It's my duty to battle the Left (split from War Games: Russia Takes Ukraine, China Takes Taiwan. US Response?}

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

I'm a theist, which at least technically obliges me to be honest. So I'm being honest when I say I need to bring and end to all challenges so far presented before I can move on and produce evidence of what I believe. A logical point in that if I'm wrong with my understandings then I can't precede at presenting any evidence as obviously it too would be wrong/not exist.

So, that said I know that mathematical formulas can be turned around in such a way that they don't lose any validity but still reveal more facts. What I mean is that if what I'm saying is wrong, then no facts could back up what I say. But if facts back up what I say, then what I say is right (and should be accepted). This getting around the stalemate of needing to have endless arguments from now on. Agreed? 

Agreed, it's time we stopped feeding you...

[Greg A.]

On 8/10/2022 at 9:07 AM, Peterkin said:

Greg A apparently feels differently. He may not be unique.

A woman stands on a porch holding a baby. The woman's partner is repairing their lawn mower in the front yard. 'It's a good thing you married a mechanic' the partner exclaims. What then are the odds of their baby being a girl?

 

On 8/10/2022 at 9:07 AM, Peterkin said:

Then... what? Since I do not make, and never have made any such claim, obviously, there is no actual threat to your position. And yet, your perception would be different? Why? 

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Greg A.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

If the future is a hellish place (no god) and what we do today decides the future, then today will decide that what we do successfully will be conducive of a hellish future. And if what you do is bad, then what you do will be successful, and you will be encouraged. And if what I do is good, then what I do will fail, and I will be discouraged. If on the other hand the future is a heavenly place (God exists) and if what you do is bad, then you will fail, but if you fail you will then do good, and will not be discouraged. So the potential for discouragement, is say yourside (10) to myside (1). Me being wrong your 10 being right can only possibly be devastating for me, being consistent with a godless world. But if you ten are wrong to my one, then no big deal you can live with shared wrong easily while then being on the right track as well.  

Utter drivel, congratulations you've managed to misunderstand a simple children's story, the right track is, "The yellow brick road"... 😉

11 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

A woman stands on a porch holding a baby. The woman's partner is repairing their lawn mower in the front yard. 'It's a good thing you married a mechanic' the partner exclaims. What then are the odds of their baby being a girl?

If you were a real man, you'd be blaming this logic on a woman...

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

What I mean is that if what I'm saying is wrong, then no facts could back up what I say. But if facts back up what I say, then what I say is right (and should be accepted). This getting around the stalemate of needing to have endless arguments from now on. Agreed? 

Agreed !
Nine pages of endless arguments.
When are you going to start presenting facts  to back up what you preach ?

[Greg A.]

23 hours ago, Phi for All said:

So, by that same reasoning, WWII was more about killing animals than anything else? The fatalities were mostly horses and dogs. In modern times, the US lost less than 3000 troops in Afghanistan, but but wiped out half the total livestock population. Was the underlying influence of that war to kill goats?

There was no 'plight' with these two wars. 

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Greg A. said:

There was no 'plight' with these two wars. 

I wish you could hear what we hear when you post things like this.

[Greg A.]

On 8/10/2022 at 11:44 PM, Peterkin said:

1912 https://qz.com/817354/scientists-have-been-forecasting-that-burning-fossil-fuels-will-cause-climate-change-as-early-as-1882/

Like the economic recessions, who coulda seen it coming - right, Right?

Ignorance?

Ignorance??? He got it right way back then. I didn't catch on until only recently what he'd meant with what he'd said. 

On 8/10/2022 at 11:44 PM, Peterkin said:

Ah! So it's the quality control? Fair enough.

No, it's gender. A man needs to qualify.  A women need only be a woman 

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What would happen if you couldn't spend your money on the bread that you need? Who would you blame? 

The government. Why? Because a bakery would have nothing to gain everything to lose by not selling bread. Of course that would not stop an Aussie gettin' 'e's loaf of bread, would it matey?

23 hours ago, MigL said:

While I can agree with the first statement about left wing dictatorships being responsible for a lot of deaths, I have to question the second statement, that democracy is a soft, and left, form of government.
Your first statement mentions the many left wing dictatorships that are NOT democracies, does it not ?

If democracy isn't soft why should it share such bad statistics with left wing dictatorships? And then there is only right wing dictatorships left anyhow. 

23 hours ago, MigL said:

The third statement does not follow at all, and is completely wrong.
In the first you mention how left wing DICTATORSHIPS have been disproportionately responsible for loss of life, yet the conclusion you draw is that democracy has "the worst record of bloodshed out of the competing systems of government".

You seem to be confused ... and incel.

Fair enough. But I had said deaths, not bloodshed. The Left had it's people starve to death due to its flawed economics. Mao's sparrow eradication contributed to the deaths of as many as 45 million people. 

And you are leaving out right wing dictatorships. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Greg A.

[MigL]

Pick one ! 
Either dictatorships, left wing or right, cause the most deaths, OR democracies do.

Stop arguing out of your ass !
It's getting annoying and tiring.
( oops ! are my views censoring you ? )

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Match's up perfectly with the threats (ongoing) to exclude me from this thread (as I was from my OP thread). 

You whine more than a little kid in the back seat of a car on a long trip.

[Greg A.]

23 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s not what you were arguing, and death rate isn’t the only metric to use. Quality of life, for instance. 

What my brother said didn't relate to cancer , but instead exposed apparent disparity, a political aspect being involved. Feminists demanding equality but by being uncoordinated, allowing an advantage given to women  

23 hours ago, swansont said:

What a convincing argument. I especially like how you backed it up with a credible source.

It does not matter a lot. The biggest ownership of yachts would be among the middle class  and smaller business people. If we wanted a yacht we would only want something we can sail, that's up to about 33ft. 

So why envy those that have bigger boats. The wages paid to build those boats pay to build houses.

23 hours ago, swansont said:

Poor people don’t live in million-dollar homes, or own yachts. So the people who do, have these vices. 

They do. But that's those people, not all of the wealthy. And they don't own mansions because we all desire extra large houses (because we don't) but it is instead a status thing. And there are no rules that says a worker can't become a successful businessman. But as it is they usually choose not to do this. And if a person does not have acceptable housing it[s mostly is because they are unemployed, a situation that government is responsible for and employers by default can not accept responsibility for.  

 

23 hours ago, swansont said:

Who said they did? 

Somehow people get the idea that there is a pile of money in banks that correspond to the person's bank balance, and if so that would indeed result in a shortage of money. But the reality is that the wealthy should not logically have money in savings accounts at all, but instead have debt in business accounts, this ignoring the fact that money can't be eaten regardless. And if 'free' spent on food etc. and will cause prices to rise.  

23 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Pretty sure they do. Poor people often don’t own homes, much less owning vacation homes.

Who needs two houses. Most of the poor in the world would live in underdeveloped economies. And the homeless have other problems rather than just regular financial issues. 

[TheVat]

6 hours ago, Greg A. said:

 

I've had my thread locked, endure ongoing threats of censorship, need to include freedom preservation techniques in some of my posts, yet somehow you are stupid enough to say I pontificate freely?

What would be the chances of women winning a war of male extermination when the majority of the military is (understandably) male. Who would ever consider the possibility of such an absurd outcome. Isn't it obvious that no one would be conspiring to exterminate males. 

 

 

No, no, you don't need armies or weapons if you have feminine wiles and winsome smiles!  Why do you think women keep pushing soy milk at men?  Soy is a secret sterilizing agent that makes man-boobs appear and reduces any motivation to reproduce.  Gradually, men are being pushed out (especially white men, who no longer control government, the Congress men are now just following marching orders from their wives!) and being replaced by females produced by parthenogenesis.  Women are making up fake statistics to cover up this trend and conceal the secret war of extermination.  

Nolite te bastardettes carborundorum!

I am sorry I said you are pontificating freely.  That was wrong.  Sometimes I am very stupid.  From the soymilk and all the vegan entrees I am being fed.  Did I mention the undescended testicles?  Not important.  Thanks again for your courageous struggle to get the word out on those deluded soymilk-addled kale-chewing elitist Liberals who are trying to exhume Ayn Rand's corpse and do unspeakable things to it!  Onward, brother!

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, Greg A. said:

My ideas? White males are in no way society's enemies yet they are being continuously condemned by Phi as being bad guys. Talk about irony.

My point about all white males being suspect was lost on more than just you. Stop thinking from your own perspective and put yourself in somebody (almost anybody) else's shoes. Black people don't know which white males to trust. Neither do Latinx or Asian folks. Women especially have to watch out for resentful, hateful, ignorant white men who think women are the cause of all their problems. How could they possibly tell the difference between me and you just by looking? If I'm not with my wife, you and I might look the same in that regard. I might be the one who holds hostility towards women because they won't have sex with me.

I know you hate facts and statistics, but I don't know another way to actually show you how white men are the main suspects in all sorts of crimes against women. I know you wanted to come here to explain an idea you had about science but instead started talking about how oppressed you are by women and intellectuals. It's obviously a big hangup for you, but this is a discussion forum. We'd like to think you might actually LISTEN to some of the points being made, but you haven't yet, so I don't think your ideas are best for conversation with adults.

This isn't the echo chamber you've been spending time in, listening to other men disparage women to make themselves feel better. In this type of discussion, we use reason to help others see our points of view, to persuade them that there are other ways to look at a problem. I haven't seen much that's reasonable from you. It's great that you've taken the time to respond to so many replies, but your responses make it seem like women and intellectuals are printing up "Keep kicking Greg A!" t-shirts just because you're so perceptive about the True Nature of the World. 

Regardless, it's easy to see you misinterpret most of what's being said to you, so in that regard a science discussion forum will probably do you more harm than good. You just don't understand what we're talking about when it comes to supportive evidence and critical thinking skills. I love discussing topics with the members here, mostly because the rest of them know what reason (and irony) looks like.

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, Greg A. said:

A woman stands on a porch holding a baby. The woman's partner is repairing their lawn mower in the front yard. 'It's a good thing you married a mechanic' the partner exclaims. What then are the odds of their baby being a girl?

Okay, I take it back. You are unique! But that novelty is no longer sufficient to hold my attention.

BtW: the answer is 42

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

What my brother said didn't relate to cancer , but instead exposed apparent disparity, a political aspect being involved. Feminists demanding equality but by being uncoordinated, allowing an advantage given to women 

So breast cancer and prostate cancer have NOTHING to with cancer.

And that, somehow research into diseases is giving an ADVANTAGE to women.

Quote

 

It does not matter a lot.

It does not matter a lot TO YOU.

You shouldn't speak for others. 

Quote

The biggest ownership of yachts would be among the middle class  and smaller business people. If we wanted a yacht we would only want something we can sail, that's up to about 33ft. 

I'm not sure of the relevance to your argument that rich people don't have the vice of owning yachts/multiple cars/big houses

AND I said that poor people don't own them. I said nothing about the middle class.

Quote

So why envy those that have bigger boats. The wages paid to build those boats pay to build houses.

Who said anything about envy? Once again you try and change the argument, because your original argument is weak.

 

Quote

They do. But that's those people, not all of the wealthy. And they don't own mansions because we all desire extra large houses (because we don't) but it is instead a status thing. And there are no rules that says a worker can't become a successful businessman. But as it is they usually choose not to do this. And if a person does not have acceptable housing it[s mostly is because they are unemployed, a situation that government is responsible for and employers by default can not accept responsibility for.  

Motivation wasn't the issue. It was who owns what, and whether rich people own stuff. You said they don't.

And people "choose" not to be successful businessmen?

Plenty of employed people can't afford home ownership. There's a sizable fraction of homeless who have jobs, and there are others who rent because housing costs are very high (we've been through these numbers already)

Government is responsible for someone being unemployed? OK. Glad to hear you agree that Bush and Trump deserve the blame for their horrible employment stats, and Obama and Biden deserve credit for the huge improvements in them.

 

Quote

Who needs two houses. Most of the poor in the world would live in underdeveloped economies. And the homeless have other problems rather than just regular financial issues. 

Nobody said anybody needed two houses. That's just you, once again changing the argument.

The fact is, though, that there are people with two (or more) houses. And we were talking about the rich in the US, not homeless in underdeveloped economies. 

[John Cuthber]

20 hours ago, Greg A. said:

This is the honorable thing to do? 

Yes. That's why I'd do it.

 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

It was worth a try, thanks for the attempts at reason by the reasonable. Thread closed.