|
|
| Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals (1113782) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 23 of 24 |
||
|
| (1172561) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 04:41:51 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Edwards! on Wed Apr 9 23:08:50 2014. he's caught up in the Leviathan spell??? |
|
|
| (1172562) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 04:44:09 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Edwards! on Wed Apr 9 23:18:05 2014. I see a lot of yammering in your post, but what I don't see is a definition of "god."Obviously, I can't address your specific beliefs until you tell me what they are; if I debunk a common religious claim, you'll just move the goalposts and declare you don't believe that claim because that's just an attempt by man to prank call God and blah blah blah. Define "god." Then we talk. |
|
|
| (1172563) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 04:45:16 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 03:28:01 2014. "There is evidence?" You won't commit to the idea that it is?What evidence, and why don't you find it convincing enough to declare my pocket dimension nonexistent? |
|
|
| (1172565) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 05:05:20 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 04:35:46 2014. And.it shouldn't be that hard for you to produce the proof you claim you have...right? |
|
|
| (1172566) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 05:06:15 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 04:35:46 2014. I have been reading your posts and now I'm sure you don't observe Lent.It's fun. Good for weight loss. |
|
|
| (1172567) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 05:07:38 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 05:05:20 2014. You need to define "god" before we can talk about it. |
|
|
| (1172568) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 05:09:43 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 05:06:15 2014. I have been reading your posts and now I'm sure you don't observe Lent.Nope. Any particular reason why I should? It's fun. I'll take your word for it. Good for weight loss. My weight is healthy already, thank you. Or is this one of those OTChat in-jokes I'm not getting? |
|
|
| (1172569) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 05:23:49 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 05:09:43 2014. No joke.There are no inside jokes here. I will be eating halibut on Friday in observance. |
|
|
| (1172572) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 05:37:30 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 04:38:01 2014. LOL!That's rich. Precisely the response I was expecting..even After I told you Everything that needed to be told,including definitions. The fact that you didn't understand sheads a glaring light on what's missing from your life. This is the hallmark of the humanist. You seem to have all the right answers to satisfy the nonbelievers...but seem to be wrong at every turn. |
|
|
| (1172578) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:12:05 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 05:07:38 2014. What is there to talk about?You have "information" that can support your argument..yet you double talk your way out of it by trying to be witty? If you seriously want to "talk about it"..stop trying to dictate terms to me.You will find,in THIS thing here..i take very seriously. |
|
|
| (1172579) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:13:54 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 04:36:05 2014. Again with this double talk?c'mon man. |
|
|
| (1172580) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:17:34 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 04:40:32 2014. LOL!Why dont You present your evidence you say you had that he doesn't exist? |
|
|
| (1172581) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Thu Apr 10 07:21:07 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:12:05 2014. I have trying for a week to point this out about him....I see others finally see it too. |
|
|
| (1172582) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Thu Apr 10 07:22:34 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 05:09:43 2014. You obviously don't get lunch or others here. Its a regular conversation here. |
|
|
| (1172583) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Thu Apr 10 07:22:47 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 05:09:43 2014. You obviously don't get Luch or others here. Its a regular conversation here. |
|
|
| (1172584) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Thu Apr 10 07:23:24 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 05:23:49 2014. I don't do lent either and i am catholic. |
|
|
| (1172585) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 07:29:44 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Thu Apr 10 07:23:24 2014. if you don't do Lent, you're not a Catholic. |
|
|
| (1172586) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:33:37 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 04:44:09 2014. Yup..and THAT IS EXACTLY what Im getting from You..blah blah blah.Like all humanist/atheist..you NEED to PROVE he DOESN'T exist. I,on the other hand,see no reason to since his "handiwork" is all around us.the fact that we are multifaceted creatures,operating on multiple levels of existence,both inside on a quantum level and out tells me all I need to know.the FACT that YOU cannot understand this,and and rely on SCIENCE to define YOU.. Science is My THING..I LOVE IT...but I also understand that SCIENCE is another tool..A GIFT to be used to HELP MAN..A tool that MAN KIND has twisted. we can always talk..and believe me,its all good. |
|
|
| (1172587) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:38:10 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Thu Apr 10 07:21:07 2014. yeah..I see he tries to use that as a device to engage.take control..dominate..a conversation. too bad that doesn't work here. |
|
|
| (1172615) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 10 08:29:52 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:38:10 2014. It doesn't take long for others to realize that trying to be witty isn't going to cut it. I knew this about him immediately. |
|
|
| (1172616) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 10 08:30:16 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 07:29:44 2014. Oh well. |
|
|
| (1172644) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 09:44:24 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 04:45:16 2014. This is getting absurd. By your argument, in the year 1800 the theory of special relativity would have been false because there was no evidence it was true. |
|
|
| (1172647) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 10 09:53:32 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 09:44:24 2014. This is getting absurd.Yes, I pointed that out days ago. |
|
|
| (1172648) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 09:58:55 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 10 09:53:32 2014. Indeed you did. I was trying to have a much narrower discussion about the role of science but it's not working either. :) |
|
|
| (1172655) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 10 10:48:08 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 09:44:24 2014. Wow. So because there were no telescopes with sufficient range before Copernicus, Aristotle's geocentrism was true back then, too?Guess Nilet doesn't believe in physical laws. Or is this a new branch of the theory of relativity, called anachronistic recursion? |
|
|
| (1172662) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 11:03:05 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 10 10:48:08 2014. So because there were no telescopes with sufficient range before Copernicus, Aristotle's geocentrism was true back then, too?I understand Nilet to be saying that, if there is absolutely no evidence to support a statement, then science considers the statement to be false. There probably was some evidence to support heliocentrism before Copernicus, so even if I am understanding Nilet correctly you might be going too far. |
|
|
| (1172669) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Apr 10 11:17:08 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 03:29:36 2014. There is considerable evidence that there is no external force modifying the laws of the universe. |
|
|
| (1172673) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Thu Apr 10 11:36:31 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by cortelyounext on Wed Apr 9 10:08:14 2014. |
|
|
| (1172684) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 12:24:57 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Apr 10 11:17:08 2014. I agree.Or if I were picky, I would say there is considerable evidence that there is no external force modifying the laws of the universe in any observable or significant way. In my picky mode I would say that some water could have been turned into wine 2,000 years ago, or a body could have disappeared without a trace at that time, without leaving any evidence of violation of the laws of the universe behind that are currently measurable. :) |
|
|
| (1172686) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 12:25:56 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 05:23:49 2014. I prefer salmon myself. |
|
|
| (1172687) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 12:26:49 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 05:37:30 2014. Funny, I don't see any definitions in your post.Define "god." Define "religion." Define "spiritual" or "spirituality." If you won't define your terms, then you're basically spouting gibberish. |
|
|
| (1172688) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 12:28:36 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:12:05 2014. Asking you to define your terms is a simple obvious question. It's not double-talk, nor any attempt to be witty, and it's certainly not trying to "dictate terms."If I started acting all smug and superior because I knew about glarb and you didn't, your obvious first question would be "define glarb." |
|
|
| (1172689) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 12:30:14 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 10 08:29:52 2014. Right. The guy who throws a screaming tantrum and declares he can't be bothered to read my argument agrees with the guy who precludes any chance of an argument by using made-up words and refusing to tell me what they mean.Absurd, but unsurprising. |
|
|
| (1172690) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 12:30:59 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:38:10 2014. Right. I'm trying to "dominate" a conversation by asking what you mean. |
|
|
| (1172691) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 12:31:42 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:13:54 2014. You refer to an example. Which one is not clear. Please link it.These are not complex or unclear requests. |
|
|
| (1172692) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 12:33:57 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:17:34 2014. Why dont You present your evidence you say you had that he doesn't exist?(a) Look up "burden of proof;" if you make a claim, you are obliged to prove it. (b) I can't provide any evidence for or against "god" until you tell me what that term means (to you). First define "god" (since your use of the term differs from the other people in this thread). Then offer the evidence that he/she/it/they exist. |
|
|
| (1172694) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 10 12:41:57 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 12:30:14 2014. Think what you want, but remember, the joke is on YOU. |
|
|
| (1172695) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 12:42:16 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 10 07:33:37 2014. Like all humanist/atheist..you NEED to PROVE he DOESN'T exist.That's just not how it works. If you assert that an entity exists, you are obliged to prove it; you can't demand other people prove it doesn't. I,on the other hand,see no reason to since his "handiwork" is all around us. OK, you got me. I created the universe. I wasn't going to admit it, but as you noted, my handiwork is all around us. As your creator, I expect you to praise me by posting: "All hail Nilet (and all of its affiliates and subsidiaries). May its stock price never drop below 65/ in open trading." the fact that we are multifaceted creatures,operating on multiple levels of existence,both inside on a quantum level and out tells me all I need to know.the FACT that YOU cannot understand this,and and rely on SCIENCE to define YOU.. OK, let me dissect this bit here. (a) The term "multiple levels of existence" is undefined. (b) Flagrant misuse of the word "quantum." (c) Declaration that I "can't understand this." Well it would help if you would define your terms. (d) Declaring I "rely on science to define me," which is not a particularly clear statement; I know you're not big on defining terms but you might want to explain what that means too. |
|
|
| (1172697) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 12:44:20 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 10 12:41:57 2014. You can say that all you like but it still won't be true.You're the one who threw a screaming tantrum and declared you refused to read my argument simply because you didn't have a reasonable response to it— and Spider-Pig posted exactly that, so don't try to claim it couldn't be done. |
|
|
| (1172699) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 10 13:04:03 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 12:44:20 2014. I don't read it because YOU posted it. I lost all respect for your posts long ago. Even if you had something good to say, it's lost as because the way you post and participate. Others are noticing too, so it's not just me.So you can think what you want, be as smug as you want, be as witty as you want, and if you need that for satisfaction of your ego, so be it, as it doesn't matter to me, as I can't take anything you post seriously anymore. |
|
|
| (1172700) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 13:04:55 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 09:44:24 2014. OK, let me see if I can make it clearer.If there is no evidence for an extraordinary claim, we call it "false." If there is substantial evidence, we call it "true." However, in science nothing can ever be absolutely proven— we can say something is "true" or "false" based on the evidence available, but always with the understanding that new evidence might force us to change our opinion later. So if someone proposed special relativity in the year 1800 without providing the evidence, people would be justified in calling it false with the understanding that they would be obliged to change their opinion when future evidence was uncovered. Once said evidence was uncovered, they would thus change their belief and call it true. Defining "true" and "false" by what objectively is or isn't independent of human experience is not particularly useful since we never have direct access to that. As such, the terms are generally defined as referring to what is and isn't supported by the available evidence. So it would be correct to call the existence of my pocket dimension "false" with the understanding that you would be obliged to change that opinion if I physically transported you to it and proved it was true. Calling relativity false in 1800 would be wrong, but it wouldn't be a misuse of the term "false." The religious extreme of "absolute truth that may never be questioned" is just as absurd as the scientific straw man of "can never really believe anything anyway." According to science, we're expected to hold provisional beliefs that we may assert with varying degrees of confidence based on the available evidence, but always with the understanding that future evidence might force us to reconsider. Think about a criminal jury— they have to evaluate the evidence and make a decision that "the defendant committed the crime he is accused of" is true or false. They can't ever be absolutely certain; if we demanded that, they'd never be able to prove the defendant even exists let alone whether he did what he was accused of. After weighing the evidence, they make a determination, and state it as true. They don't bother adding "...based on the available evidence, and subject to revision if new evidence is uncovered," because unless you're talking about a tautology, that part is simply assumed. Right here, you referred to a rumour as "false" without qualifying the term; you didn't say "rumour that the evidence suggests is false" or "rumour that we believe is false until further evidence is uncovered." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that at some point in your life, you asserted something to be true or false, were proven wrong, and adjusted your belief accordingly, so you must understand the concept. |
|
|
| (1172702) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 13:09:18 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 11:03:05 2014. I understand Nilet to be saying that, if there is absolutely no evidence to support a statement, then science considers the statement to be false.That's pretty much it, though it's wrong to think of science as some abstract entity. It being the best tool we have to determine whether something is true or false, if it says one or the other there's no reason not to agree with it— said agreement, of course, being just as provisional as any other empirical belief. ...so even if I am understanding Nilet correctly you might be going too far. This is the guy who thinks ending apartheid resulted in communism and genocide of white people. By Olog standards, deliberately misinterpreting what I say to reach an absurd conclusion isn't going very far at all. |
|
|
| (1172703) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 13:10:52 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 10 09:53:32 2014. If you're ready to discuss the concept of white privilege like an adult instead of throwing a screaming tantrum and declaring you can't be bothered to read my arguments, I'm still willing. |
|
|
| (1172706) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 13:14:37 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 13:04:55 2014. So if someone proposed special relativity in the year 1800 without providing the evidence, people would be justified in calling it false with the understanding that they would be obliged to change their opinion when future evidence was uncovered.OK, I would disagree. I think the appropriate term would have been something like "completely unsubstantiated." And in the post you reference, there was in fact extensive evidence that the allegation was untrue. So it is not an analagous situation. |
|
|
| (1172709) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 13:20:51 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 12:24:57 2014. I guess you're simply pickier than I am.Due to the way quantum physics works (based on my albeit limited understanding) it is possible for an object to essentially teleport a short distance entirely on its own. The odds against this happening are so huge we'd probably need to invent a new form of notation just to write down the number, but the odds are technically not zero. I'm perfectly willing to declare that "impossible." |
|
|
| (1172712) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 13:27:52 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 13:20:51 2014. You're changing the example. In your new example, you have evidence that the odds of teleportation are infinitesimal. I'm willing to declare that "impossible" because evidence exists.In the case of special relativity in 1800, there was no evidence whatsoever that it was false, or that it was true. Under those circumstances I call it bad science to call it "false." |
|
|
| (1172713) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 13:30:09 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 10 13:04:03 2014. I don't read it because YOU posted it.Ad hominem. I lost all respect for your posts long ago. I have essentially no respect for your posts but I still read them. That's because responding to something you haven't read just makes you look like an ass. No matter how little you think of it, you can't offer a meaningful response if you don't know what it says. Speaking of which, if you have read this post, please prove it by including the word "yesteryear" somewhere in your response. Failure to do so will result in a CAPTCHA. If I can manage to read through your posts, you can manage to read through mine— it should be less grating for you, since I post rational arguments while you generally confine yourself to childish insults. Others are noticing too, so it's not just me. Well sure, you're not the only crazy person here. Funny thing, how "noticing" that the way I post makes it impossible to have a rational discussion seems directly correlated with how stupid, bigoted, or crazy the person noticing is. You can keep throwing a tantrum if you want; I'm a big believer in allowing fools to have ample opportunity to prove they are fools. |
|
|
| (1172714) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 13:32:54 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 13:14:37 2014. OK, I would disagree. I think the appropriate term would have been something like "completely unsubstantiated."Meh. Then it's just a quibble over semantics. And in the post you reference, there was in fact extensive evidence that the allegation was untrue. So it is not an analagous situation. At worst, it's a question of degree— how much evidence is available, and how extraordinary the claim happened to be. Is there some particular threshold between "false" and "completely unsubstantiated?" |
|
|
| (1172717) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 13:37:33 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by AlM on Thu Apr 10 13:27:52 2014. Strictly speaking, the evidence of the world around us suggests that relativity is false; we never reach any velocity at which relativity becomes noticeable, so absent evidence to the contrary, we would be justified in calling it false.As I said, if it's just a quibble over semantics, I really don't care; I use enough non-standard language that it would be hypocritical of me to tell you not to. Personally, though, it seems odd not to call unicorns "nonexistent." |
|
|
| (1172730) | |
Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 10 14:30:15 2014, in response to Re: I hope this low-income housing project fvcks with liberals, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 10 13:30:09 2014. Hahahahahaha. You are hilarious! |
|
|
|
Page 23 of 24 |
||