What a retort to getting caught believing dumb lies again….this time with the most ironic lie I can fathom. Repeating the made up quote “Smart people learn from everything and everyone, average people from their experiences and stupid people already have all answers" Socrates” without ever trying to learn from anyone and thinking you have the answers because you read something you liked online. Someone should send this to Morissette as a example of actual irony.

Bwaaaahahahaha! Wrong again, quoting silly internet lies again, you utter moron. Once again you prove you think you have all the answers but in fact have absolutely zero knowledge or even an ability to learn.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/no-evidence-that-smart-people-quote-is-socrates/
It should have been a tip off that nowhere on the internet can you find where this quote is supposedly found. Sources for what Socrates said are quite limited,it would be simple to source if it were real.

Aaaaaaaaaaahahahaha….haaa….haaa…..aaaaaaahahahaha! You are such a laughing stock. It’s why I talk to you, you are always good for an unintentional laugh, you silly little fool.

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” You, sir, are the epitome, the personification of ignorance. Nice try, pretending you ever read what Plato wrote about Socrates.

Once again, I research and quote scholars, you quote a made up fridge magnet saying.


LMFAHS!!
None so blind as he who will not see.
We know you won’t see any crimes Trump committed, just like you can’t see racism even when you call black people “creatures” that could never live peacefully with humans. You are not a serious adult, and you act like a 3 year old who wasn’t taught to not lie, doesn’t know what morals or ethics are, and has the memory of a gnat.

YOU are a big nothing burger, bob. Your knowledge, nothing. Your ethics, nothing. Your morals, nothing. Your honesty…less than nothing.

Armed insurrection at the direct direction of the president isn’t a nothing burger to any American, only anti-democracy anti-Americans….you fit in that category firmly….a dishonest, fascist, blatantly and constantly racist blowhard that knows nothing and screams it loudly.

Multiple instances of witness tampering with records to prove it aren’t nothing burgers to those who believe in law and order, so you just admitted you’re pro criminality.

Defrauding the election isn’t a nothing burger to anyone who likes democracy, but we’re well aware you don’t like democracy at all.

Defrauding the courts 60+ times isn’t a nothing burger to anyone who likes law and order, which doesn’t include the criminal right anymore, you became anti law and order under Trump.

Maybe Republicans shouldn’t have boycotted the investigation, but you did. No one to blame for the lack of “balance” but yourselves. When the defense rests before opening statements, you can pretend that’s an unfair “trial” but it’s really just the defense being a nothing burger.
(and heads up you ignorant moron….this is not a trial, it’s an investigation looking for evidence of guilt to send to the DOJ…do you think criminals usually get to be part of the investigation? Shadowing investigators so they know exactly what investigators know before crafting their lies and hiding/destroying undiscovered evidence? That is why coconspirators were barred from the panel, it was blatantly obvious they only wanted to be there to disrupt, hinder, confuse, stymie, and discredit the investigation, and to report back to Trump on exactly what they know and exactly what they don’t know yet, helping him craft a lie that hasn’t been pre-contradicted.

Jesus, sometimes you are so dumb I’m shocked you remember to breath.

Lol. More “I’m rubber, you’re glue”. So grown up.
If I had all the answers, I wouldn’t ever need to do research that I cite, would I? But I do, I read 5 articles full of facts and one or two right wing alternate facts to learn a topic before writing.
Now, how much research and citation do you do? Absolutely none because you think you have all the answers, which is why you are proven wrong a dozen times a day and have never once posted correct statistics or facts. You listen to con man Trump or disgraced OAN and think you know it all.

ROTFLMFAHS!! You are such the pot calling the glass pitcher black. What a sad, delusional, frightened, dishonest little man you are.

Wow

a big nothing burger.

No crimes
no nothing.

Just a witch hunt to keep Trump from running in 2024.

not 1 person called to speak to challenge testimony So 1 sided
A kangaroo hearing at tax payers expense. A show trial of sorts.




Smart people learn from everything and everyone, average people from their experiences and stupid people already have all answers" Socrates

Newt - you fall in the last group

"You can insult, wound or even kill another person, but you can not damage his soul. You can only damage your own soul."


Socrates

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

Well that analogy doesn't hold up. No, I don't think detectives should have the moral latitude to dangle people off buildings.

But I'll tell you what the movement to police comedians' senses of humour really is: anti-intellectualism.

Like the parents groups who want to ban books with swearing, or sex scenes, or drug use from school libraries; like the SJeW vermin who want to dictate the design of videogames they don't have the skill to make for themselves; like the athenian jury who murdered Socrates: it's about idiots who are too stupid to understand or value art, and want anything they don't understand suppressed.

And something I just noticed...so you "NEVER" considered turning to an imaginary friend for help...not once? (And I am in the same boat as you are on that one my friend.) But oh that sounds funny...almost sounds like the fact that you cannot do with God under any circumstances, that would imply NEEDING a more logical faith than imaginary God. For you it is a must, no? Or do you not get the Socratic logic behind that "need" of yours?

But as you and Chaos said, you obviously choose this need of logic, so it is not a need at all? You can just walk away with help, as Chaos said, right?

So premise A, B, and C are all inconsequential, that I can give you. But if I give you that, then every piece of information we have is skewered and corrupted in some fashion (Regarding history, less so science such as global warming.) If we agree all information is corrupt, and significantly so, which is also a logical fact, then history in general is meaningless. So the study of history and "facts" is stupid. Not that I agree with Red, for I am more like Socrates.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. My opinions, while oft contrarian, are really just open ended processes without judgement or declaration. They are hardly even opinions, as I almost always simultaneously believe and hold dear multiple conflicting ideas about particular subjects. An enlightened doublethink as it were. Everything is a theory worth pondering. Thanks Socrates. Thanks for making me not know anything.

Now while tenure certainly holds clout, it can also blind us to the moments in time which were shorter but sweeter than any of the fine tuned complexities of empire. The Internet as we know it, with youtube and Facebook, for example, may be the fixture but I'll always think kindly upon those early 90s, when it was the awkward but mysterious world wide web.

So, cool, yay for fixtures, but I'm a founders man, not a member of the club after its maturity. The Thomas Paine -- Cool, the revolution is over, now fuck yo couch. Where's the next one?

Other examples where the fixture isn't necessarily the only method to decide value by: Van Halen's prolific career versus that first, highly exceptional, fast and heavy album. Or the short but sweet years Ronnie James Dio or Glenn Huges sang for Black Sabbath -- Ozzy is the fixture, but those short moments of time where something strange and magical was created with other diverse geniuses, prior to or after the bread winners, those are the moments of fascination.

I love Jon Stewart but this ain't no thang. My interest was already piqued and held years ago, before him. He's great though and far better than a single television show.

Socrates -- Consolation for Unpopularity has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

so, Socrates and Nietzsche walk into this tranny bar..

It's the panty-knotted cunts that piss us off the MOST! Self-important, self-indulgent, my-shit-never-stinks gimps.... "On the contrary, it smells like flowers and here's my circular, Socratic polemic to explain just how fucked you are compared to me."

Get a fucking room. Oh wait, you have one here!

FUCK YOU!

Only retarded white people (and perhaps a few uptight Canadians) have a problem with the word Negro, and they invented it!

Name a couple please? How many 'empty words' can you find in your statement here if it's broken-down in a Socratic fashion? Sounds more like an advert for some deodorant or corn chip, ACTually

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
-A. Crowley


"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
-Max Planck

About as sick of atheists trying to rationalize their point of view as I am Christians or Muslims, Zorasters or Svengalians trying to do the same through equally nefarious methodologies namely, Socratic method or tired, Platonic argument.

Get a box! Eat a peach! Enjoy the fucking ride for fucksake already !

All hail this woman and her joy in the midst of all the noise

@A10anis
while i do truly appreciate your change of tone,you fail to address that your original comment was smug and condescending.
which is what i was addressing.

and the word "ALL" is most certainly a blanket statement.

there are 4500 known religions (many defunct at present).
so maybe you can understand why i criticized your commentary as being overly generalized.

and i would also like to clarify a few things.
1.i find you to be an intelligent and insightful sifter.which is why i called you out.NOT to be an ass or to be confrontational but rather because i think you are a person who is better than your original comment.there are many i wouldnt have wasted my time on.

2.i am not a huge fan of organized religion.i have some serious issues with those highly influential institutions.

3.i actually agree with your basic premise:religion is control by use of fear.
so my issue with your original comment was not your basic premise but in its delivery.

4.dont be too quick to judge ALL religions solely based on doctrine and dogma.at its core religions are just human kind trying to make sense of reality and their place in it.religion is the beginnings of philosophy,and while it can be steeped in superstition and magic thinking,it has also offered some incredibly profound insights and understandings.
socrates,aristotle,plato..these were the beginnings of secular philosophy but before that? it was religion that tackled the big questions.

5.you really should watch the video.the book of enoch is...well..a bizarre apocryphal book.

anyways.i always enjoy your commentary and i hope you take my response with the humanity it was intended.