Lol. That's the funniest shit I've read all day.

Your and my definition of destroy must be very different.

It was YOUR contention that any argument "followed" rather than preceded. If you don't want to be held to a claim, don't make it. Funny, that's the same as any good atheist would argue.

I wrote "any coherent arguments". I was quite specific. His "arguments" are a rambling stream of consciousness with a few statements that don't support any ideas to form a coherent argument.

Now here's where you fucked up big time: "you Trump supporters". Get ready to eat a bag of dicks because you got that wrong. I'm not. Buy them here https://www.amazon.com/Bag-Of-Dicks-Sent-Anonymously/dp/B01GKEUY1Y

"when given a cogent argument" bwhahahahahaaha. Yeah, he's not cogent.

"against your claims" bwahahahaahahaa. What claims did I make (besides Jim Jefferies not presenting an argument)?

" you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"" Bwhahahahahaa. This doesn't cover your mistake. You made a claim. I held you to it and pointed out that even if I didn't hold you to it you'd still fail. You're the one focusing on that point.

"when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit." Bwhahahaahahaa. Except they didn't. You can say it's a cogent argument but that doesn't make it true. FFS I provided the transcript - it's right above - with no coherent/cogent arguments in it. I'll give the concession here that your standard for cogent/coherent may be lower than mine. "the excellent retort" is not excellent. It's a great example of someone with not much to say. It's verbal diarrhoea of someone who can't immediately think of a good retort.

Get over it mate. Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian who doesn't present any good arguments in this discourse. He's great at shutting down his opponents by cutting them off with vitriol and bullshit but that's about it.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a dick. Lol, how handy, you can add him to the bag your eating.

This segment is so short that unless you go and watch the whole thing (which I haven't) you're basically making an educated guess about what they're even arguing about.

I don't know why you're so desperate for Jim to be right. Every argument against Trump and his policies is not automatically cogent, coherent, correct, etc., even if one hates him.

Lastly, Godwin's law. He loses.

PS - This is getting boring. Unless you can assure me that you're non-partisan, and follow through with it in your arguments, I'm not willing to further discuss this with a proverbial pigeon.

Sorry for a wall of repeated text, I tire of my replies being erased without being read.....

newtboy says...


Let me be clear about how those you lambast see it......

Forcefully nominating Clinton was the single action that made the most difference in interfering with stopping Trump. It gave him more votes than he earned himself. His entire campaign was "if not me, you get Clinton" and that argument won him the election.
The DNC is responsible for that action...and to a lesser extent her supporters like you that put blinders on to her innumerable flaws and the vitriolic hatred against her and chose her over a probable winner with a penis. Once it was clear they cheated to help her, it was over for her. She was not going to get enough Sanders votes no matter what anyone said, she just raped them of their primary vote, losing their election vote in the process.
THAT is a stone cold fact.

She could never have won...she's just too despised by the right, and they (clearly) act on their anger. You should have pushed for Warren instead of Clinton if it was just a genital thing for you. Even if she had won, we would have lost. She would (continue to) be a lightning rod for right wing hatred, and the obstructionism of the Obama administration would look like heaven compared to the division she would foster.

But you don't read or listen. You'll probably just erase this like every other post....so perhaps I'll copy it on my page so you can't.

Grow up.




bareboards2 said:

Let me be clear about something.

We are only responsible for our own actions. We are not responsible for other people's actions. We cannot change them.

We live in the present. Not the past.

So we choose for ourselves what we do now.

Donald Trump should not be President.

Every action taken that interfered with stopping Trump means that a choice was made in that present moment to help him.

That is a stone cold fact.



1 second ago

up0down












newtboy says...

And that's why you lost. You don't listen....you instruct and then shame as if you're their mom and they owe you a duty to obey. You aren't, they don't.
Sanders lost because of underhanded collusion between the DNC and Clinton. He may have lost without that cheating...we'll never know. When she and her subordinates cheated...they lost the election right then.
My support or lack thereof made not a whit of difference, she won California.....and my ballot had her name marked (even if not by my own hand) just so she might also win the popular vote...so you're totally barking up the wrong tree. In the end, I found her the lesser of 2 evils and 4 unqualified....but she was SO unacceptable to so many that the one that was both evil and unqualified won, because SHE drove his voters to the polls in record numbers, an argument I made in February as to why she was the WORST choice.
That is the truth, a truth I pointed out 8-9 months back when there was still a chance.
Independent Sanders supporters told you to support him, not the hated, smarmy, dishonest, under FBI investigation, baggage handler that tied Trump in polls at best. He was the democratic candidate that CRUSHED him in all polls, and you didn't support him or support the rule of law/election rules, and Trump is president. See how that's 100% YOUR fault and not theirs?....probably not, you don't read replies or accept responsibility for your own actions, because that would be acting too much like an adult.
Sweet zombie Jesus.




bareboards2 said:

I didn't read it, @newtboy.

Grow up. Sanders lost. You and others like your threw a hissy fit.

Trump is president because you didn't listen to Sanders.

That is the bald faced truth.

Sanders told you to support her and you didn't.

And Trump is President.

This is your responsibility.



1 second ago

Then you haven't encountered any of his fans on twitter.

And he is pretty much the largest and most 1:1 example the above video is referencing: He uses specious arguments, focuses on minor details or extreme examples to paint with a massive brush, and generally is more vitriol than skepticism.

And the difference between Sarkeesian making videos critiquing and thunderf00t is myriad: Sarkeesian focuses on depictions and media, thunderf00t focuses on indviduals and a very amorphous idea of "feminism" with videos like "Why feminism is poisoning atheism", "Why 'feminism' poisons EVERYTHING", all pretty much completely obsessed with Sarkeesian and Rebecca Watson.

That's not skepticism.. that's a creepy personal vendetta.

The other major difference are their fans. I don't recall Sarkeesian ever taking out a personal vendetta against a random person and suggesting her fans bombard their business on Yelp with bad reviews and then people on the doxxing boards of 8chan joined in the online attacks.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/25/1439148/-Phil-Mason-is-Working-With-Baphomet-to-Ruin-DC-Business

I mean, it's not quite as simple as "one person makes videos critiquing, another makes videos critiquing". But I feel like you probably already knew that.

The "fun" thing, as well: These people are able to monetize their targeting of individuals through YouTube ad share/crowdfunding and have incredibly vitriolic fan base that will wage war against their favorite YouTuber's targets in a myriad of ways... so you get what is, essentially, the "professional victimizer".

http://boingboing.net/2015/01/14/how-crowdfunding-helps-haters.html

Yeah, keep changing the topic and ignoring my statements.
Ours is not a pure secular democracy, even though it was intended to be one, so not as different from a theocracy as you suggest by far. (that does not mean there's no difference, it means you imply they are near opposites) Perhaps if the clear intent of the founders was the rule, we would be, but it's not.

Try having a religious discussion in the deep south as an atheist and see if you don't feel at risk for your life. In public, maybe surviveable, but get religious people together where they feel 'safe', you'll see the bile and vitriol for the 'other' come out in spades. Hitchens knew full well it was not gone, and that the 'other' was not safe, and that religion doesn't always wear the smiley face even today.
Bye.

That would be great, who should I speak to about changing that culture of ours?

As far as letting people fly, I never said I agree with it. I was referring to it because President Obama used it as an example. I said, somewhat sarcastically, that it wasn't a constitutional right. I never said we SHOULD ban people from flying.

I absolutely do not think we should limit a person's ability to travel based on an arbitrary list, especially since this incident pretty much proves that it doesn't necessarily stop terrorists. If a gun ban was in place, the shooter would still have been able to get weapons because he was removed from the list for some unknown (as of yet) reason.

Yes, in hindsight the Patriot Act should never have been passed. That is one of the main points of what I have been saying. We are in a crisis situation and people are knee-jerking the way they did after 9/11. Do we really need to have our government pass the Patriot Act Part Deux?

I understand the anger, the sadness, even the rage we all are feeling right now because of this incident. I've tried to remain relatively calm and not release vitriol on anyone I've replied to. I'm sure that I might have angered quite a few by not caving on my stance, but I refuse to back down because someone is pissed at me. I am not a member of the NRA. I am a fiscal conservative, a constitutionalist, and yet still a liberalist when it comes to personal life styles or choices. I've voted Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian. I think the fact that Paul Ryan ignored a possible discussion on gun laws is a bunch of horseshit. We should be able to at least talk about things, even if we might not agree with each other.

Thanks!

And i completely agree. I've heard people who i would otherwise consider intelligent get completely caught up with Trump.

One telling me they admire how he speaks his mind.

This is incredible to me. When not spewing vitriol and racist bile, he is altering his position, often radically entirely dependent on who he is speaking to.

The guy would come out as anti-puppy if he thought it would get people to like him.

I can't stand SvB nay-sayers anymore!

We get it... you're pretentious whiny dick-nerds who couldn't recognize a decent movie if it hit you in the face, and who love to shit on Zack Snyder

The movie is absolutely fine (with the exception of a few things).

The fact that it has a much lower fresh rating in Rotten Tomatoes than "The Room" (the Tommy Wiseau one), should be more than enough evidence to show just how fucking stupid the vitriol for this movie has become.

@ChaosEngine

i do not see anyone here defending anything.

now maybe we can view stephen's commentary "dismissive and belittling" as @entr0py pointed out,but i think the deeper issue was prefaced quite succinctly by stephen in his characterization of american,and western societies,as being "infantilized".

where words have become the final bastion of totality in communication and are judged strictly on a word by word basis.so much so that some on the left have been pushing harder and harder to have certain words removed from our lexicon,because they represent negative thoughts/feelings/actions or they may represent a trauma,or horrific violent memory for some people.

but this is the wrong approach.
excising words will not erase those feelings/thoughts/emotions.this will just force people to come up or use different terminology to express those feelings/thoughts.actions that once had words to at least to attempt to express those horrors and/or offenses.

which will just equate to a whole new slew of verbiage being found offensive and in dire need of being castrated from our collective vocabulary.

yet the left (extreme left i grant) appears hell bent on not only attempting to control speech but to also judge those who DO use speech that they find offensive.

this is censorship with prejudice and to claim otherwise is the lie.

just look at your first comment.
you "used" to like stephen fry's opinion,until he became callous and dismissive with what?

words.

but do you REALLY think his attitude and compassion towards those who have suffered emotional trauma is truly dismissive?

well..i do not think so.i have spoken to you enough times to have a modicum of understandings in regards to you,as a person,that you have far more depth of character.

yet it is the WORDS that have hung you up.

look man,words are inert.they are things that are only given life,meaning and context when we add our own subjectivity to them.

words are inadequate.they will ALWAYS be inadequate.
which is why we admire and praise those of us who have a command of words that can reach into our own understandings and extract meaning in a way that blossoms like a spring flower and can create worlds in which we can play,and even share with other people.

i am intimately aware of this deficiency.i do not have an economy of words,and only on rare occasions can i relay,convey and express with ANY form of reductionism.

i struggle to express not only my opinion,but the intent,humanity and compassion of my opinion.

if the extreme left gets their way,the tools we have to express ourselves becomes lesser.

and in the process,WE become lesser.because the tools for dissent,debate,discussion and even..ironically..to expose the more venal and bigoted of our society,will have been reduced to words that offend nobody.

there is danger here,and no good will come from it.no matter if the intent sounds just and the goal compassionate.

freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity.

so while we have a right to free speech.
we do not have a right to not be offended,and maybe we need to be offended sometimes.to shake us from our own self-induced apathy and our adoration of digital hallucinations.

so when the westboro baptist church says the most hateful,vitriolic and disgusting admonishments,all in the name of god.
we can be offended by them,and then ridicule them relentlessly.

would stripping words from the english language prevent this group from espousing their own brand of hate?

of course not.they would just find new words.

so what do we do then?
make words illegal?
criminally libel?

so don't judge mr fry too harshly.
he is just pointing to the dangers of controlling speech and the new trend of the perpetually offended.

the extreme right attempts to control morality,and there is serious danger in that practice.
the extreme left attempts to control how we communicate,and hence how we interact,and there is great danger in that as well.

That idea came directly from ahimsa, (who I've been going back and forth with all day) who specifically said today that convincing people to adopt veganism is about 'social justice'.
I'm sincerely sorry if I attributed that sentiment to you inappropriately.

What I find insulting is the sudden influx of a number of vocal, shaming, guilt spreading vegans here trying to make everyone think just like they do or else feel ashamed and like they're terrible, evil, abusive people...or unthinking idiots. I'll only speak for myself, but I don't want to see that here.
You're welcome to your opinion, and welcome to share it, but when you start telling other people what THEY should or must do/feel/think, you've crossed a line into social justice warrioring, and I'll rail against it every time I notice that happen. When you add multiple propaganda links, the bile will build quickly.

I read the update. It gave some insight to your thought process, but didn't solve my issue.
You're mistaken, and it seemed a bit narcissistic, to think everyone that doesn't agree with you must just be naïve and has never considered this subject thoughtfully. The anger stems from THAT (apparent) insulting thought, not from some internal logic struggle about loving some animals and eating others (or maybe loving AND eating some), it's anger at people telling others how to think, how to act, how to feel, how to eat....and vitriol when the reasoning behind that direction comes from questionable at BEST, completely discredited at worst, internet propaganda posing as science. THAT is a big pet peeve of mine, no matter what the subject may be, and I've been dealing with it all day long.
It may have been inappropriate to lump you in with him, again I apologize if the complaint didn't fit.

Not exactly.
Yes, most other politicians are liars (although I have yet to see a single charge of lying stick to Bernie) but Trump is head and shoulders above others in this one respect.
Just look to his 'victory speech' where he brought out Trump water, wine, steak, magazine, etc., each and every one of which turned out to be a fraud. Why do that? It's INSANE, making up easily fact checked lies to show how successful you are? WTF?!?
Or just look at his book, where he clearly tells you that his 'success in business' comes from hyper exaggeration and outright lies to trick people into deals with him, reneging on deals once he gets what he wants out of them, and attacking anyone that brings up his past lies or promises with such vitriol and outrageous threats that they invariably just go away rather than have any further dealings with him. That's not success at business, that's success at douchebaggery.

So yes, most others also lie, but no where near at the level or consistency we see from Trump. If he tells you something about ANYTHING, it's at least an 80% chance that the opposite of what he told you is the actual truth. That is a large difference from 'any other politician who tries to get your vote'.

I agree it's not so much a reflection of Hillary that some underlings do this, but it is a reflection of each candidate how they handle it when it comes to light. As far as I can tell, she has done nothing about this...which is the same story for almost every other candidate that's had a supporter cause a 'scandal'. Oddly, the only one I've heard publicly rebuke a supporter and fire them was Cruz, who's campaign has been one of the worst, least truthful, and most vitriolic of any besides Trump.
Things aren't looking good for us politically, the only good choice is rapidly evaporating in favor of a 'the lesser of two evils' kind of choice.

OK, since again you are going to continue to comment to and about me after asking me to ignore you (so I can't read your lies to reply to them), I logged out, read them, and now I'll comment back.

BULLSHIT! You had a shit fit for days when I downvoted a video you posted and it went to the bottom of 'new and upcoming videos', and you cried censorship over and over and claimed it had been removed because you couldn't find your own video. You complained to dag and lucky repeatedly, and tried to have me banned for erasing your video (which never happened, you were just too lazy or incapable to look for it, and continued complaining for days after multiple people pointed out you were 100% wrong and showed you where your video was).

No single political opinion is solicited here, so even the suggestion that those matching yours might be sought out by the admins to make it 'fair and balanced' for you shows a clear lack of understanding of the site and the world in general. At least you understand it won't happen.

As to your specious claim (based on a fox new poll or nothing at all?) that there are more conservatives than liberals in America, it's ridiculous, and easily contradicted with actual facts....for instance, the 2015 Gallup poll said "PRINCETON, N.J. -- Thirty-one percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999."...so even SELF identified liberals match self identified conservatives, if you go by actual political leanings on issues, there's no contest, 'liberals' outweigh 'conservatives' 3-1 (+-).
"Liberals" as you and the rest of the far right define them are clearly the majority view in America. Actual statistics follow:
Those in favor of reproductive choice >50%, anti choice<44%. 78% of Americans want Citizens United overturned. 70% of Americans don't want Social Security cut, 65% want it expanded. The same goes for wanting more financial regulations on banks and wall street, taxing the extremely rich at higher rates, adopting true single payer health care, doing public projects and works, having a standing army (yes, that's a liberal idea...as the army is a socialist program), etc. Those consistently holding "conservative" viewpoints across the board are an extremely small minority, contrary to how many people self identify.
"Conservatives" may hold a majority there in the Fox bubble, but in the real world they are a minority, consistently ridiculed for their total lack of knowledge about the things they complain about and for basing their backwards stances on 'truthiness' rather than fact, especially by those in other countries.

Now, once again, for the umpteenth time, I'll ask you kindly to "ignore" me just like you asked me to ignore you. It's pretty infantile to ask someone to ignore you so you can continue to publicly talk crap about and contradict them without fear that they'll respond...and I find that methodology typical of 'conservatives' that refuse to live by the rules they angrily insist everyone else must live by.
You really don't want me focusing on you in anger, which will happen if I'm forced to un-ignore you and re-engage because you can't quit me. Just stop and quit it, or no complaints when I re-engage with vigor and vitriol.

What exactly did Scalia do that is so horrible people feel the need to shit on him after he is dead? Serious question. Because, from what I can tell from the comments on the Internet, it consists mostly of "I didn't agree with what he said so he should burn in hell."

Fuck that noise. That's partisan bullshit, the same kind the Republicans are pulling now (saying they won't allow any legislation to pass until Obama is out of office).

The man was a human being. He was a brilliant legal scholar. He viewed the law from a particular perspective and stayed true to that perspective until the very end. No, I don't agree with a lot of the arguments he made, but I do agree with some of them, like the argument that video games are a form of speech protected by the Constitution (read the majority ruling that he wrote for that case, it is brilliant).

As has been pointed out, he couldn't do jack shit without getting a majority opinion from the other justices on the court. And I've never read a legal opinion of his that wasn't grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the law. I don't need to agree with his interpretations to recognize them valid.

So again I ask, what did he do that was so atrocious that it warrants the hatred that's being direct at him. If it were Donald Rumsfeld or George Bush Jr., people who can (and should) be seen as directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, maybe I could understand the vitriol.

It's amusing how cruel people can unwittingly be (on YouTube) making fun of the elderly man being sucked into the sea to die and their misplaced vitriol at the disabled person who is unable to help. It's not so much that an old guy almost died and a crippled person couldn't do anything; it's the the irony in the comments due to people not knowing the truth. Then again, maybe it could also be a skit like the disabled fat guy from Little Britain?

Certainly, it is funny, despite the cruelty in laughing at other people's misery. It could be a gag in an Adam Sandler movie, except the old guy would be Bob Barker and he'd be pulled out to sea and heard cursing as he drifts and blinks out in the sunset. *Plink!*

Everyone would laugh and then Adam Sandler would kiss a blond woman, probably Drew Barrymore, while the sun sets and we do the Looney Tunes fade out, with Porky Pig interrupting with a hand gesture, "A bi-di-a-bi-di-a-bi-di-abi-di-that's all folks!"