"Liberals!"

[Stella_Omega]

It doesn't matter how well I show someone their illogic, if they are wedded to the belief that your stand is immoral, or that all of my fellow freaks and faggots are less than human.

When you, dear wrms2, call "troll" and "red ass bitch dog" before you've even introduced yourself to a forum how can you expect any respect in return?

You can't.
You won't get any. Ever.

Try this; walk into the bar of your chice, one where you have never been. tell everyone there you are going to explain how they are wrong about things.
When they laugh at you, call them red ass bitch dogs.
Call us from the emergency room, tell us how it went.

Go to fucking hell, you miserable little troll.

 

[Boxlicker101]

[Quote:]
Originally Posted by oggbashan
Self-evident terms might be received and accepted terms by Western Civilisation but what you claim as self-evident are not among them.

The US Declaration of Independence was a wonderful piece of justification for what had already happened. It was not, and is not, an example of logic but an example of rhetoric. You do not appear to appreciate the difference.

Whenever the term "self-evident" is used, a logician is likely to ask "Who says so?". In your case, the answer is wmrs2. That makes your statements assertions that require proof, and you haven't given us any - just more unsupported assertions.

You are effectively yelling "I'm right! You are all wrong!" and asking us to accept your word for your rightness.

I don't accept your word. I wouldn't accept it if you said that a particular greenback was real and not a fake because you have demonstrated no credibility at all.[/quote]

wmrs2
The Declaration of Independence states the premises and authority for the freedom of Americans. You are not required to accept these premises or the logical deductions that follow from these premises but the fact that the founding fathers stated their reasons for independence is not in dispute. However, the king of England would have agreed with all your assertions and would have been pleased to have kept all the taxes arrived from the Colonies under the control of the Crown.

You would like to drag this discussion into a pissing contest. That is what happens when liberals retort with "it was not an example of logic" but clearly it was logic; it simply does not agree with what you see as your premises for logic.

We who agree in the existence of self-evident rights have stated our premises for believing. Whether these premises are true can be disputed but that we have stated these premises is not in dispute. Would you please state your premises that prove there are no self-evident truths? If you will not do this, it must be concluded that you are not interested in the logic of this discussion but only the rhetoric. You do know the difference between logic and rhetoric and you appreciate the difference also, but you appear not to be intellectually strong enough to accept any idea that disagrees with your interpretation of the world.

Nobody is putting down the Declaration of Independence. What is being criticized is your use of the phrase "self evident" because it was not that to most of the world, and not even to many Americans.

A major reason for the Declaration was to get France and other European powers into the conflict. They wouldn't join in if it was just for the purpose of getting concessions from the English Crown, but they would if it was for the purpose of weakening Perfidious Albion. The Declaration was also an extremely cynical document. While they were writing about all men being created equal etc., there were born slaves attending to their horses and performing other menial chores.

BTW, I am not usually considered to be a Liberal on this forum.

 

[wmrs2]

You got a mouse in your pocket? Or maybe you're French? Who the hell is "We"???? Ain't nobody in this entire forum agreeing with your silly little punk ass...

We the people. You then think you represent the entire forum? The truth really made you mad; therefore you fall back to the liberal default logic, "You silly little punk ass...." will be part of my text show and tell of a liberal in emotional rage.

 

[sadangel]

I've had better arguments with a tree stump!!

 

[oggbashan]

Self-Evident and the US Declaration of Independence

Since wmrs2 seems to need a US history lesson - here it is.

When the signatories of the US Declaration of Independence signed a document including the statement "we hold these truths to be self-evident..." they were making those assertions for the first time in history.

In effect they were saying "We believe that..." and were prepared to defend that position. They already had. At the time of the Declaration of Independence an effective state of war existed between the 13 Colonies and the Crown.

The signatories were stating their position. They had the authority to do so, as delegates representing their various communities. When they said "we" that "we" meant all the people in rebellion against the Crown.

When wmrs2 states "this is self-evident" the only person making that assertion is wmrs2. wmrs2 is not a delegate from a state, representing that state and making decisions on behalf of that state.

wmrs2 is a single person making grandious assertions with no authority and no proof. wmrs2 hasn't got any credibility at all.

Og

 

[wmrs2]

Your words including "self-evident":

The American belief, that the Western Civilization values life over government deciding who lives or who dies, is now at risk as the self-evident right of children to live and be happy is abolished through abortion laws.

The statement "the self-evident right of children to live and be happy" would have been acceptable except for the rest of that sentence "is abolished through abortion laws".

By adding those four words you go far beyond self-evident into virulently disputed definitions - What is a child? When does independent life begin? What are the rights of a mother? What are the rights of a fetus?

I am not going to widen this debate into the rights and wrongs of US law but you cannot have it both ways. Self-evident might be acceptable until you modify the statement by assertions about abortion. Whatever opinions are held about abortion it is obvious that there is no consensus in the US about the rights and wrongs so your self-evident is no longer valid.

Og

We will accept for now your admission that it is self-evident that children have a right to live and be happy. We also will accept your assertion that abortion laws did not abolished this right. Man made laws can not abolish self-evident rights. Man made laws are seen as interpretation of what self-evident rights mean. It is agreed that the rights of a fetus, the rights of mothers, and what is a child are topics for debate. Thank you for admitting that the premise of this debate must be based on self-evident truths.

Now that we have concluded that self-evident truths do exist and we have eliminated "you can not have it both ways" and we have accepted this one way, let's move on to a discussion of children and mothers' rights on another forum. At least we have a common premise on which to begin the debate.

 

[Safe_Bet]

We the people. You then think you represent the entire forum? The truth really made you mad; therefore you fall back to the liberal default logic, "You silly little punk ass...." will be part of my text show and tell of a liberal in emotional rage.

Hey! NO FAIR!!!!

You never said that that one was for the record... I want a "do over"!

ahem...

You silly, punk ass, homophobic, childish, whiny little fuckbucket!

There! Isn't that better?

 

[sadangel]

Hey! NO FAIR!!!!

You never said that that one was for the record... I want a "do over"!

ahem...

You silly, punk ass, homophobic, childish, whiny little fuckbucket!

There! Isn't that better?

I thought it was good!

 

[sr71plt]

Washington turned it down, or put the kibosh on the movement. If it had been Adams, he probably would have accepted it. He probably came closer to thinking of himself as royalty and being treated that way than anybody else. Jefferson's actions before his electons and in retiring after two terms probably quashed any idea of a king of The United States.

Sound the trumpets. I didn't find a thing in your post to disagree with.

 

[sr71plt]

The difference you're failing to discern is that Washington *didn't want that power*, whereas Roosevelt DID. Washington walked away from power--Roosevelt had to die in order to be pulled from power.

Nope, there was nothing failing in my discernment of what you actually posted. You didn't post the individual's response to the "America coming close to having its own king." America came closest to that with Washington simply because he could have had it if he wanted it. With FDR, no crown was being offered to him. He was being offered dictatorial powers in limited areas, but that does not a crown make.

 

[sr71plt]

If what you say is true about labeling, why do you attack the emptiness and closed state of mind rather than his arguments?[/QUOTE]


You misconstrue disagreement with the labeling of me with attack on him.

 

[oggbashan]

We will accept for now your admission that it is self-evident that children have a right to live and be happy. We also will accept your assertion that abortion laws did not abolished this right.

I didn't make any assertion about abortion laws. You (as "we") did. Therefore the rest of your post, as with most of your posts, is nonsense.

Now that we have concluded that self-evident truths do exist and we have eliminated "you can not have it both ways" and we have accepted this one way, let's move on to a discussion of children and mothers' rights on another forum. At least we have a common premise on which to begin the debate.

I have never said that "self-evident truths" do not exist. What I have said is that when you state that something is "self-evident" it usually ISN'T. We have no common premises to begin anything because you cannot understand clear statements in English.

Og

 

[sadangel]

I didn't make any assertion about abortion laws. You (as "we") did. Therefore the rest of your post, as with most of your posts, is nonsense.




I have never said that "self-evident truths" do not exist. What I have said is that when you state that something is "self-evident" it usually ISN'T. We have no common premises to begin anything because you cannot understand clear statements in English.

Og

But ogg...it's UK English. He/she/it doesn't understand UK English. It's so vastly different from US English.

 

[oggbashan]

But ogg...it's UK English. He/she/it doesn't understand UK English. It's so vastly different from US English.

Probably. He/she/it doesn't understand the Declaration of Independence either.

Og

 

[freshface]

But ogg...it's UK English. He/she/it doesn't understand UK English. It's so vastly different from US English.

No, I'm pretty sure he/she/it doesn't understand US English either. Remember, this is the person who called you a Christian atheist, so I think that he/she/it has a tenuous grasp, at best, for what words mean.

 

[freshface]

If what you say is true about labeling, why do you attack the emptiness and closed state of mind rather than his arguments?


You misconstrue disagreement with the labeling of me with attack on him.

You have to admit, though, that calling LeJoke a conservative is almost as funny as calling Ogg a troll.

 

[Safe_Bet]

No, I'm pretty sure he/she/it doesn't understand US English either. Remember, this is the person who called you a Christian atheist, so I think that he/she/it has a tenuous grasp, at best, for what words mean.

Is that better than being a heathen atheist?

 

[oggbashan]

Is that better than being a heathen atheist?

It is probably better than being a capitalist running-dog landlord banker in these troubled times...

We (that is King Og, and Jeanne D'Artois, and Fag-Ash Lil) think so.

 

[freshface]

Is that better than being a heathen atheist?

Much better. I would imagine that in wrms' world, heathen and atheist is almost the same. To be a Christian atheist is such a delicious contradiction, like jalapeno chocolate. It doesn't sound promising, but you put them together and get something much better than the individual parts.

 

[wmrs2]

It doesn't matter how well I show someone their illogic, if they are wedded to the belief that your stand is immoral, or that all of my fellow freaks and faggots are less than human.

When you, dear wrms2, call "troll" and "red ass bitch dog" before you've even introduced yourself to a forum how can you expect any respect in return?

You can't.
You won't get any. Ever.

Try this; walk into the bar of your chice, one where you have never been. tell everyone there you are going to explain how they are wrong about things.
When they laugh at you, call them red ass bitch dogs.
Call us from the emergency room, tell us how it went.

Go to fucking hell, you miserable little troll.

Now Stella calm down! You know that "troll" and "red ass bitch dog" are operationally defined terms that matches your personality very well. It is very intellectual and scientific to use operationally defined terms. By the way you misspelled choice. For us to misspell words is fine because we have no credibility but you claim to be a great author on this forum so you best stop pretending and begin to show your great skills. Also, after the word forum and before the word how, you need a comma.

By the way, have you read my comments to DeeZire on the Porn thread? He talks about credibility too and proudly states he is an atheist and would like me to go to hell, which he doesn't even believe exist. Like you, he does not fear God either but he likes to make comments on how a Christian should live.
Well, it probably will surprise you to know that Christianity teaches that Christians should not care about you either. We don't have to love you, respect you or give you credibility. We have every right to call you a RABD as long as you act the part.

We will be putting a post on the Atheist explaining God's view of old atheist farts like you. Most Christians would probably tell you that God loves you but that is simply false. In our discussion on Atheist you will learn that God hates you, God sends you strong delusions so you will believe your own lies and be damned, and God considers you a fool. God even tells Christians not to waste their time praying for you because God is playing a trick on you and is going to burn your red ass in hell fire. You never did consider that but you better make sure that you base your life on a stronger principle than atheism because it will soon be over and God will say, "I don't give a shit about You." We certainly hope you find inspiration in this truth.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"we" will be putting a post?

How many of you are there in that head of yours?

 

[DeeZire]

By the way, have you read my comments to DeeZire on the Porn thread? He talks about credibility too and proudly states he is an atheist and would like me to go to hell, which he doesn't even believe exist. Like you, he does not fear God either but he likes to make comments on how a Christian should live.

WTF? When did I suggest you relocate to hell? Show me.

Have you considered getting professional help? Your paranoia is a little over the top today.

 

[wmrs2]

Since wmrs2 seems to need a US history lesson - here it is.

When the signatories of the US Declaration of Independence signed a document including the statement "we hold these truths to be self-evident..." they were making those assertions for the first time in history.

In effect they were saying "We believe that..." and were prepared to defend that position. They already had. At the time of the Declaration of Independence an effective state of war existed between the 13 Colonies and the Crown.

The signatories were stating their position. They had the authority to do so, as delegates representing their various communities. When they said "we" that "we" meant all the people in rebellion against the Crown.

When wmrs2 states "this is self-evident" the only person making that assertion is wmrs2. wmrs2 is not a delegate from a state, representing that state and making decisions on behalf of that state.

wmrs2 is a single person making grandious assertions with no authority and no proof. wmrs2 hasn't got any credibility at all.

Og

For a person with no credibility, wise and patient wmrs2 certainly has your intellectual ass tied in a knot. Did you read your post? You make no sense at all. Wmrs2 said something and laid out a position which you totally ignored and went directly to a personal attack on her. If you consider what she said to be grandiose (which is misspelled), you are totally out of your league in historical debate.

 

[wmrs2]

Hey! NO FAIR!!!!

You never said that that one was for the record... I want a "do over"!

ahem...

You silly, punk ass, homophobic, childish, whiny little fuckbucket!

There! Isn't that better?

So, you have heard of the looking glass self.

 

[wmrs2]

I thought it was good!

You said you were disabled but you never said you were mentally disabled.