to happen? lain:

The use of a condom is denying a potential human being's life.
Just as you claim aborting a 4 week old fetus is.

You're missing the application... It isn't the potential to become, but the potential that the being spoken of is actually invested with right. A new form of life begins with conception and the argument over whether that being has right can begin.

Wrapped up an unfortunate side bar with fzap, who isn't a bad egg...

I call you out for your grammatical niggling

So it was a call out post....too bad. But, again, it's just not something I rush about the place doing, which is the reason examples aren't leaping to your fingertips. When I note grammar it's usually after someone has ridden the "smarter than you" high horse into the sunset while making the mistake.

and then you grouse about my grammar in another thread

No, that was me showing you an easy example of me not doing what you suggested was my meat around here, while returning the repartee...

... I think the point sufficiently made. The defense rests.

Anyone who rests a case without providing evidence is presenting a case, but not the one he means to. lain:

Then Pure was back with...

...Another part of it is often the terrible shaming and stigma that a significant portion of our culture encourages toward women who become pregnant out of wedlock.

I live in one of the most conservative and religious areas of the country and shaming really isn't a part of the cultural landscape. Shotgun marriages are essentially a thing our parents and grandparents reference and bastard, by way of, has as much usage as mulatto, except in the more popular sense relating to Congress. The common nature of births out of wedlock should tell you most of what you need to know about the rule there.

And also keep in mind that as a male, you will not ever completely be able to appreciate the difficulties that come with carrying a pregnancy to fruition.

See, I knew you weren't married. lain:

Offered some general advice on when to say when...

I know this sounds terrible, but...

As a rule, whenever you find yourself making that sort of caveat whatever follows is best left unsaid.

Like, "This may come across as racist..."

Or, "Now I know most women don't have it coming..."

Asked Cruc...

Everything is racist with you all.

Who is "Mexicans are rapists" not racist to? I mean other than a racist. lain:

That led to...

Let's define 'racist': the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others

I'm aware. Are you suggesting that someone who felt all Mexicans were of that stripe wouldn't feel superior to that group? lain: Because if you don't feel superior to a group you're insulting it mostly loses the sting and point, don't you think?

Trump was speaking about the gang rape by Mexicans you pretend doesn't exist. Because it'd be racist to bring it up :freak:

Moving this point back to the original one, could you believe that level of moral turpitude exists in an entire people and not be a racist?

Added a caveat to gen's bit on efficacy...

Praying with your eyes closed is not a problem.

The problem comes when you pray with your mind closed.

Though this can be an advantage when voting. (either)

Tomorrow? High notes, low notes and enough points between to blind a choir. :shocked: