The Left Loses Ground...

[Skylar]

(Reader, skylark has absolutely no understanding of what subjective actually means... You're not confused... It is.)

Of course I do.

ROFL! Well there ya go... and that she 'BELIEVES" that stating a point makes the point subjective... is otherwise meaningless.

Your 'point' is merely your opinion. Its not the stating that makes it so. Its the lack of any objective evidence that makes it so. Logically, rationally, nor with

Logically your arguments fail. Rationally your arguments fail. On evidence your arguments fail. All you do is offer us your subjective opinion that insist is 'objective fact'.

Sorry Keys.....but you citing you isn't objective anything. Its just your personal opinion holding hands with a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

And why is holding that which is false to be considered truth? Because she needs it to be true... she, being the subject, rejects the objective facts, OKA: The Truth... and merely substitutes that needs of the subject, which is her... as truth.

It's called Relativism... and it's the foundation upon which Evil rests.

(Reader, do you SEE how easy this is? )

Subjective is not objective, Keys. You calling your personal opinion 'The Truth' doesn't change the fact that its still just your subjective opinion.

You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

For example......your assertion that God, the creator of the Universe....is Jesus.

Logically, factually, rationally....you've got nothing. You merely offer us your personal opinion. Your 'first mover' argument doesn't back anything you've claimed. As a first mover doesn't need a god, intention, a singular nature, goodness, righteousness, a design, sentience or even a continued existence. A first mover need only move first.

Yet you assume it all yet can't back any of it with evidence, reason or logic. Your assumptions aren't 'objective truth'. They are merely what you subjectively choose to believe.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature says that puberty marks that age that humans can reproduce. Why do we have laws that criminalize sex with 13 year olds?

We have laws that prohibit adults from targeting children for sexual gratification dipstick... those laws are designed to keep you and your cult OUT of the kiddie pool.

This so that children can have a fighting chance to mature, so that they can grow to the point where they can make sound decisions... and not wreck their lives as a consequence of rejecting the laws of nature, wherein they engage in coitus, conceive a child prior to having a able-bodied, capapbe partner, worthy of their trust to prevent them from starving to death or dying during child birth due to being UNDERDEVELOPED on any number of levels.

Now Gilligan, even fuckin' Nomads, with no means to read, write or add and subtract knew that, 5000 years ago.

Those that respected that truth, survived... those who did not... did not.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

Nature says that puberty marks that age that humans can reproduce. Why do we have laws that criminalize sex with 13 year olds?

We have laws that prohibit adults from targeting children for sexual gratification dipstick... those laws are designed to keep you and your cult OUT of the kiddie pool.

This so that children can have a fighting chance to mature, so that they can grow to the point where they can make sound decisions... and not wreck their lives as a consequence of rejecting the laws of nature, wherein they engage in coitus, conceive a child prior to having a able-bodied, capapbe partner, worthy of their trust to prevent them from starving to death or dying during child birth due to being UNDERDEVELOPED on any number of levels.

Says who? Nature doesn't say shit about preventing a sexually viable mammal from breeding. That's you. You're the one making up caveats, citing yourself. In nature, a sexually viable mammal breeds when its sexually viable.

What about predation of the sick, the elderly, the young? That happens all the time in nature? Is that also 'nature's law'? If not, why not?

Or will you offer us yet another made up excuse why you're going to ignore any part of nature that you don't like?

Laughing....I don't think 'objective' means what you think it means.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your 'point' is merely your opinion. Its not the stating that makes it so.

MAN! If I had said that 'stating it makes it so', THAT would be such a great point.

Of course, I never said such... or anything that any reasonable person could reasonably infer as such.

BUT IT I HAD... WOW! That would've been SO COOl for you Skylar.

(Reader, Skylar needs me to have said that... despite my having never said it. So, does she simply recognize the self-evident truth that such does not exist? OR... does the NEED of the Subject, overcome any sense of what is real and truthful, wherein the subject rationalizes that its needs supersede the value that reality and truth represent and it just advances that which is NOT true, AS TRUTH.

OKA: The rejection of objectivity... AKA: Relativism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says who?

Says soundly reasoned people... with a desire to promote a viability, prosperity and happiness... OKA: Civilization.

 

[Skylar]

Your 'point' is merely your opinion. Its not the stating that makes it so.

MAN! If I had said that 'stating it makes it so', THAT would be such a great point.

Of course, I never said such... or anything that any reasonable person could reasonably infer as such.

BUT IT I HAD... WOW! That would've been SO COOl for you Skylar.

(Reader, Skylar needs me to have said that... despite my having never said it. So, does she simply recognize the self-evident truth that such does not exist? OR... does the NEED of the Subject, overcome any sense of what is real and truthful, wherein the subject rationalizes that its needs supersede the value that reality and truth represent and it just advances that which is NOT true, AS TRUTH.

OKA: The rejection of objectivity... AKA: Relativism.

I simply reject your subjective opinion as being objective anything. No matter what Appeal to Authority fallacy you offer.

See how that works? Subjective is not objective. You can't get around that.

 

[rdean]

Wow again. You....you actually believe everything you just said.

Holy shit. I can wrap my head around someone not trusting the 'liberal media'. But genuinely believing that Fox is fair, balanced and impartial?

That's a degree of self deception I wasn't aware even existed.

Being UNAWARE is a prime characteristic of liberals. That's because you're so brainwashed into believing you know more than conservatives, when actually, exactly the opposite is true. The fact is, while Fox covers the gamut of social issues (with many liberals on board to balance the discussion), liberal mouthpieces like MSNBC (few few conservatives, if any) OMIT mountains of information, that liberals don't realize even exists.

Like I said, I've proven this many times in USMB (with my Islamization Quiz). When confronted with the Islamization Quiz, liberals (who have never seen/heard this information) suddenly come to realize how much they don't know (because their liberal media has withheld it for so long), and which conservatives have known for YEARS. So far, the highest grade any liberal Islamapologist has gotten on the Quiz was 5%. Most got zero.
Would you like to find out how much you don't know ?

You are proving the study that shows Fox viewing makes you dumber.

I don't need a study. I have my own study.

Here it is >> Fox has quite a few liberals who appear regularly in its various shows (Bill Beckel, Kristen Powers, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Juan Williams, Lanny Davis, Doug Schoen, Geraldine Ferraro, Sally Kohn, Ellen Ratner, Geraldo Rivera, Tamara Holder, Dennis Kucinich, Andy Levy, Leslie Marshall, Lis Wiehl, Adam Lashinsky, Julie Roginsky)

There's a list of 18 liberals commonly seen on Fox News, all on their "On Air Personalities" list - see link (and it's just a partial list) >> On Air Personalities Fox News

Now let's see anyone name the conservatives on MSNBC, or is it conservative (singular) - Michael Steele ?

Fox News has many worthwhile reports and commentaries, and is much more fair and balanced than its completely UNbalanced counterpart, MSNBC

Joe Scarborough, Kathleen Parker, Matt Lewis, Nicole Wallace, Ron Christie, Heidi Harris, and more

 

[Skylar]

Says who?

Says soundly reasoned people... with a desire to promote a viability, prosperity and happiness... OKA: Civilization.

'Civilization', huh? So what happened to nature? Nature has no such restrictions. And most societies in the past had very different ideas of what constitutes 'children' than we do now. Gandhi for example married his wife when she was only 13. Which was considered perfectly acceptable.

(Reader: please note how he won't touch my question regarding the predation of the sick, elderly or very young. This is most definitely part of nature. Yet whenever nature conflicts with what Keyes already believes.....he ignores nature.Demonstrating that nature isn't his guide. His own subjective preconceptions are.

So much for 'objectivity')

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature doesn't say shit about preventing a sexually viable mammal from breeding.

An advocacy for Breeding on the basis of breeding viability?

LOL!

And let me just say, what a BRILLIANT point that was, just an hour after you spent SO much effort lamenting the evidence which established you as something shy of that which can rightly claim the status: Human.

ROFLMNAO! You can NOT make this crap up.

(Reader, just as an FYI: the natural laws governing human viability; which is to say the laws that promote a viable CIVILIZATION... preclude breeding at the point of sexual viability... .)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

'Civilization', huh? So what happened to nature?

What do ya mean what happened to nature... Civilization is a function of nature. Albeit a higher order. You'll find it well above your station in the natural order.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...my question regarding the predation of the sick, elderly or very young. This is most definitely part of nature.

So what separates humanity from the lower species who are sustained through the predation of the sick and weak?

Let me help ya through this... that would be the means to reason SOUNDLY... which is to say to reason OBJECTIVELY.

An example of that is found in the observed principles wherein we find "All men are created equal by God, thus all men are equally endowed with self-evident rights to their life..."

Now... Skylar, tell the board about the equal human rights to pursue the fulfillment of their life.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am a woman, steeped in dedication to whatever and I find myself having willfully engaged in coitus, which for some reason has resulted in a human life growing inside me... and to tell ya the truth... I'm sorta busy right now and the LAST thing I need is a kid.

From your point of view, what are my options?

(If you're too shy to get into this, I could easily go through the record of your daily drivel and cull from that, your well established position on this... and may still do so. I just thought I'd give you a chance to show the Reader, what a complete fuckin' idiot you truly are.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And THAT Reader is how THAT is done.

 

[rdean]

...my question regarding the predation of the sick, elderly or very young. This is most definitely part of nature.

So what separates humanity from the lower species who are sustained through the predation of the sick and weak?

Let me help ya through this... that would be the means to reason SOUNDLY... which is to say to reason OBJECTIVELY.

An example of that is found in the observed principles wherein we find "All men are created equal by God, thus all men are equally endowed with self-evident rights to their life..."

Now... Skylar, tell the board about the equal human rights to pursue the fulfillment of their life.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am a woman, steeped in dedication to whatever and I find myself having willfully engaged in coitus, which for some reason has resulted in a human life growing inside me... and to tell ya the truth... I'm sorta busy right now and the LAST thing I need is a kid.

From your point of view, what are my options?

(If you're too shy to get into this, I could easily go through the record of your daily drivel and cull from that, your well established position on this... and may still do so. I just thought I'd give you a chance to show the Reader, what a complete fuckin' idiot you truly are.)

What if you find an "already born" and they are hungry. Need help. Have been abused. Are sick. Do you only worry about the unborn? Once born, are they on their own?

 

[Skylar]

'Civilization', huh? So what happened to nature?

What do ya mean what happened to nature... Civilization is a function of nature. Albeit a higher order. You'll find it well above your station in the natural order.

So anything civilization does would be a product of nature? Or like 'nature', is it only only those things that reinforce what you already believe?

Laughing....all you've done is created a new opportunity for you to cherry pick based on your culture, history and personal context, my little relativist. With you ignoring any portion of 'civilization' that you don't like. And lauding any portion you do.

Just like you do nature. Just like you do the dictionary. Just like you do every 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy you've ever offered us.

Laughing.....and this you call 'objective'. You're nothing if not entertaining.

 

[Skylar]

...my question regarding the predation of the sick, elderly or very young. This is most definitely part of nature.

So what separates humanity from the lower species who are sustained through the predation of the sick and weak?

Ah. So since you don't like predation of the sick, the old, the young.....its not a natural law. Despite the fact that its well represented in nature.

Clearly 'observation of nature' isn't your standard. As you'll discard any portion of nature that doesn't match what you choose to believe. Your only standard is you. Citing you.

Which isn't objective. As you're nobody.

Let me help ya through this... that would be the means to reason SOUNDLY... which is to say to reason OBJECTIVELY.

And by 'reason objectively', you mean your standard shtick of stating your subjective opinion. And then merely call it objective.

You just ignored nature on 'natural law'. Don't bother claiming 'objectivity'. Its just you....citing you.

Subjective is not objective, keys. You can't get around that.

 

[Bfgrn]

You want tolerance and understanding from people like me for gays, right? You want for me not to be a bigot and treat gays equally. So, how you would launching a character assassination against me convince me to do that, with someone like you acting as their champion?

Gays want to escape the bigotry and intolerance they are subjected to, correct? Then why is it, when they have been liberated from such oppression, that they become the very thing they wished to escape from?

Very good and fair points.

I'm pro-gay marriage (actually I don't really give a shit, so by default that is "pro") but it's frustrating to see the Left resort to virtually nothing else but personal insults and name-calling on pretty much every issue. Surely, at some intellectual level, they must realize that treating people like that ("you're just a racist!") is only going to make things worse, yet they persist. It's like getting a child to stop doing something, they simply will not listen.

My theory is they're going to continue to behave like this under the assumption that demographics will do their work for them, that they don't really need to be decent and civil. I can see the strategy, I guess, but it still isn't a way to deal with people.
.

Good point, we really need to treat conservatives like children. They are not adults.

You and those like you are going to be nasty to those who disagree with you because that's just the way you are.

Which illustrates my point. I wouldn't expect you to change and become decent & civil. This is the way it's going to be.

.

Yea, if only liberals could embrace the right's bigotry, hate and dehumanizing...

You "claim" extremes" from both sides are the problem, but there is nothing the right can do or say that will draw your ire. No matter how vile, you attack people who find it appalling.

 

[Jroc]

You want tolerance and understanding from people like me for gays, right? You want for me not to be a bigot and treat gays equally. So, how you would launching a character assassination against me convince me to do that, with someone like you acting as their champion?

Gays want to escape the bigotry and intolerance they are subjected to, correct? Then why is it, when they have been liberated from such oppression, that they become the very thing they wished to escape from?

Very good and fair points.

I'm pro-gay marriage (actually I don't really give a shit, so by default that is "pro") but it's frustrating to see the Left resort to virtually nothing else but personal insults and name-calling on pretty much every issue. Surely, at some intellectual level, they must realize that treating people like that ("you're just a racist!") is only going to make things worse, yet they persist. It's like getting a child to stop doing something, they simply will not listen.

My theory is they're going to continue to behave like this under the assumption that demographics will do their work for them, that they don't really need to be decent and civil. I can see the strategy, I guess, but it still isn't a way to deal with people.
.

Good point, we really need to treat conservatives like children. They are not adults.

You and those like you are going to be nasty to those who disagree with you because that's just the way you are.

Which illustrates my point. I wouldn't expect you to change and become decent & civil. This is the way it's going to be.

.

Yea, if only liberals could embrace the right's bigotry, hate and dehumanizing...

You "claim" extremes" from both sides are the problem, but there is nothing the right can do or say that will draw your ire. No matter how vile, you attack people who find it appalling.

You spew talking points, if not for that, your mind would be completly empty.

 

[Mac1958]

You want tolerance and understanding from people like me for gays, right? You want for me not to be a bigot and treat gays equally. So, how you would launching a character assassination against me convince me to do that, with someone like you acting as their champion?

Gays want to escape the bigotry and intolerance they are subjected to, correct? Then why is it, when they have been liberated from such oppression, that they become the very thing they wished to escape from?

Very good and fair points.

I'm pro-gay marriage (actually I don't really give a shit, so by default that is "pro") but it's frustrating to see the Left resort to virtually nothing else but personal insults and name-calling on pretty much every issue. Surely, at some intellectual level, they must realize that treating people like that ("you're just a racist!") is only going to make things worse, yet they persist. It's like getting a child to stop doing something, they simply will not listen.

My theory is they're going to continue to behave like this under the assumption that demographics will do their work for them, that they don't really need to be decent and civil. I can see the strategy, I guess, but it still isn't a way to deal with people.
.

Good point, we really need to treat conservatives like children. They are not adults.

You and those like you are going to be nasty to those who disagree with you because that's just the way you are.

Which illustrates my point. I wouldn't expect you to change and become decent & civil. This is the way it's going to be.

.

Yea, if only liberals could embrace the right's bigotry, hate and dehumanizing...

You "claim" extremes" from both sides are the problem, but there is nothing the right can do or say that will draw your ire. No matter how vile, you attack people who find it appalling.

I think you embrace bigotry, hate and dehumanizing just fine without anyone's help.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...my question regarding the predation of the sick, elderly or very young. This is most definitely part of nature.

So what separates humanity from the lower species who are sustained through the predation of the sick and weak?

What does? The human ability to defy the laws of Nature.