The religion of atheists is socialism

[danielpalos]

How can it be the word of god if he didn't write the book?

It is complicated. You wouldn't understand it.

So you're stumped. Got it.

No. You are intellectually challenged.

You have no answer so you call me a retard, did you learn that at church?

Don't be silly. I have an answer that you either will not be able to comprehend or if you did would fail to acknowledge it for some silly bullshit reason. Tell me how having that conversation makes sense?

nothing but diversion, like usual.

 

[danielpalos]

It is complicated. You wouldn't understand it.

So you're stumped. Got it.

No. You are intellectually challenged.

You have no answer so you call me a retard, did you learn that at church?

he never does. and, he knows socialism merely requires social morals for free.

I answer that in my signature line of every comment.

Your signature line is irrelevant due to a fallacy of composition.

Socialism starts with a social Contract like our very own, federal Constitution.

 

[Mudda]

How can it be the word of god if he didn't write the book?

It is complicated. You wouldn't understand it.

So you're stumped. Got it.

No. You are intellectually challenged.

You have no answer so you call me a retard, did you learn that at church?

Don't be silly. I have an answer that you either will not be able to comprehend or if you did would fail to acknowledge it for some silly bullshit reason. Tell me how having that conversation makes sense?

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[ding]

nothing but diversion, like usual.

No, that would have been you stating it was a diversion without really explaining how or why or what made it a diversion. Unlike you, I actually explained why having that conversation with that jack-a-nape made no sense. Now do you understand what a diversion looks like?

Your signature line is irrelevant due to a fallacy of composition.

Socialism starts with a social Contract like our very own, federal Constitution.

No. My signature line is relevant as the subject is socialism. Can you explain how my signature line is not relevant?

No. Socialism starts as a reaction.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

 

[ding]

It is complicated. You wouldn't understand it.

So you're stumped. Got it.

No. You are intellectually challenged.

You have no answer so you call me a retard, did you learn that at church?

Don't be silly. I have an answer that you either will not be able to comprehend or if you did would fail to acknowledge it for some silly bullshit reason. Tell me how having that conversation makes sense?

Your concession is duly noted.

You never fail to disappoint me in the low expectations I have for you. You consistently fail to meet them.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion, like usual.

No, that would have been you stating it was a diversion without really explaining how or why or what made it a diversion. Unlike you, I actually explained why having that conversation with that jack-a-nape made no sense. Now do you understand what a diversion looks like?

Your signature line is irrelevant due to a fallacy of composition.

Socialism starts with a social Contract like our very own, federal Constitution.

No. My signature line is relevant as the subject is socialism. Can you explain how my signature line is not relevant?

No. Socialism starts as a reaction.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

we have "limited liability" socialism and not "sole proprietor" socialism. the right wing likes to consider our form, capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion, like usual.

No, that would have been you stating it was a diversion without really explaining how or why or what made it a diversion. Unlike you, I actually explained why having that conversation with that jack-a-nape made no sense. Now do you understand what a diversion looks like?

Your signature line is irrelevant due to a fallacy of composition.

Socialism starts with a social Contract like our very own, federal Constitution.

No. My signature line is relevant as the subject is socialism. Can you explain how my signature line is not relevant?

No. Socialism starts as a reaction.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

i already told you in two different posts. were you not paying attention?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition. revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

 

[Mudda]

So you're stumped. Got it.

No. You are intellectually challenged.

You have no answer so you call me a retard, did you learn that at church?

Don't be silly. I have an answer that you either will not be able to comprehend or if you did would fail to acknowledge it for some silly bullshit reason. Tell me how having that conversation makes sense?

Your concession is duly noted.

You never fail to disappoint me in the low expectations I have for you. You consistently fail to meet them.

Your concession is still noted.

 

[ding]

nothing but diversion, like usual.

No, that would have been you stating it was a diversion without really explaining how or why or what made it a diversion. Unlike you, I actually explained why having that conversation with that jack-a-nape made no sense. Now do you understand what a diversion looks like?

Your signature line is irrelevant due to a fallacy of composition.

Socialism starts with a social Contract like our very own, federal Constitution.

No. My signature line is relevant as the subject is socialism. Can you explain how my signature line is not relevant?

No. Socialism starts as a reaction.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

i already told you in two different posts. were you not paying attention?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition. revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

No, you stated rhetoric without justification. You explained nothing because you know nothing.

Here is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism. It says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

How is my signature line a fallacy, Einstein?

 

[ding]

No. You are intellectually challenged.

You have no answer so you call me a retard, did you learn that at church?

Don't be silly. I have an answer that you either will not be able to comprehend or if you did would fail to acknowledge it for some silly bullshit reason. Tell me how having that conversation makes sense?

Your concession is duly noted.

You never fail to disappoint me in the low expectations I have for you. You consistently fail to meet them.

Your concession is still noted.

And you still don't disappoint me.

 

[Mudda]

You have no answer so you call me a retard, did you learn that at church?

Don't be silly. I have an answer that you either will not be able to comprehend or if you did would fail to acknowledge it for some silly bullshit reason. Tell me how having that conversation makes sense?

Your concession is duly noted.

You never fail to disappoint me in the low expectations I have for you. You consistently fail to meet them.

Your concession is still noted.

And you still don't disappoint me.

And I should care, why?

 

[ding]

Don't be silly. I have an answer that you either will not be able to comprehend or if you did would fail to acknowledge it for some silly bullshit reason. Tell me how having that conversation makes sense?

Your concession is duly noted.

You never fail to disappoint me in the low expectations I have for you. You consistently fail to meet them.

Your concession is still noted.

And you still don't disappoint me.

And I should care, why?

Because normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

 

[Mudda]

Your concession is duly noted.

You never fail to disappoint me in the low expectations I have for you. You consistently fail to meet them.

Your concession is still noted.

And you still don't disappoint me.

And I should care, why?

Because normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

Deviance according to you. Personally, I see religions as been very deviant. So who gets to choose?

 

[ding]

You never fail to disappoint me in the low expectations I have for you. You consistently fail to meet them.

Your concession is still noted.

And you still don't disappoint me.

And I should care, why?

Because normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

Deviance according to you. Personally, I see religions as been very deviant. So who gets to choose?

No. Deviance according to a standard. Who gets to choose? The person who identifies the highest standard. Anyone can challenge it. All they have to do is be able to identify a higher standard.

 

[Mudda]

Your concession is still noted.

And you still don't disappoint me.

And I should care, why?

Because normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

Deviance according to you. Personally, I see religions as been very deviant. So who gets to choose?

No. Deviance according to a standard. Who gets to choose? The person who identifies the highest standard. Anyone can challenge it. All they have to do is be able to identify a higher standard.

And you think that believing in an invisible superhero is the higher standard?

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion, like usual.

No, that would have been you stating it was a diversion without really explaining how or why or what made it a diversion. Unlike you, I actually explained why having that conversation with that jack-a-nape made no sense. Now do you understand what a diversion looks like?

Your signature line is irrelevant due to a fallacy of composition.

Socialism starts with a social Contract like our very own, federal Constitution.

No. My signature line is relevant as the subject is socialism. Can you explain how my signature line is not relevant?

No. Socialism starts as a reaction.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

i already told you in two different posts. were you not paying attention?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition. revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

No, you stated rhetoric without justification. You explained nothing because you know nothing.

Here is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism. It says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

How is my signature line a fallacy, Einstein?

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

 

[ding]

And you still don't disappoint me.

And I should care, why?

Because normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

Deviance according to you. Personally, I see religions as been very deviant. So who gets to choose?

No. Deviance according to a standard. Who gets to choose? The person who identifies the highest standard. Anyone can challenge it. All they have to do is be able to identify a higher standard.

And you think that believing in an invisible superhero is the higher standard?

Who said anything about an invisible superhero? We are left to discover the standard for ourselves. There is no one all encompassing standard. There is a standard for everything. For instance, it is wrong to end a human life for any reason is the highest standard. Can you think of one that is higher than that?

 

[ding]

nothing but diversion, like usual.

No, that would have been you stating it was a diversion without really explaining how or why or what made it a diversion. Unlike you, I actually explained why having that conversation with that jack-a-nape made no sense. Now do you understand what a diversion looks like?

Your signature line is irrelevant due to a fallacy of composition.

Socialism starts with a social Contract like our very own, federal Constitution.

No. My signature line is relevant as the subject is socialism. Can you explain how my signature line is not relevant?

No. Socialism starts as a reaction.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

i already told you in two different posts. were you not paying attention?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition. revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

No, you stated rhetoric without justification. You explained nothing because you know nothing.

Here is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism. It says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

How is my signature line a fallacy, Einstein?

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

 

[Mudda]

And I should care, why?

Because normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

Deviance according to you. Personally, I see religions as been very deviant. So who gets to choose?

No. Deviance according to a standard. Who gets to choose? The person who identifies the highest standard. Anyone can challenge it. All they have to do is be able to identify a higher standard.

And you think that believing in an invisible superhero is the higher standard?

Who said anything about an invisible superhero? We are left to discover the standard for ourselves. There is no one all encompassing standard. There is a standard for everything. For instance, it is wrong to end a human life for any reason is the highest standard. Can you think of one that is higher than that?

So by that standard, with all the wars waged and the guns owned and used by the US, the US citizenry isn't anywhere near a standard that would let them dictate a code of conduct to anyone. In other words, clean up your own garbage before trying to tell me what standards I'm not living up to.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion, like usual.

No, that would have been you stating it was a diversion without really explaining how or why or what made it a diversion. Unlike you, I actually explained why having that conversation with that jack-a-nape made no sense. Now do you understand what a diversion looks like?

Your signature line is irrelevant due to a fallacy of composition.

Socialism starts with a social Contract like our very own, federal Constitution.

No. My signature line is relevant as the subject is socialism. Can you explain how my signature line is not relevant?

No. Socialism starts as a reaction.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

i already told you in two different posts. were you not paying attention?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition. revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

No, you stated rhetoric without justification. You explained nothing because you know nothing.

Here is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism. It says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

How is my signature line a fallacy, Einstein?

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

is self-evident Truth, not sufficient evidence for the fantastical, right wing?

appealing to the masses, is also usually considered a fallacy.