Pro abortionists chant "Hail satan" in response to pro lifer singing Amazing Grace

[The2ndAmendment]

If you are too stupid to understand how unrelated metaphysical concepts are from economic political theories then I cannot help you.

Are you claiming that Karl Marx was stupid? He is the one that related them!

Atheism existed before Marx was conceived and even put pen to paper. He believed that atheism was a prerequisite for communism. So according to Marx all communists are atheists but not all atheists are communists.

Right, which is exactly what I said: Communism is a subset of Atheism.

I'm happy we're all agreed now.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The "lie" being where, Pothead?

Communisim has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

I'd bet the Dalai Lama would slap your lying face if you said that in front of him.

 

[Newby]

Of course. "They always seem" is not argument. It's bullshit.

Again, are you refuting that? Put up, or shut the hell up!

You want me to refute "they always seem"?
Are you retarded too?

I already did 'put up' anyway. Try what we call "reading". See posts 457 and 478.
My favorite part of your cluelessness is how you offer nothing in rebuttal, just nervous snickering at what you think might challenge your ingrained concepts -- and then you want ME to "put up".

As I said -- PRICELESS.

I'm not surprised that you can't 'put up', you have nothing but bullshit and hot air. At least your buddy mentione Cuba, you apparently have nothing to offer but adolecent insults. Typically that's all your posts seem full of, you noticed I said 'typical' and 'seem', so you may not understand what it is I'm trying to say.

 

[Pogo]

Loved that video. So funny seeing people try to justify denying people their choice in so many areas.

"Seven Strawmen for Seven Dolts". Held over by popular ignorance. Brought to you by Fallacies-R-Us.

Would you mind explaining your comment?

I'd love to.

Here's the original post -- the board software wipes it out...

Yep you libtards are all about choice right?

Soda - no
Types of Alcoholic Drink Mixes - no
Light blubs -no
Right to Work (right not to join a Union) - no
School Choice - no
Right to Choose one's healthcare - no
Right to carry guns provided by the constitution - no

The first line "you libtards" not only drops ad hominem but lumps whatever group he's talking about into a single monolith. That's two fallacies right there, and we haven't even got to the strawmen yet.

The next is a litany of seven bullshit strawmen put into the collective mouth of the aforementioned entity -- speaking for them of course. As if somewhere on earth there's this, I dunno, species that just robotically spews all this in toto. Only a dolt who believes himself in such roboticity could entertain such a notion. Thus, "Seven Strawmen for Seven Dolts", a play on the play "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers".

 

[Zmrzlina]

Are you claiming that Karl Marx was stupid? He is the one that related them!

Atheism existed before Marx was conceived and even put pen to paper. He believed that atheism was a prerequisite for communism. So according to Marx all communists are atheists but not all atheists are communists.

Right, which is exactly what I said: Communism is a subset of Atheism.

I'm happy we're all agreed now.

If you are an orthodox Marxist, yes. I don't agree with your's or Marx's analysis.

 

[Newby]

"Read a history book" my ass. No they don't "typically go together"; they have no relationship. The association fallacy that two things once existed in the same place STILL doesn't make them the same thing. Except to incorrigibly simple minds.

/STILL offtopic

Not one person in this thread has said that they are the same thing. But you keep punching away at that lovely strawman that you keep attempting to build in desperation!

Ahem...

... the only person stupid enough to try to make the argument that communism and atheism don't typically go together. Well, you and Pogo, now there's a relationshp!

I mirrored exactly what you typed, yet you have to morph it into something else because you're not equipped to deal with the original.

Dishonest hackery.

So 'same thing' and 'typically go together' have the same definition to you?

I guess that means that hotdogs and kethcup are the 'same thing' to you since they 'typically go together'. What a nut case!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Atheism existed before Marx was conceived and even put pen to paper. He believed that atheism was a prerequisite for communism. So according to Marx all communists are atheists but not all atheists are communists.

Yes, Atheism was the driving force of la Terreur of the French Revolution.

Atheism is extremely consistent in both means and outcome. Want blood in the streets up to your knees? Put the Atheists in charge.

 

[Pogo]

Again, are you refuting that? Put up, or shut the hell up!

You want me to refute "they always seem"?
Are you retarded too?

I already did 'put up' anyway. Try what we call "reading". See posts 457 and 478.
My favorite part of your cluelessness is how you offer nothing in rebuttal, just nervous snickering at what you think might challenge your ingrained concepts -- and then you want ME to "put up".

As I said -- PRICELESS.

I'm not surprised that you can't 'put up', you have nothing but bullshit and hot air. At least your buddy mentione Cuba, you apparently have nothing to offer but adolecent insults. Typically that's all your posts seem full of, you noticed I said 'typical' and 'seem', so you may not understand what it is I'm trying to say.

Dood! I cannot "put up" against what you think "it seems".

Wispy vague impressions of what "it seems" do not a point make.

I can offer contradictory evidence; I can show how your own standard changes according to which desired result you want, thus exposing your flawed reasoning. I already did both of those.

You've offered nothing but "it seems", nervous laughter and insults.

 

[Newby]

You want me to refute "they always seem"?
Are you retarded too?

I already did 'put up' anyway. Try what we call "reading". See posts 457 and 478.
My favorite part of your cluelessness is how you offer nothing in rebuttal, just nervous snickering at what you think might challenge your ingrained concepts -- and then you want ME to "put up".

As I said -- PRICELESS.

I'm not surprised that you can't 'put up', you have nothing but bullshit and hot air. At least your buddy mentione Cuba, you apparently have nothing to offer but adolecent insults. Typically that's all your posts seem full of, you noticed I said 'typical' and 'seem', so you may not understand what it is I'm trying to say.

Dood! I cannot "put up" against what you think "it seems".

Wispy vague impressions of what "it seems" do not a point make.

I can offer contradictory evidence; I can show how your own standard changes according to which desired result you want, thus exposing your flawed reasoning. I already did both of those.

You've offered nothing but "it seems", nervous laughter and insults.

You've offered 'contradictory evidence'?? Which post number was that on, bud?

So, basically, what you're saying or admitting to is that you can only refute absolutes, when there aren't any absolutes! Makes life on a political message board pretty easy for you, doesn't it? Dood, I can't refute 'typical' or 'seems'! No fears, Pogo, I know some things are above your intellectual capabilities, I won't hold that against you!

 

[Pogo]

The "lie" being where, Pothead?

Communisim has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

I'd bet the Dalai Lama would slap your lying face if you said that in front of him.

"I'd bet" now defines "lie"?

Busted, dumbass.

Bring him on. Hello Dalai.

Hey you know what? Invite Rachel Carson too.

 

[Newby]

The "lie" being where, Pothead?

Communisim has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

I'd bet the Dalai Lama would slap your lying face if you said that in front of him.

"I'd bet" now defines "lie"?

Busted, dumbass.

Bring him on. Hello Dalai.

Your attempted evasion of answering posts by pointing out non-absolutes is really pretty lame, you need a new MO, dood!

 

[Pogo]

I'm not surprised that you can't 'put up', you have nothing but bullshit and hot air. At least your buddy mentione Cuba, you apparently have nothing to offer but adolecent insults. Typically that's all your posts seem full of, you noticed I said 'typical' and 'seem', so you may not understand what it is I'm trying to say.

Dood! I cannot "put up" against what you think "it seems".

Wispy vague impressions of what "it seems" do not a point make.

I can offer contradictory evidence; I can show how your own standard changes according to which desired result you want, thus exposing your flawed reasoning. I already did both of those.

You've offered nothing but "it seems", nervous laughter and insults.

You've offered 'contradictory evidence'?? Which post number was that on, bud?

Ahem...

I already did 'put up' anyway. Try what we call "reading". See posts 457 and 478.

 

[Pogo]

I'd bet the Dalai Lama would slap your lying face if you said that in front of him.

"I'd bet" now defines "lie"?

Busted, dumbass.

Bring him on. Hello Dalai.

Your attempted evasion of answering posts by pointing out non-absolutes is really pretty lame, you need a new MO, dood!

His post was, and again I quote:

You sure lie a lot, comrade huffer.

That's an absolute. So I asked him where it was, and he came up with "I'd bet the Dalai Lama would yammer yammer yammer".

You're actually suggesting "I'd bet the Dalai Lama would yammer yammer yammer" is evidence of a "lie"?

 

[Pogo]

"Read a history book" my ass. No they don't "typically go together"; they have no relationship. The association fallacy that two things once existed in the same place STILL doesn't make them the same thing. Except to incorrigibly simple minds.

/STILL offtopic

Not one person in this thread has said that they are the same thing. But you keep punching away at that lovely strawman that you keep attempting to build in desperation!

Ahem...

... the only person stupid enough to try to make the argument that communism and atheism don't typically go together. Well, you and Pogo, now there's a relationshp!

I mirrored exactly what you typed, yet you have to morph it into something else because you're not equipped to deal with the original.

Dishonest hackery.

So 'same thing' and 'typically go together' have the same definition to you?

You tell me -- YOU are the one who morphed the latter into the former. Try reading your own words above.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Communists do not have the monopoly on metaphysical concepts.

Which has relevance to nothing at all.

You lying about 200 million slaughtered by Communism will not make even one person less dead.

I don't view you holocaust deniers as keepers of esoteric knowledge, rather just deranged dirt bags.

Keep attacking those strawmen. I never denied the genocide and famines that occurred under centrally planned regimes.

You keep yourself disconnected from reality, yet reality exists.

You claim that the genocide of Communism has nothing to do with religion, correct Comrade?

{In 1960 the western-based nongovernmental International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) gave a report titled Tibet and the Chinese People's Republic to the United Nations. The report was prepared by the ICJ's Legal Inquiry Committee, composed of eleven international lawyers from around the world. This report accused the Chinese of the crime of genocide in Tibet, after nine years of full occupation, six years before the devastation of the cultural revolution began.[35] The ICJ also documented accounts of massacres, tortures and killings, bombardment of monasteries, and extermination of whole nomad camps[21] Declassified Soviet archives provides data that Chinese communists, who received a great assistance in military equipment from the USSR, broadly used Soviet aircraft for bombing monasteries and other punitive operations in Tibet.[36]}

History of Tibet (1950?present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Facts do no cease to be facts just because they conflict with your political goals - as I have to remind Pogo of repeatedly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"I'd bet" now defines "lie"?

You posted something that is untrue, that you know to be untrue, for the purpose of deceiving.

That defines a lie. That you lied to promote your political position doesn't make it less of a lie.

Busted, dumbass.

"busted" at what? You lied - i called you on it. The Communist Chinese engaged in a campaign of genocide against the Buddhists in Tibet - PURELY based on religion.

Bring him on. Hello Dalai.

Would you lie to his face, as you have lied here? Would you tell him that what happened to him and his country did not happen, because it isn't convenient to your political goals?

Hey you know what? Invite Rachel Carson too.

It amuses me that you seem to think you came out ahead in that. You got the floor mopped with you, stupid.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Atheism existed before Marx was conceived and even put pen to paper. He believed that atheism was a prerequisite for communism. So according to Marx all communists are atheists but not all atheists are communists.

Right, which is exactly what I said: Communism is a subset of Atheism.

I'm happy we're all agreed now.

If you are an orthodox Marxist, yes. I don't agree with your's or Marx's analysis.

You're allowed to disagree with whomever you desire, just as I allowed to dismiss you as an authority on communism of higher status than Karl Marx.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Which has relevance to nothing at all.

You lying about 200 million slaughtered by Communism will not make even one person less dead.

I don't view you holocaust deniers as keepers of esoteric knowledge, rather just deranged dirt bags.

Keep attacking those strawmen. I never denied the genocide and famines that occurred under centrally planned regimes.

You keep yourself disconnected from reality, yet reality exists.

You claim that the genocide of Communism has nothing to do with religion, correct Comrade?

{In 1960 the western-based nongovernmental International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) gave a report titled Tibet and the Chinese People's Republic to the United Nations. The report was prepared by the ICJ's Legal Inquiry Committee, composed of eleven international lawyers from around the world. This report accused the Chinese of the crime of genocide in Tibet, after nine years of full occupation, six years before the devastation of the cultural revolution began.[35] The ICJ also documented accounts of massacres, tortures and killings, bombardment of monasteries, and extermination of whole nomad camps[21] Declassified Soviet archives provides data that Chinese communists, who received a great assistance in military equipment from the USSR, broadly used Soviet aircraft for bombing monasteries and other punitive operations in Tibet.[36]}

History of Tibet (1950?present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Facts do no cease to be facts just because they conflict with your political goals - as I have to remind Pogo of repeatedly.

Wikipedia is not an academic source and yes it was politically motivated.

 

[Pogo]

"I'd bet" now defines "lie"?

You posted something that is untrue, that you know to be untrue, for the purpose of deceiving.

That defines a lie. That you lied to promote your political position doesn't make it less of a lie.

Wrong again. Your "know to be untrue" is your own übersimplistic failure to see your own fallacy of association, i.e. mistaking "Communism" for "power struggle". You assume that that fallacious premise has any legitimacy, which is why you're in the hole you're in right now. And I already covered this in post 461 anyway, dumbass.

---- All because you're too simple to see beyond the narrowmindedness of your own bullshit premise, and assume the same flawed premise must hold for everyone else. Holy shit, full of yourself much?

Would you lie to his face, as you have lied here? Would you tell him that what happened to him and his country did not happen, because it isn't convenient to your political goals?

I wouldn't lie to anyone's face. Unlike you I have standards of honestly. Declaring someone a "liar" and then backing that up with "I'd bet the Dalai Lama is stupid enough to believe in the same simplistic bullshit I do" defines your standard. Be proud.

Hey you know what? Invite Rachel Carson too.

It amuses me that you seem to think you came out ahead in that. You got the floor mopped with you, stupid.

Then it's interesting that I'm the only one who brings it up.

There as here, you swallowed the bullshit and assumed it was true, which I then deconstructed. With evidence. Like it or lump it, Danth.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS stop your PM bombing of my inbox. You're on ignore. Do it once more and your ass is reported. I already told you to cease and desist, whining baby. This one will be deleted unread.

 

[Mathbud1]

"Seven Strawmen for Seven Dolts". Held over by popular ignorance. Brought to you by Fallacies-R-Us.

Would you mind explaining your comment?

I'd love to.

Here's the original post -- the board software wipes it out...

Yep you libtards are all about choice right?

Soda - no
Types of Alcoholic Drink Mixes - no
Light blubs -no
Right to Work (right not to join a Union) - no
School Choice - no
Right to Choose one's healthcare - no
Right to carry guns provided by the constitution - no

The first line "you libtards" not only drops ad hominem but lumps whatever group he's talking about into a single monolith. That's two fallacies right there, and we haven't even got to the strawmen yet.

The next is a litany of seven bullshit strawmen put into the collective mouth of the aforementioned entity -- speaking for them of course. As if somewhere on earth there's this, I dunno, species that just robotically spews all this in toto. Only a dolt who believes himself in such roboticity could entertain such a notion. Thus, "Seven Strawmen for Seven Dolts", a play on the play "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers".

I understood the reference to Seven Brides...

I (mistakenly, it seems) assumed that you would be commenting on the post to which you were responding rather than the preceding post. Since my post was merely a comment on the YouTube video contained in the previous post, your response seemed slightly out of place.

In any case, the video purports to show Democrats (at the Democratic National Convention) answering questions about positions that seem common to those who support the Democratic party. Perhaps "libtards" is a overgeneralization (I try not to use such terms myself,) but Democrats, like any other group of voluntary association, do tend to support some common positions. The video, again purports, to show Democrats supporting the positions in question.To say that the above positions are fallacious for no reason other than, "not all liberals think that" is similar to saying, "nuh uh!" If you doubt the authenticity of the video, you could point that out. If you do not support the positions described, you can point that out. You, however, cannot speak for others any more than the previous poster can. Since his post at least purports to show evidence that Democrats support the described positions and yours lacks any evidence at all, I'd say he came out ahead in that.