The comedy writes itself

[Curried Goats]

Not obvious. Not even remotely true.

You’re amazingly stupid, Jerk Chicken.

You assume way too much with far too little evidence.

My religious belief is paper thin. I believe in God* and that’s about the full extent of my religious beliefs. I have never (to my knowledge and memory) “heard” His “voice. Therefore it neither surprises me nor does it make me at all “uncomfortable” that He has not advised me about right or wrong.

As is almost always the case with you, you old dolt, you aren’t just wrong but laughably wrong.


—————————
*I believe in God; but I doubt that God believes in religion.

Then how do you even know you have rights outside of legal rights? That certainly isn't a scientific theory. At least not one you seem to be supporting with any objective evidence.

 

[bendog]

MSN

Heidi Przybyla from Politico says that Christian Nationalists believe that their rights are given to them by God and it does not come from men.

where in the constitution did the founders mention ANYONE"S god?

 

[sartre play]

Do you honestly think GOD wants you to hate your neighbors?

 

[BackAgain]

Then how do you even know you have rights outside of legal rights? That certainly isn't a scientific theory. At least not one you seem to be supporting with any objective evidence.

First off, I have never suggested that our rights are mere scientific theory. That’s a you mistake.

Let’s say you never ever got any kind of burn (accidentally touching a hot plate, being in direct sunlight too long, sipping freshly brewed hot coffee too fast, etc.).

How would you know that getting burned is painful? You probably wouldn’t “know” it. You might be smart enough to heed the cautions of others who have had that misfortune. But your belief that pain ensues when you touch very hot objects, etc., would still fall short of personal knowledge.

Very young children playing together with some toys are clever enough to grasp a concept like the wrongness of taking the toys of other kids. Maybe they don’t understand why another kid would object, but they damn well almost universally get angry when another kid grabs the toy they are playing with. “No! Mine!”

Kids assert their right to possession of their own property without any law having ever had to have been passed.

Similarly, we all feel entitled to exclaim, “hey, leave me [the fuck] alone,” when someone else infringes on our private enjoyment of doing pleasant things.

What is being said whether you know it or not or accept it or not is that you have a general right to be left alone.

And you, yourself, would absolutely insist on it regardless of whether any legislature or king had ever declared your right for you.

 

[BackAgain]

where in the constitution did the founders mention ANYONE"S god?

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G°. Washington
Presidt and deputy from Virginia

 

[bendog]

That quote defines the YEAR. Where in the const is their support for your bs that the laws of the US are handed down by your god?

 

[Curried Goats]

First off, I have never suggested that our rights are mere scientific theory. That’s a you mistake.

Oh I'm sorry. Science is merely the method we use to prove things are real. I didn't realize you were being forthright about this being a discussion about figments of your imagination.

Let’s say you never ever got any kind of burn (accidentally touching a hot plate, being in direct sunlight too long, sipping freshly brewed hot coffee too fast, etc.).

Let's say at some point you deign to make an actual argument in support of your claim. Though I doubt it. Let's see how the rest of this goes.

How would you know that getting burned is painful? You probably wouldn’t “know” it. You might be smart enough to heed the cautions of others who have had that misfortune. But your belief that pain ensues when you touch very hot objects, etc., would still fall short of personal knowledge.

Which could still be remedied through personal experience. Can pre legal rights pass this test?

Very young children playing together with some toys are clever enough to grasp a concept like the wrongness of taking the toys of other kids. Maybe they don’t understand why another kid would object, but they damn well almost universally get angry when another kid grabs the toy they are playing with. “No! Mine!”

Yeah.... animals fight over possession of things all the time. How come when lions do it you aren't imagining rights?

Kids assert their right to possession of their own property without any law having ever had to have been passed.

What they are asserting is force and that can be witnessed and measured. Your imaginary "rights" cant be.

Similarly, we all feel entitled to exclaim, “hey, leave me [the fuck] alone,” when someone else infringes on our private enjoyment of doing pleasant things.

Self interests makes perfect biological sense.

What is being said whether you know it or not or accept it or not is that you have a general right to be left alone.

No... what's being expressed is the wish to be left alone which may or may not be honored depending on the personality of the other person or your ability to enforce your wish.

And you, yourself, would absolutely insist on it regardless of whether any legislature or king had ever declared your right for you.

I would I just wouldn't pretend it's some magical right. It would be my personal desire which has biological origins, not magical ones.

 

[bendog]

Stupidist thread this year ... so far. LOL comedy does indeed write itself.

 

[BackAgain]

Oh I'm sorry.

You sure are.

Science is merely the method we use to prove things are real.

Sort of. When it comes to the physical realm. But the laws of science don’t really apply to things like grammar and maths ch of philosophy and so forth. So, your petty quibble of an “argument” is of no consequence.

I didn't realize you were being forthright about this being a discussion about figments of your imagination.

You still don’t realize any such thing. Youre still just bloviating like the gasbag you are.

Let's say at some point you dain to make an actual argument in support of your claim. Though I doubt it. Let's see how the rest of this goes.

Learn proper spelling, gramps.

When you attempt to lecture anybody else about proper “argument,” it’s not just hypocritical, it’s actually quite amusing. Why don’t you (someday) practice what you preach?

Which could still be remedied through personal experience. Can pre legal rights pass this test?

Once again for the hard of thinking people like you: some things are subject to the scientific method. Other things just are not.

Yeah.... animals fight over possession of things all the time. How come when lions do it you aren't imagining rights?

What they are asserting is force and that can be witnessed and measured. Your imaginary "rights" cant be.

So our notion of personal property rights are the same as an animal’s instincts? . You are one funny stupid fucker.

Self interests make perfect biological sense.

Yep. They do. Your observation there doesn’t actually support your “argument,” though.

No... what's being expressed is the wish to be left alone which may or may not honored depending on the personality of the other person or your ability to enforce your wish.

Ok then. You have no rights. You merely wish you had some ability to declare that you’d prefer not to be murdered or robbed. You assert that you wish you were able to vote. But if someone tries to take your property or your life or deny you your ability to vote for a candidate of your choice, you have not actually had any “rights” violated. It’s merely a wish that goes unfulfilled. Check.

 

[Curried Goats]

You sure are.

Sort of. When it comes to the physical realm. But the laws of science don’t really apply to things like grammar and maths ch of philosophy and so forth. So, your petty quibble of an “argument” is of no consequence.

I don't know where you were educated but math and science go hand in hand. They are what we use to discover the boundaries of the physical world. The boundaries of the mystical world are for you and and every order fantasy fan fiction writer to figure out yourselves when you create your make believe stories. And don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good story but you should at least know where the stories end and reality begins. You're a big boy now.

You still don’t realize any such thing. Youre still just bloviating like the gasbag you are.

Learn proper spelling, gramps.

I already caught that one but honestly if I miss some it ain't the end of the world. All languages and words are equally made up.

When you attempt to lecture anybody else about proper “argument,” it’s not just hypocritical, it’s actually quite amusing. Why don’t you (someday) practice what you preach?

Unlike you, who's an obvious moron, I know that there is no such thing as proper English. The island my family comes from has a culture that speaks and writes a different version of English than you do which is a different version of English than your Founders used, which was a different version of English that was used by the author of Beowulf. If anything I speak and understand more versions of English than you do but like every fail white you imagine your ignorance a testament of your superiority.

Once again for the hard of thinking people like you: some things are subject to the scientific method. Other things just are not.

Yea, like things are make believe and not real.

So our notion of personal property rights are the same as an animal’s instincts? . You are one funny stupid fucker.

You're the one who framed it as two animals fighting over stuff. Don't blame me if it don't make any fucking sense. It's your theory. I just changed the animals to reveal the stupidity.

Yep. They do. Your observation there doesn’t actually support your “argument,” though.

Sure it does. Self interests is explained by biological necessity. We see it in all animals, not just ourselves.

Ok then. You have no rights. You merely wish you had some ability to declare that you’d prefer not to be murdered or robbed. You assert that you wish you were able to vote. But if someone tries to take your property or your life or deny you your ability to vote for a candidate of your choice, you have not actually had any “rights” violated. It’s merely a wish that goes unfulfilled. Check.

Well those are legal rights dumb dumb. Those exist as a function of government and law and order.

 

[BackAgain]

I don't know where you were educated but math and science go hand in hand.

So? What does that have to do with a discussion about the nature of human rights? You’re a special kind of stupid, you fuckstick.

Look. Just admit that you’re a flaming asshole and be done with it.

 

[Curried Goats]

So? What does that have to do with a discussion about the nature of human rights? You’re a special kind of stupid, you fuckstick.

Math and science have to do with discussions of things that are real. Are you or are you not attempting to have a discussion about real things? Or are you talking about imaginary things?

Look. Just admit that you’re a flaming asshole and be done with it.

Oh, I am an asshole, but mostly because I'm mostly right and I know it and I'm charming and good looking. I can see how that would bother insecure Bingos like yourself.

 

[justoffal]

MSN

Heidi Przybyla from Politico says that Christian Nationalists believe that their rights are given to them by God and it does not come from men.

MEH.....no better or worse than any other idealogue.

 

[BackAgain]

Math and science have to do with discussions of things that are real.

You’re a moron. Beauty is real and, yet, in most ways, it is not quantifiable.

Justice is an astounding and sometimes elusive concept. “Yet” again, in many many ways it isn’t subject to either useful mathematical analyses or scientific testing.

Are you or are you not attempting to have a discussion about real things?

I’m the only one doing so. Sadly. Too bad you’re too fucking stupid to engage in any meaningful way.

Or are you talking about imaginary things?

No No. The fact that you label it as “imaginary” is a you problem. You’re still wrong.

Oh, I am an asshole,

Yep.

but mostly because I'm mostly right

Not “mostly.” In fact, if any, it is a minuscule amount. You are all not totally flummoxed because your head isn’t screwed on straight

and I know it and I'm charming and good looking.

No. And doubtful.

I can see how that would bother insecure Bingos like yourself.

Why would I be bothered if (contrary to reality) you were charming? You, you idiot fail black racist, would be much more tolerable if you were “charming.” I don’t give a fuck how ugly you are.

At least you have a terrific looking grandchild.

 

[Curried Goats]

You’re a moron. Beauty is real and, yet, in most ways, it is not quantifiable.

Sure it is. Subjectively. People rate things on their personal scale all the fucking time. You can't go on social media without people sharing with you their top 5 movies or places to eat or vacation. Personal preference just usually isn't mistaken for objective truths until they start being uncomfortable truths about morality to the fearful and easily frightened.

Justice is an astounding and sometimes elusive concept. “Yet” again, in many many ways it isn’t subject to either useful mathematical analyses or scientific testing.

It's not at all elusive. Justice could refer to the justice system which is merely a function of law or your subjective notion of what is just. What's elusive about understanding that?

I’m the only one doing so. Sadly. Too bad you’re too fucking stupid to engage in any meaningful way.

You're not. You're trying to pretend your subjective preferences are object facts.

No No. The fact that you label it as “imaginary” is a you problem. You’re still wrong.

You've already admitted that you can't prove it exists and that this isn't the domain of physical reality which leaves your imagination.

Yep.

Not “mostly.” In fact, if any, it is a minuscule amount. You are all not totally flummoxed because your head isn’t screwed on straight

No. And doubtful.

Why would I be bothered if (contrary to reality) you were charming? You, you idiot fail black racist, would be much more tolerable if you were “charming.” I don’t give a fuck how ugly you are.

At least you have a terrific looking grandchild.

So much crying and no sign of an objective fact anywhere.

 

[Concerned American]

The rotten Democrat Party is trying to make people afraid of Christians.
The Nazi Party did the same sort of thing to Jews.

Nazi is a term for National Socialist German Workers Party. Sounds like today's democrat party to me.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-origin-of-the-term-nazi.html

 

[BackAgain]

Sure it is. Subjectively. People rate things on their personal scale all the fucking time. You can't go on social media without people sharing with you their top 5 movies or places to eat or vacation. Personal preference just usually isn't mistaken for objective truths until they start being uncomfortable truths about morality to the fearful and easily frightened.

It's not at all elusive. Justice could refer to the justice system which is merely a function of law or your subjective notion of what is just. What's elusive about understanding that?

You're not. You're trying to pretend your subjective preferences are object facts.

You've already admitted that you can't prove it exists and that this isn't the domain of physical reality which leaves your imagination.

So much crying and no sign of an objective fact anywhere.

See? You can’t even be honest. You refuse to even try. You’re a tiresome old moron.

With or without a scale of measurement, you and I might agree that some art is “beautiful.” Alternatively, with or without some fanciful numeric values, we might disagree about whether a piece of art of beautiful or downright ugly.

You’re too shallow to even admit that.

Similarly, just as beauty is something which is ineffable and in the eye of the beholder, so too some concepts (exactly like and including the concept of “rights”) simply isn’t susceptible to quantification of scientific method. You know not, too.

You are simply too dishonest to admit it, because once you admit it, your “argument” evaporates.

Sucks to be you, gramps.

 

[Curried Goats]

See? You can’t even be honest. You refuse to even try. You’re a tiresome old moron.

With or without a scale of measurement, you and I might agree that some art is “beautiful.” Alternatively, with or without some fanciful numeric values, we might disagree about whether a piece of art of beautiful or downright ugly.

Subjective agreement doesn't equate to an objective truth.

You’re too shallow to even admit that.

You're too stupid to understand the above.

Similarly, just as beauty is something which is ineffable and in the eye of the beholder, so too some concepts (exactly like and including the concept of “rights”) simply isn’t susceptible to quantification of scientific method. You know not, too.

Which makes them subjective and a matter of your own personal preference. Do you not understand the difference between objective and subjective things?

You are simply too dishonest to admit it, because once you admit it, your “argument” evaporates.

Sucks to be you, gramps.

You've already admitted im right. You're just apparently too stupid to realize that's what you've done.

 

[Concerned American]

See? You can’t even be honest. You refuse to even try. You’re a tiresome old moron.

With or without a scale of measurement, you and I might agree that some art is “beautiful.” Alternatively, with or without some fanciful numeric values, we might disagree about whether a piece of art of beautiful or downright ugly.

You’re too shallow to even admit that.

Similarly, just as beauty is something which is ineffable and in the eye of the beholder, so too some concepts (exactly like and including the concept of “rights”) simply isn’t susceptible to quantification of scientific method. You know not, too.

You are simply too dishonest to admit it, because once you admit it, your “argument” evaporates.

Sucks to be you, gramps.

Remember the story of the donkey and the tiger---don't be dragged in.

 

[BackAgain]

Subjective agreement doesn't equate to an objective truth.

You remain tiresome. Subjective agreement (or subjective disagreement) isn’t about revealing objective truth. It’s about demonstrating that some things aren’t susceptible to mathematical or scientific analyses. Funny that you can’t get that through your impermeable skull.

You're too stupid to understand the above.

No no. You’re too stupid to understand when your “argument” has been crushed.

Which makes them subjective and a matter of your own personal preference. Do you not understand the difference between objective and subjective things?

You've already admitted im right.

Nope. I fully admit that you’re pitiably wrong. Indeed, I’ve established it.

You subjectively believe you’re right because you’re too dishonest to admit that your premises are absurd. That’s an objective statement about your lack of comprehension.

Don’t fret. I wouldn’t expect a moron like you to understand much of anything.