The release this week of yet another survey indicating the more you watch Fox News the less they know, has once again shone a spotlight on one of the unique features that defines Rupert Murdoch's cable news outlet - it is very, very good at misinforming people. And it's very bad at reporting the news. In other words: Propaganda? Yes. News? Not so much
What's stunning is how many different areas of the news and public policy Fox viewers are misinformed
If I saw Juan Williams on the street I'd back hand him in his black ass face. All black people should boycott and protest his existence. How did he ever get that gig w/NPR?
funny how easily corporate America is able to turn working class Americans against each other so that we dont notice how corporate America is fleecing our country. are you people that easily manipulated?
He is just as much of an actor as the other Fox News or American news anchors, the only difference is Fox puts him on so they can keep ahold of the centre/right conservatives. Its all a game, got nothing to do with his own views. Its entertainment and for Cenk to be even saying its his own views is funny.
@DeathKorps94 After what you opened with, "Fuckwit" seems fitting. Don't criticize someone on banter when you pull conspiracy talking points ("Global Bullcrap," "country is waking up") and then resort to calling people "clowns."
PS: Where does the video talk about "Global Bullcrap" or global anything?
@RememberJudas314 Pull your head out of the sand and do some research. I am not going to spoon feed you. IF you want to believe the liberal propaganda pumped into your mind that is your problem. It isn't my job to convert you. Your own ignorance will be your downfall and there will come a time when you can't help but see it.
@RememberJudas314 Don't feed the trolls. It's pretty obvious from his comment that he didn't bring anything factual to the table, and posted a bunch of nonsequiturs to bait a response.
Shep Smith is heading to MSNBC..it is inevitable. He will be the thorn in the side of FOX, and the Fox lies. The inevitability of the downfall of FOX is in the air. regardless of where they stand in the numbers. At some point, Fox is either going to piss off one too many people and do something which can no longer be tolerated or the agenda will change because(finally) Roger Ayles will be terminated and Fox starts telling truths. Not. Fox will perish one day and we shall celebrate with candy.
FOX news is for entertainment purposes only. Having said that, I love Ol' Shep'. Mostly due to comments like this: "We are the Untied States of America, We do not Fu@king Torture!" Very "Un-Fox-Like". He can't last long. Rupert HAS to be on to him by now. ;)
They drove the teacher's union down, but I didn't fight it as I wasn't a teacher. Then they drove the fireman's union down, but I didn't fight it as I wasn't a fireman
Then they drove the policeman's union down, but I didn't fight it as I wasn't a policeman
Finally they came to drive me from the middle class, but by then no one had any money to fight for me.
@blkswimmer Absolutely not. Making the comparison between the Nazis and anyone else is evil. If you make the comparison you degrade the sacrifice made by their victims. No one should ever make this comparison. It is disgusting and amoral. The only people that have been as evil as the Nazis are the Nazis plain and simple stop even hinting at the comparison.
First of all. The guy I replied to made the comparison.
Secondly In terms of numbers more Native Americans died from Europeans than Jews by Nazis.
In terms of actions the Catholic Church takes the cake with wars, witch hunts, burning blasphemers alive, forced conversions, torture and the Inquisition.
Moses was FAR more evil than Hitler if he ever existed. If we go be deeds.
@blkswimmer My mistake. I replied to the wrong link. It was in fact intended for the person you were talking to. As far as the rest of what you replied here. I don't disagree. The issue is that none of the horrible things you sighted were orchestrated by one leader. The Nazi's were. Of course this could be argued in the case of the Pope but I digress. Again my mistake, no offense intended.
@Richardisdorky OH really, you don't disagree with Moses being more even than Hitler? You despicable religion-haters (not to be confused with more rational agnostics/atheists) never cease to amaze in the depths of depravity to which you are willing to sink.
@canofsand Actually the part I don't disagree with is the idea the he probably never existed. Out side of the bible there is no account that claim he did. The bible being massively inaccurate on the subject of historically events. As for labeling me a hater. That counters my originally point that labeling people does no good. What is depraved about agreeing with the idea that more horrific things have been done in the name of religion the any other social group? You took me out of context.
@Richardisdorky "As far as the rest of what you replied here. I don't disagree."
How horrible of me, misreading that as that you agreed with everything else the guy said. Oh no wait, that's exactly what those sentences mean. What language do you speak where agreeing with "Moses was FAR more evil than Hitler if he ever existed" with no disclaimer saying "just 'if he ever existed'" means what you say id does. So... come out and call that guy a scumbag, or admit you're a hater. (more)
@Richardisdorky (continued) As for what's depraved about attacking religion in general? Oh I dunno, let's go with the obvious, here: The inherent bigotry involved. Yeah, that's a good one to start with.
@canofsand I am not attacking anyone's religion, you are again taking me out of context. I wouldn't consider it a bigoted point of view because I see all religions as equals and of them flawed in the own way. Not that it matters give that they no longer serve a purpose.
@Richardisdorky Yeah, yeah, you're not attacking anyone's religion. What a horrible twist of context for me to say that. You're just saying Moses (if he existed) was worse than Hitler. Totally unrelated to attacking religion. /sarc
@canofsand "Yeah, yeah, you're not attacking anyone's religion." Nice use of sarcasm. If I am attacking it would be a guy I don't really believe in (Moses) not a religion. Given that Moses even if he did exist was not a religion. Some people have elevated his story to make him almost god like but he was never even claimed as a god, so he is not a religion. Now He did make some claims of power in the story, but how did that work out for him. Not so good as the tail goes.
@Richardisdorky Do you know what sophistry is? That's all you're doing here - though certainly one of the lamer examples I've seen in a while. The logical holes are glaring.
"I don't believe in the guy, therefore attacking him doesn't mean anything! Plus, the guy's only a revered prophet, not the religion itself!" Listen to yourself. The "reasoning" there is just inane. Why don't you go tell a Muslim how evil Muhammad is "but I'm not attacking Islam" and see how that works out for you.
@canofsand No I didn't it not an attack because he didn't exist. I said it wasn't an attack on religion because he wasn't a religion. Again context. As for Muslims and Muhammad, have and will. You miss my main point. Now I tried to post some explanations on how the Hebrew words for Village of many tribes which is what the bible calls Jericho in the original text, not village but it didn't seem to post. I don't know if youtube like a post with to different types of texts in it. Did you get it?
@canofsand "it not an attack because he didn't exist" You did it again, you took my word out of context again. This is pointless and dishonest. One last time. It is not an attack on any RELIGION to make a claim about Moses. Not because he may or may not existed, but because he was NOT a RELIGION. The only way one could claim that I had made an attack on a religion is if I had, which I haven't. I tired of this circular argument with you can we move on?
@Richardisdorky Sorry, but the "out of context" excuse only works when the context changes anything. You're the one employing logical fallacy. You rely on the FALSE ASSUMPTION that in order to attack religion you have to directly attack the religion itself, as if there's no other way to do so. That's just absurd.
@canofsand Quote me exactly then. Use the full and exact quote where I attack a religion. You can't because I haven't the is not a logical fallacy. This is a simple observation. I did not say that there is no other way to do so, I said I have not done it in any way. You claim that my insistence of the proper context is an excuse, but context does change everything when it comes to English. I is a language of contextual perfection when describing exacting details.
@Richardisdorky I know perfectly well that context CAN change meaning, and YOU know perfectly well that partial quotes are often FINE. If I want to quote an idea from a book, I do not have to quote the entire chapter it's taken from, or the whole book, or the series it's from, or all the words the person who wrote it ever put to paper. Here's all the context I need: You say comparing people to the Nazis is bad. Someone says Moses was worse if he lived. And you defend that horrible notion. (more)
@Richardisdorky (continued) That is inflammatory. You don't even backtrack when called on it. That is very telling. And don't tell me you weren't defending it, either, with more of your bullcrap usage of a personal dictionary that doesn't allow the normal usage of words like "attack" or "defend" to apply because you say so. You've been very adamant in maintaining that the Moses story is one of genocide (despite evidence to the contrary). (more)
@Richardisdorky (continued) But we haven't even fully examined the vile notion you defend! I deflected the "genocide" charge, but we haven't even gone into exactly what the rationale behind the comparison is in the first place. What does it TAKE to be "worse" than Hitler? Killing more people? A more evil intent? What? And how can a rational person possibly say Moses fits those things? (more)
@Richardisdorky (continued) How can a rational person even say they CANNOT DISAGREE with someone saying such? The answer is obvious to the intellectually honest non-bigots: They can't. If you think you are intellectually honest and not a bigot yet you somehow cannot disagree with people saying Moses is worse than Hitler (how blatant can you get!), I challenge you to argue your case, but FIRST you should examine your own prejudices, because this stuff is bloody obvious. Ridiculously inflammatory.
@canofsand Now if you wish we can continue this tomorrow. Though I don't really see the point. It is late and I am going to bed. Have a good night. It's been stimulating, and thank you for your time.
@canofsand I have done nothing to attack anyone. You I didn't even make the claim that Moses (if he existed) was worse than Hitler. It was someone else all together that made that claim. I just didn't disagree. There is a difference between making a claim and not disagreeing with some one who has made the claim. Like I said I attack no one. I attack no ideas. I simply pointed out the needlessness of religions and the destructive past. I make no assumptions just observations.
@canofsand So you just admit that you are going to misquote me. This is dishonest. That is duplicates at best. Not to mention insulting. I have not done the same to you. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to this and it has made you seem a bit false. I do not mince words. If you have a true rebuttal to anything I've actually said (not paraphrased or out of context) please make it. Making blanketed claims based only on what you would have liked me to say does nothing.
@Richardisdorky So, not only a sophist, but you think paraphrasing is misquoting. See, I've used this paraphrasing thing many times, and only recently have people (was it you both times, even?) started calling it "misquoting." It has very legitimate uses, such as pointing out the absurdity of what certain people post. HOW is my paraphrasing NOT a fair display of EXACTLY what you've said right here in this thread? Why don't you prove you disagree with that claim by, I dunno, directly DISAGREEING.
@canofsand Because paraphrasing does not full represent the person you are quoting. There for a MISquote. If you wish to quote some on quote them don't paraphrase, because it purely doesn't display the full meaning of what I wrote.
@Richardisdorky Again with the sophistry. Paraphrasing is a useful tool. If I mischaracterized what you said, prove it. YOU CAN'T, BECAUSE I SUMMED IT UP EXACTLY AND FAIRLY. No amount of extra fluff changes that you've been dancing around the issue like a weaselly politician. "I just didn't disagree." But I'm sticking your feet in the fire no matter how much you dance, and continued dancing only makes you look more guilty. IF YOU REALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT CLAIM, SAY SO, WITH NO OBFUSCATION.
@Richardisdorky You've demonstrated yet again that my paraphrasing was totally justified. And now, you refuse to disagree. IF YOU WILL NOT DISAGREE WITH A POSITION, AND WHEN SOMEONE CALLS YOU ON IT, YOU DEFEND THAT POSITION, THEN THE SAFE BET IS YOU AGREE - WHETHER YOU'LL ADMIT IT TO YOURSELF OR NOT. How in the world can you not grasp such a SIMPLE concept? We're not playing devil's advocate, here. No REALITY-BASED defense exists for your "non-position" position. Sophist, enemy of logic.
@canofsand So it did post my translations. How would you address them? The context of Village of many tribes has a lot different meaning then fortress. Doesn't it? Or are you going to say that this is an example of sophist? I both speak and read Hebrew and have read the Torah in Hebrew and it is very clear on the subject.
@Richardisdorky Irrelevant. It doesn't counter earlier arguments made about the paradoxical language used (yes, contradictory even; I don't mind saying it; I don't believe the text to be infallible; it was written by men, not directly by Deity, and changed over time) so it's pointless to even bring up. So what if it doesn't say fortress? You cannot point to archeological evidence that it was a population center or square it with language about intermarriage, etc.
@canofsand Archeological you can't point to 90% of the story in the bible. Your the one who tried to make the whole story sound less violent. If you admit that the bible is fallible and only written by men, and is as you say pointless to bring up. Why would you bring it up? I agree with you fully on this view of the bible, but would venture a bit further and say that it is outdated and doesn't really apply to our current world. Thus my point that religion is no longer needed.
@Richardisdorky Archeological neither proves nor disproves the story, as I already knew, but evidence of fortresses in appropriate places is there. Again, not proof, but all I need is lack of proof of your version of the narrative (which you don't believe in the first place, but nonetheless for the sake of argument call "genocide"). So we're back to language, which I've demonstrated isn't proof of "genocide." (more)
@Richardisdorky (continued) Boiling it down, saying a genocide occurred is highly in doubt, whether you believe Moses was real or not. Therefore, comparing Moses (hypothetical, or real) to Hitler is shaky at best, and therefore it is inflammatory if not outright hateful to flatly state that Moses was worse than Hitler. End.
@canofsand I can not disagree with you on this anymore then I can disagree with post that started this. Simply my point was that I couldn't disagree. Nothing more. This is not a attack. Given that you like metaphor I will step outside of my comfort zone and use one. Someone says to you. "I have smelled the worst smell ever just a moment ago in another room. Go smell it and tell me if you agree or disagree." You go into the room and a third person has opened the window the smell is gone.continued
@canofsand continued. You can neither agree or disagree with the observation of on the smell because the smell only existed to the first person. I can not disagree because I would have to make an assumption based on ideas that are not provable.
@Richardisdorky This isn't about something subjective like a smell. This is about an egregiously inflammatory notion and basic logic. Even taking it away from the religion aspect, if we were to take a story that we both agree is fiction, such as a fantasy novel, and one of the characters does something and the two of us disagree on what it was he did (it's not clear enough in the text), it'd still be wrong for you to insist that he MUST have done what you say he did when it's not clear. (more)
@Richardisdorky (continued) So you're on shaky ground to begin with. Now let's say you think the character murdered thousands of innocent people. A third person comes along and agrees with you, then says the character is "worse than Hitler" for doing that. (We all agree the character is fiction; it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in our discussion. We don't NEED disclaimers about that EVERY BLASTED TIME we mention him.) Then, inexplicably, you agree with that. I, of course, vehemently disagree. (more)
@Richardisdorky (continued) My position is the only tenable one here. We *could* have just agreed to disagree in this little scenario, but not after the Hitler nonsense was thrown into the pot. Such an inflammatory comparison is out of bounds without a great deal of support. The already shaky ground you were on does not fulfill the requirement, and even if the text did say the character murdered all those innocents, is that REALLY necessarily worse than the Holocaust? Come on.
@canofsand Okay here the deal. I didn't disagree. So you took a meager point of context and blew it way out of proportion. I have read the original in Hebrew and although it does not use the word genocide (because there was a equivalent word in Hebrew) it was a pretty clear idea of how god wanted them to deal with non-believers. Now as for the nub of your anger. I don't agree with the premiss either, I simply can not disagree. We have been over this so much it's losing all meaning.
@canofsand Your continued wrong claim that the text is unclear is the basis of your argument. The text in Hebrew is very clear. Like I said I have read it have you. Did you spend twelve years getting theology degrees? Have you written papers demonstrating the massive historical inaccuracies of the bible? Had those papers stand up under pear review? Because I have. So when I say the Moses according to the Torah order the killing of many thousands if not tens of thousands it is based off of..cont>
@Richardisdorky cont> a long and exhaustive study of the book. You anger seems to be based off of the idea that it is the comparison to Hitler that truly upsets you. Which I do agree comparing anyone at any time to Hitler is wrong with the qualifier that if that person committed equal or greater evil. This could easily be said about many fictional characters. Yet you seem to be really hung up on one that you even agree is not important. This is the silliest thing to insult someone over.
@Richardisdorky You have wrongly and repeatably accused me of hating religion. This couldn't be further from the truth. Religion has been very good to me, not to mention a bit profitable. I was raised by very religious parents who I love and even though I no longer believe in their religion doesn't mean I hate it. Hate is a very strong word. With strong intent. I have only truly hated once in my adult life, and it had nothing to with religion. I am a man of peace. I see how my disregard more>
@canofsand Now it is the core of this whole thing that I am after so I will one last time explain my reasoning. Zaphod Beeblebrox is a fictional character like Moses. Zaphod was the leader of his people like Moses. Zaphod blew up the earth kill every living thing.This is the worst and most evil thing ever to happen to humanity (according to the writer).There for according to the writer Zaphod was worst the Hitler. I can not disagree. Why? Because it is a statement that is imposable to dis prove.
@canofsand So it seems that the main problem that you have with me is that I don't disagree with a comment the someone else made. Why haven't you brought your complaint with what they said up with them. Or have you and unlike me they gave no reply? Given your persistence I'm guessing if he/she had you would be having this discussion with them. My intent has never been to defend their claim. Only to defend my character against your needless insults. Make this all pointlessly academic.
@canofsand In closing I make no apologies for not disagree with something that I could not possible find a reason to disagree with. There is no point. I simple wished to demonstrate that you falsely accused me of being hateful. Which I feel I've done. Now you asked. "even if the text did say the character murdered all those innocents, is that REALLY necessarily worse than the Holocaust?" The simple answer is Yes. If the text of the bible was true, and if it claimed that Moses /con>
@canofsand /con> did the horrible things described in the Torah. Then Yes that would make him worst then Hitler. I can't say absolutely one way or the other on the subject so my not disagreeing with anyone who makes this argument is as meaningless as if I were to agree. I have nothing more to say on the subject and have no interest in discussing it further. If you wish to continue I will not be replying till Monday. Weekends are family time, so I don't reply to emails. Family is more important.
@Richardisdorky Stop dodging the key point. Not disagreeing is ITSELF enough to condemn you. I don't NEED to you agree with the scumbag. Simply NOT DISAGREEING is enough given all that I've presented. I won't bother rehashing it; I did that extensively already and you didn't address a drop of it. You address side stuff that's not at all relevant and is arguable in any case. That's it. Your prejudices are exposed. You're toast.
@Richardisdorky (more) If you can't see that "tens of thousands" plus whatever else you claim Moses did is NOT comparable to the Holocaust, you are a fool. If you see it and won't admit it, you are intellectually dishonest. Those are the only options left. Ignorance is no excuse any more, not after this long conversation. Look at yourself. Seriously think on yourself. What the bloody heck is wrong with you that makes you refuse to condemn, let alone disagree with, that scumbag's obvious hate?
@Richardisdorky (See also the string of comments that goes into more detail about this that you didn't address, starting with "I know perfectly well that context CAN change meaning" and ending with the comment that starts "How can a rational person even say..." Unless you actually address this in a fashion that makes it look like I'm not talking to a wall, don't expect further replies. I made my case, you replied, I proved my point, you repeated yourself as if that changes anything, the end.)
@canofsand You proved no point beyond that you are egocentric, and self righteous. I understand that you think you may have some how won but it is all in your head. If you had proved your point I would have changed my opinion, yet here we are and I still don't disagree and that still doesn't mean I have demonstrated any hate. So If you wish to continue being a bully and puffing out your chest go right ahead. I will continue standing my ground.
@Richardisdorky You see nothing wrong with comparisons of Moses to Hitler but think calling me self-righteous is a good retort? Tell me PRECISELY what it is that holds you back from disagreeing with that notion, then. Or, hold your ground and show yourself to be an intellectual coward who "isn't disagreeing" (how blatantly weaselly can you get?) with a position I've demonstrated is untenable and you don't even try to show is tenable. You're like a politician. Good at dancing, no substance.
@canofsand The biggest problem you seem to have in all this is that I won't condemn the actions or words of another based on the idea that you don't like what they had to say. If you want a sycophantic follower to disagree with every point that you disagree with you'll have to look further. Acting a fool and claim I have addressed points that I clearly have just make you look petty and small minded. You defend something you don't even believe in what is your point in this argument?
@canofsand Nothing, nothing is wrong with not condemning someone for claiming something that can not be proven or disprove. You claim the man/woman is a scumbag who hates things. This is a claim of the unknowable from what little they said. You pointless insult speak more about your hateful behavior then anyone else. You claim you are attacked when it is clear you are not then fling insults and claim a possession of higher morals. This is ego stroking on your part.
@Richardisdorky Hypothetical scenario, White House press conference:
Reporter: Mr. President, the Vice President just said that Moses is worse than Hitler. (Detailed explanation as to VP's reasoning follows.) Do you condemn these remarks?
Pres.: No comment.
Reporter: You just don't want to say anything at this time, or...?
Pres.: I cannot disagree with the Vice President's remarks.
I wonder how that'd go over.
You are so dead set on holding to your blatantly flawed position, it's insane.
@canofsand Oh, and to head off a potential irrelevant counter to the above: Substitute out the VP for virtually anyone else if you want. It makes no difference.
@canofsand You propose a anger that does exist on my part. For a subject that I have repeatedly dismissed as unimportant. This is not a fruitful conversation. Although I am deriving a far amount of pleasure from it. So you let us continue. Your claim is that I am some how wrong for not shouting down someone who has said nothing worth shouting down. You claim that I have attacked you yet you can not demonstrate this so called attack. You claim that if one reads the post below they continued.>
@canofsand continued> they would agree with you. Yet I have received messages that would counter your assertions. You then on top of it all the whole Mose thing was only apart of what I didn't disagree with and you haven't even mentioned those thing. Do you agree with his assertion that the Catholic Church? If you don't shout him down for those comments you must agree that the Catholic Church is more evil the the Nazi's. You haven't so you must be with him. More>
@canofsand More> although I wouldn't make this claim because it would be pointless. The only thing you have proven is that you enjoy denying the evidence and demonstrating that you only hear what you want to hear. Oh and when challenged you refuse to show the same respect you demand and ignore the challenge. I have repeatedly refuted your claims that I am in some way hateful and attacking you and religion. Yet as you say. When I held your feet to the fire and demanded proof you dodge the point.
@Richardisdorky Again: "But we haven't even fully examined the vile notion you defend! I deflected the 'genocide' charge [agree or not, it's irrelevant to the next point], but we haven't even gone into exactly what the rationale behind the comparison is in the first place. What does it TAKE to be 'worse' than Hitler? Killing more people? A more evil intent? What? And how can a rational person possibly say Moses fits those things?" (more)
@Richardisdorky (more) "How can a rational person even say they CANNOT DISAGREE with someone saying such? The answer is obvious to the intellectually honest non-bigots: They can't. If you think you are intellectually honest and not a bigot yet you somehow CANNOT disagree with people saying Moses is worse than Hitler (how blatant can you get!), I challenge you to argue your case, but FIRST you should examine your own prejudices, because this stuff is bloody obvious. Ridiculously inflammatory."
@canofsand Did you even read my last few messages? By repeating that I haven't replied over and over doesn't change the fact that I have. Your continuing egotistical claims that I have not addressed your complaints is false and based on your own narcissistic desire to some how look like you've made some sort of huge moral gain. Here it is one last time. The point can neither be agreed or disagreed on because there are not enough facts at hand to base such a definitive yes or no answer.
@canofsand I ignore you because you've repeatedly ask a question that I have answered. Get over yourself. You have decided to continue on this silly nonsensical point of yours. You want me to admit that you are right about your view of a point that I didn't even make and that the whole basis of your complaint is that I do not disagree with a point that someone else made that can't possibly be disagreed with. Yes I understand that you disagree with it but it doesn't matter. Because -continued>
@canofsand You have completely agreed that the whole account is fictional. There are many accounts of this of Moses and some of those make him out to be a horrible person. Yet you have not answered my questions on which accounts you've read. The entire supposition of your argument is that it is somehow wrong to not disagree with a point that I couldn't even care less about given that there is no factual basis for your argument. You want to make a huge deal out of nonsense it serves no purpose.
@canofsand "but we haven't even gone into exactly what the rationale behind the comparison is in the first place." No we have you choose to forget when I demonstrated the Hebrew text. You never answer have you read the Torah in Hebrew?
@Richardisdorky "nothing is wrong with not condemning someone for claiming something that can not be proven or disprove"
Not only can it be disproven, I've done exactly that, and you don't even TRY to poke holes in the reasoning I've laid out. "Worse than Hitler." Geeze, the very topic here is just so insane. The vast majority of liberals would quickly condemn such filth, no question. But you won't.
@canofsand " ot only can it be disproven, I've done exactly that, and you don't even TRY to poke holes in the reasoning I've laid out." When? What an ego. I've read threw your four times now and I can find a single bit of proof of your side. Only an pure egotist would claim such a thing. Madness complete madness. To disprove my claim you must first disprove a whole slew of thing about the biblical text that you have in no way come close to. You can't even answer some of the simplest questions.
@canofsand Second you'd have to the disprove that what I have demonstrated about the writer of the original post was wrong. Which you can't because he/she won't reply to you. Now finally why would I want to "poke holes" in your "reasoning" when your reasoning is based on a false premiss. One that you admitted to when you agreed that the bible is (at least in part) fictional. Lastly what does the opinion of the "vast majority of liberals" have to do with anything said here? Mad completely mad.
@Richardisdorky You continue to ignore my point. EVEN IF it was agreed that Moses was real and really did those things you say he did, there'd STILL be no objective base at all for the "worse than Hitler" remark and such a fact would be so painfully obvious to all intellectually honest people who've got basic reasoning skills that anyone who would say they cannot disagree with it would be considered irrational. I've stated this in various ways repeatedly. You IGNORE it; the question becomes WHY.
@canofsand Most of all after reading through all the points you made. I realized that you don't want me to justify how I see thinks. No you just want someone to agree with you. You have become exceedingly insulting because you are incapable of seeing anyone's side but your own. You have nothing to offer and are clearly ignoring the valid points that I have made. Hell you haven't answered even one of my questions even though I have answered all of yours. You'll probably ignore this as well
@canofsand You are a silly little person who ignores the point of others then claims that they made no point. I have no more need for you or your nonsensical gibberish. Please stop bothering me.
@Richardisdorky You ignore others' points, he says as he continues to ignore the point about how there's no comparison to even the "evil" Moses he's conjured up and Hitler. Keep digging the hole deeper, clown.
@canofsand I didn't "conjured" up Moses. That again is complete nonsense. Given that I didn't write the bible this is not possible. The only thing that you have said that I have ignored is when you have tried to make this a political issue along party lines. I have addressed every "point" you've made. So stop lying. I have made it clear no less then ten the exact basis of my reasoning you have made the choice to not read them, then claim they weren't there. Well (cont>
@canofsand (cont> that is fine. If you wish to deny the clear and educated reasoning of other to promote your own lies I will not stop you. I asked you once nicely to please leave me alone, and again I ask please leave me alone. Your continued regurgitation of the same nonsensical rhetoric has become tiresome and serves no purpose. You claim that I am doing myself some sort of damage. This is false. You repeatedly claim victory. This is also false. Your side of the argument is pointless more>
@canofsand by your own standards. You will not give a reasonable reply because. One you are not reasonable and two you won't read this close enough to be able to form one. You claim I have dug a hole based on things I have never even said. You may some day realize that lying repeatedly doesn't make the lie anymore true. I doubt it will be today. Until you reply to anyone of my questions expect no response. This doesn't mean you've won. I just means I'm done with you. Don't claim victory
@canofsand One could summarize the argument as thus. "I want you to apologize for something someone else said." Then I reply. "Given that I didn't say it I can't." You. "Yes but you didn't disagree with it so you might as well have said it, ha there (insert insult)" Me "That's not reasonable you can't hold me responsible for the words of some one else and here's why (reasons given)" You "I can and I will. You (insert insult) now take it back, if you don't I win."Me "No because you have no point
@Richardisdorky One COULD summarize it that way, but only if they're an intellectually dishonest coward incapable of objective thought. I didn't ask you for an "apology." I asked you to condemn extremely obvious and extremely vile incendiary remarks. There's a huge difference there. Not only did you *not* condemn it, you said you can't. That tells me you are irrational and quite likely have deep-seated hatred in your own heart. (more)
@Richardisdorky (more) You just spent 5 YT-comments' worth of space dancing and spinning, totally ignoring my point in direct response to my pointing out how you ignore my point. Either that, or you're just so incredibly dense that you actually think you've made a good counter to it, which is just absurd. Seriously, you open with a complaint that implies I'm saying you conjured up Moses. That's just stupid. It's a non sequitur. Are you even READING my comments? At all? (more)
@Richardisdorky (more) Are you even TRYING to understand what I'm posting? WHO SAID YOU CONJURED UP MOSES? Moreover, my point about the supposed crimes of Moses and the real crimes of Hitler - WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO COMPLETELY IGNORE - stands EVEN IF WE BUY YOUR (bullcrap-laden) ASSESSMENT OF WHAT IT IS MOSES (if he was real) DID, AS I DIRECTLY POINTED OUT. And you respond by implying I said you conjured him up. What the heck, man? What the heck? You are worthless at this. Just bloody worthless.
@canofsand Oh so you don't like being taken out of context. "You ignore others' points, he says as he continues to ignore the point about how there's no comparison to even the "evil" Moses he's conjured up and Hitler. Keep digging the hole deeper, clown." Did you not say the above? Am I not the he you refer to. I was simple using your tools of misquoting and misdirection. Now you complain about me not reading your posts this is hilarious. You haven't answered one single question I've asked.
@canofsand "Moreover, my point about the supposed crimes of Moses and the real crimes of Hitler - WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO COMPLETELY IGNORE - stands EVEN IF WE BUY YOUR (bullcrap-laden) ASSESSMENT OF WHAT IT IS MOSES (if he was real) DID, AS I DIRECTLY POINTED OUT." This whole statement is a lie. I never ignored it. I repeatedly answered this. Go back and read my posts. This is not my assessment read the text in the original Hebrew it's very clear. I've said that before too.Demonstrated and clear
@canofsand Again you accuse me of hate. Where have I demonstrated hate? Why should I bother asking, you don't actually answer questions. You puffer to make assumptions and then and insults. You don't display a genuine desire for reasonable dialog. No you rather grand stand and make up nonsensical scenarios where I am some how attacking you. For some reason you have the need to defend the reputation of a fictional character you don't even believe in. This is pointless.
@canofsand As for hate you accuse me of hate so often it's silly. Demonstrate one hateful think I've said. You can't I don't say hateful things, it's not in my nature. Hate is a very strong emotion that I have only felt twice in my adult life and avoid all together. It only serve to destroy the one who hates not the object of that hate. As for it being deep-seated in my heart. The only thing in my heart is some mussels, a few valves and some blood. The heart doesn't store emotions.
@canofsand I know the whole heart and emotion link is a common metaphor, but to be frank it's pretty dumb. We know that it only pumps blood. Your emotions come from you mind, which exist only in your brain.
@canofsand So today I have demonstrated that you lie, you misquote yet dislike being misquoted, you use out of date metaphors for the heart, you are arguing for the reputation of someone you don't believe existed. So in a sense you're arguing for no reason. You have ignored all my request to be left alone. Oh and you still like to end your posts with pointless personal insults. Aside from all that you're still fairly entertaining. Completely wrong by your own standards. Yet entertaining.
@Richardisdorky We went over this: Paraphrasing is not "misquoting." When it has the SAME MEANING as the original, in context, there's nothing wrong with it. That you still don't understand this is pathetic. More importantly, you continue to ignore the fact that even if we take the morally-worst-possible interpretation of the text about Moses (within reason) to be accurate, he'd still not be worse than Hitler. Refusing to admit this fact is a sign of an intellectually bankrupt individual.
@Richardisdorky (Oh, and SAYING you didn't ignore something doesn't mean you didn't ignore it. Replying to something but refusing to deal with its substance is equivalent to ignoring it. "Deal with this fact." // "I don't wanna." // "Stop ignoring this fact!" // "I didn't ignore you! I said 'I don't wanna,' see?!?!" Childish.)
@Richardisdorky (And picking on the metaphor of the heart? Take it up with... I dunno, almost everyone else on the entire planet. Geeze, you're ridiculous. Also, judging by the conclusion you've made about my beliefs, you've made a silly assumption, buying your ilk's own lies about what the religious believe about the Bible and the prophets, a stereotype they use to make religious people look stupid.)
@canofsand Geeze, you're ridiculous. Also, judging by the conclusion you've made about my beliefs, you've made a silly assumption, buying your ilk's own lies about what the religious believe about the Bible and the prophets, a stereotype they use to make religious people look stupid.) This is absolute gibberish and has nothing to do with anything I said.
@canofsand (And picking on the metaphor of the heart? Take it up with... I dunno, almost everyone else on the entire planet.) So most of the people on the planet say lots of stupid things from time to time. It is still a stupid metaphor and has no use in a productive conversation. This is my whole point. I don't care what the majority have to say on a subject.I am only concerned with the facts. Not fairy tails, not useless metaphors, and not petty little arguments over things that don't matter
@canofsand That all being said. Please again. Leave me alone. You serve no purpose to the advancement of my knowledge on the subject so you are doing me no good.
@canofsand "Deal with this fact." // "I don't wanna." // "Stop ignoring this fact!" // "I didn't ignore you! I said 'I don't wanna,' see?!?!" Childish.) Again you lie I said nothing of the sort.
@canofsand (We went over this: Paraphrasing is not "misquoting." When it has the SAME MEANING as the original, in context, there's nothing wrong with it.) This is would be true if what you were doing was paraphrasing. It's not. What you have done is misquote. You claim that the things that I have said have a meaning beyond the context. You lied. It is very simple. Then of course you followed it with an insult. Your form is constant.
@canofsand (More importantly, you continue to ignore the fact that even if we take the morally-worst-possible interpretation of the text about Moses (within reason) to be accurate, he'd still not be worse than Hitler.) No I addressed this.The conclusion is that it doesn't matter because he was FICTIONAL.You can't harm the character of FICTIONAL person because they don't exist so there for they have no character to harm. By simply restating the lie that I haven't answered this does make it true.
@canofsand Now a point I have continued to make and will make again, mainly because your lack of answer amuses me. What's it to you? You agree that Moses probably never existed. So what is the gain for you in this? You are defending someone that you admit was most likely fictional. I don't really care what is said about Moses any more then I would care about someone insulting Mickey Mouse. Do you want to know why? Well here it is one more time. Their FICTIONAL so it doesn't matter.
@canofsand You have done something incredibly dishonest. You have gone back through the logs and removed the comments that you made where in you explain how you understand that the bible is fictional. Is this some kind of attempt to rewrite the history of our conversation. If so that is a very dishonest and shameful move. I would never remove a comment, unless I had been proven wrong. Which yes again you will claim you have done, yet you haven't.
@Richardisdorky It's amazing that you could be so wrong about every single little "rebuttal" you make over every single little thing you take from a post. You can't just be overall generally wrong, you've got to attempt to pick apart what I post sentence by sentence, and then push forward the most absurd crap just so you can disagree with every little thing I put forward. And you flat out LIE - YOU FLAT OUT LIE - about me removing comments! (more)
@Richardisdorky 1) Me telling you you don't understand what I believe, you calling it gibberish: Just more signs that your reading comprehension is poor and you *don't* know what I believe. You don't have to believe Bible stories like Moses are entirely fiction to believe the translation over time isn't perfect.
2) Metaphor of the heart: Who made you the arbiter of what metaphors are "stupid"? It's not like this is on the order of "could care less" supposedly meaning "couldn't care less." (more)
@Richardisdorky 3) "Leave me alone": Ha! This is a place for public comment! You can leave any time you want, but you just have to keep coming back for more. Can't deal with someone holding your feet to the fire? You *should* be bothered, though; you should feel intense guilt over your vile, perverse beliefs - and don't give me the spiel about "I didn't say it, I just didn't disagree even when pressed to do so." I don't care about that lame excuse. (more)
@canofsand 4) "No I addressed this.The conclusion is that it doesn't matter because he was FICTIONAL": Who says he's fictional? Even if he was, I addressed THAT with my analogy to a novel earlier. BESIDES, what you're saying is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, not mention just flat out DISHONEST overall: An opinion's "importance" in your perception, let alone its actual importance, has no bearing on its VERACITY. "The conclusion is?" "I don't care" ISN'T A CONCLUSION AT ALL. (more)
@Richardisdorky 5) "Who standard of reason?" ANY HONEST ONE. "Within reason" is a common expression. I almost didn't even throw it in but I didn't want you to weasel in some incredibly awful "interpretation" of the text that's just flat out disingenuous, so I only allow reasonable interpretations. Didn't want to give you the opportunity to stoop that low. I overestimated you: You're going to challenge even the stipulation of "within reason"?? (more)
6) C'mon, SHOW me the REASONABLE interpretation that makes Moses comparable to Hitler. Do it. YOU CAN'T. THERE ISN'T ONE. The very worst reasonable interpretation is that he slaughtered a bunch of women and children but nothing even close to the Holocaust, let alone the other atrocities Hitler carried out. What's next, history revisionism, excuses for Hitler saying maybe he's not at fault for all that stuff?
@Richardisdorky 7) AS I INDICATED WEEKS AGO, BEFORE YOU EVEN CLAIMED I WAS COVERING ANYTHING UP BY DELETING COMMENTS, "About recent removed/deleted comments - Did some edits and moved the replies down here so they're all in one place." You claim I covered up a mistake I made, or me saying that the Bible is fictional. That is utter BUNK. That's your flawed reading of something I posted, and what I actually said is still here. (And you've got comments removed yourself, which you never explained.)
@Richardisdorky Given #6, you've got nothing to stand on. You ask, displaying as you do so that you've jumped to some false conclusions about me (and millions like me), why I care so much about this. I ask you why you don't care about incendiary, hateful, bigoted comments just because they're not aimed at something you believe in, and why you think others who don't believe in them shouldn't care either.
@canofsand "Given #6, you've got nothing to stand on." And given that num 6 was utter garbage you can't use it as a denial of the written text. Your ego knows no bounds. Using yourself as reference, amazingly egotistical.
@canofsand "I ask you why you don't care about incendiary, hateful, bigoted comments just because they're not aimed at something you believe in, and why you think others who don't believe in them shouldn't care either." Ahh now you have said the first reasonable statement yet. Well I have said nothing about anyone's beliefs that hasn't been true. Now as far as your continued nonsensical accusations of hate and bigotry. I have no hate only a desire to share what I know.
@canofsand So your believe that you are defend the beliefs of others that I have some how attacked. Very noble, pointless, but noble. Pointless given that I have made no attack. The center of your distaste with me is that I didn't disagree with something you did. This is the silliest argument I've ever had. You claim knowledge that you could not possibly have. You claim things about my character that you could not possibly know. Then you claim victory that you couldn't possible have won. Silly.
@canofsand Yes, Yes like you said weeks ago. You like to rewrite your own history. I get it. You're a liar it's cool. Yes, yes by removing statements you disprove every thing I could claim about what you have said. SO you must not have said it. Very good.
@canofsand Yes I remove one comment three weeks ago that wasn't even addressed to you. I sent a comment to the wrong link. I covered that. Lies more lies.
@canofsand "C'mon, SHOW me the REASONABLE interpretation that makes Moses comparable to Hitler. Do it. YOU CAN'T. THERE ISN'T ONE." I can and will pick up the the standard Torah that you can get at any library. Learn Hebrew now spend five years getting your degrees in theology. Then come back and tell me that I'm wrong. You don't ever address that. You ignore it every time then claim a false victory and knowledge you can't back up.
@canofsand "The very worst reasonable interpretation is that he slaughtered a bunch of women and children but nothing even close to the Holocaust, let alone the other atrocities Hitler carried out" So are you saying that you have read every translation, every interpretation and have decided which ones are "reasonable" then decided which ones best apply here. Man you must be the smartest man in the world. Either that or you have a gigantic ego. I'm not let this one go.
@Richardisdorky Well I think I just about covered all your nonsensical claims for today. If I missed anything I'm sure you'll let me know. Yes I could just ignore you, like you have ignored my requests to be left alone. Yet you say such boldly wrong things that I feel compelled to reply. It is as if a small child told me that the sky is plaid and if I disagree I must hate him and all that believe the sky is plaid. I couldn't just let the child go on being that wrong. So here we are.
@canofsand I just can't let this go. "C'mon, SHOW me the REASONABLE interpretation that makes Moses comparable to Hitler. Do it. YOU CAN'T. THERE ISN'T ONE. The very worst reasonable interpretation is that he slaughtered a bunch of women and children but nothing even close to the Holocaust," How do you come by this undeniable knowledge oh wise one. Your knowledge of the unknowable is amazing. Please tell me more.
@canofsand "almost didn't even throw it in but I didn't want you to weasel in some incredibly awful "interpretation" of the text that's just flat out disingenuous, so I only allow reasonable interpretations." Alright I'll play along with this nonsensical gibberish. Which on of the fourteen Hebrew versions would you like to use. I own eleven of them and can borrow the other three. "within reason"? Of course I'm going to challenge it. It is pointless double talk that needs to be challenge. More>
@canofsand So who's outside "ANY HONEST ONE" standard of reason would you like to use? What truly amuse me is how you answer a simple question with the same nonsense that made me pose the question in the first place. Again you are very silly, I have enjoyed the laughs you have given me.
@canofsand "Who says he's fictional? Even if he was, I addressed THAT with my analogy to a novel earlier. BESIDES, what you're saying is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, not mention just flat out DISHONEST overall:" Well I've explained all this before as well you just chose to ignore it. I say he was fictional. It was part of my thesis that was peer reviewed and approved before I received my degrees in theology from an accredited state university. I'm a actual legal authority on the bible.
@canofsand Haaa Your "holding my feet to the fire" That is hilarious. First I would have hand to have done something wrong to have you do that. Which I haven't. Silly just silly. "you should feel intense guilt over your vile, perverse beliefs" I explained this before Sr. I don't have beliefs I use reason and logic, beliefs are useless. You are so silly you don't get to blame me for the words of others. You're so silly.
@Richardisdorky Says the guy who wasn't going to reply, then was "only replying because [his] wife and son are out" for a day ... then came back... and came back again. Comparing a prophet of another religion to Hitler? That's just okay with you? The guilt should burn, seer into your mind, until you finally clear the haze of lies and hate (a passionate hate or not, it's there), to truly wake up from your stupor.
"Just by telling the facts here you're angering a lot of people"
They should be angry!
dibinism 6 days ago
SURVEY FOX NEWS
By Eric Boehlert
The release this week of yet another survey indicating the more you watch Fox News the less they know, has once again shone a spotlight on one of the unique features that defines Rupert Murdoch's cable news outlet - it is very, very good at misinforming people. And it's very bad at reporting the news. In other words: Propaganda? Yes. News? Not so much
What's stunning is how many different areas of the news and public policy Fox viewers are misinformed
stagleap07 3 months ago
Cenk, what is your thought on the outcome of WI election?
ji94552 6 months ago
If I saw Juan Williams on the street I'd back hand him in his black ass face. All black people should boycott and protest his existence. How did he ever get that gig w/NPR?
eqsmooth 7 months ago
Fuck. Yes. Shep. Smith.
crayyawn 11 months ago
U go Shep!
datniggami7 1 year ago
Cenk needs to hire Shep.
JustinC721 1 year ago
HOT DAMN SHEPARD SMITH!
my man!
CooperLordOfAll 1 year ago
funny how easily corporate America is able to turn working class Americans against each other so that we dont notice how corporate America is fleecing our country. are you people that easily manipulated?
BeingNobody1956 1 year ago
He is just as much of an actor as the other Fox News or American news anchors, the only difference is Fox puts him on so they can keep ahold of the centre/right conservatives. Its all a game, got nothing to do with his own views. Its entertainment and for Cenk to be even saying its his own views is funny.
The whole mainstream media is a joke.
Alexwozere 1 year ago
The people that sacrifices the most benefits the least those people who benefits the most sacrificed the least
KYKIN44 1 year ago
Google the words WALL STREET WHORES and GOP COMES UP!
1911arthur 1 year ago
Screw progressives and their Global Bullcrap - the whole country is waking up. You clowns are done
DeathKorps94 1 year ago
@DeathKorps94 Fuckwit.
upabittoolate 1 year ago
@upabittoolate More brilliant banter from a liberal
DeathKorps94 1 year ago
@DeathKorps94 After what you opened with, "Fuckwit" seems fitting. Don't criticize someone on banter when you pull conspiracy talking points ("Global Bullcrap," "country is waking up") and then resort to calling people "clowns."
PS: Where does the video talk about "Global Bullcrap" or global anything?
RememberJudas314 1 year ago
@RememberJudas314 Pull your head out of the sand and do some research. I am not going to spoon feed you. IF you want to believe the liberal propaganda pumped into your mind that is your problem. It isn't my job to convert you. Your own ignorance will be your downfall and there will come a time when you can't help but see it.
DeathKorps94 1 year ago
@DeathKorps94 "Pull your head out of the sand"..."liberal propaganda"..."It isn't my job to convert you"..."Your own ignorance will be your downfall"
This would make a hell of a lot more sense if you were talking about something with actual substance.
RememberJudas314 1 year ago
@RememberJudas314 Don't feed the trolls. It's pretty obvious from his comment that he didn't bring anything factual to the table, and posted a bunch of nonsequiturs to bait a response.
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@DeathKorps94 Fuckwit.
upabittoolate 1 year ago
@upabittoolate cry more
DeathKorps94 1 year ago
Nigga Please!
wssher 1 year ago
Shep Smith is heading to MSNBC..it is inevitable. He will be the thorn in the side of FOX, and the Fox lies. The inevitability of the downfall of FOX is in the air. regardless of where they stand in the numbers. At some point, Fox is either going to piss off one too many people and do something which can no longer be tolerated or the agenda will change because(finally) Roger Ayles will be terminated and Fox starts telling truths. Not. Fox will perish one day and we shall celebrate with candy.
assemblyguy 1 year ago
FOX news is for entertainment purposes only. Having said that, I love Ol' Shep'. Mostly due to comments like this: "We are the Untied States of America, We do not Fu@king Torture!" Very "Un-Fox-Like". He can't last long. Rupert HAS to be on to him by now. ;)
ruCKYes 1 year ago
They drove the teacher's union down, but I didn't fight it as I wasn't a teacher. Then they drove the fireman's union down, but I didn't fight it as I wasn't a fireman
Then they drove the policeman's union down, but I didn't fight it as I wasn't a policeman
Finally they came to drive me from the middle class, but by then no one had any money to fight for me.
DillonDee1 1 year ago 3
@DillonDee1
GOP = Nazi???
blkswimmer 1 year ago
@blkswimmer Absolutely not. Making the comparison between the Nazis and anyone else is evil. If you make the comparison you degrade the sacrifice made by their victims. No one should ever make this comparison. It is disgusting and amoral. The only people that have been as evil as the Nazis are the Nazis plain and simple stop even hinting at the comparison.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky
First of all. The guy I replied to made the comparison.
Secondly In terms of numbers more Native Americans died from Europeans than Jews by Nazis.
In terms of actions the Catholic Church takes the cake with wars, witch hunts, burning blasphemers alive, forced conversions, torture and the Inquisition.
Moses was FAR more evil than Hitler if he ever existed. If we go be deeds.
blkswimmer 1 year ago
@blkswimmer My mistake. I replied to the wrong link. It was in fact intended for the person you were talking to. As far as the rest of what you replied here. I don't disagree. The issue is that none of the horrible things you sighted were orchestrated by one leader. The Nazi's were. Of course this could be argued in the case of the Pope but I digress. Again my mistake, no offense intended.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky OH really, you don't disagree with Moses being more even than Hitler? You despicable religion-haters (not to be confused with more rational agnostics/atheists) never cease to amaze in the depths of depravity to which you are willing to sink.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand Actually the part I don't disagree with is the idea the he probably never existed. Out side of the bible there is no account that claim he did. The bible being massively inaccurate on the subject of historically events. As for labeling me a hater. That counters my originally point that labeling people does no good. What is depraved about agreeing with the idea that more horrific things have been done in the name of religion the any other social group? You took me out of context.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky "As far as the rest of what you replied here. I don't disagree."
How horrible of me, misreading that as that you agreed with everything else the guy said. Oh no wait, that's exactly what those sentences mean. What language do you speak where agreeing with "Moses was FAR more evil than Hitler if he ever existed" with no disclaimer saying "just 'if he ever existed'" means what you say id does. So... come out and call that guy a scumbag, or admit you're a hater. (more)
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky (continued) As for what's depraved about attacking religion in general? Oh I dunno, let's go with the obvious, here: The inherent bigotry involved. Yeah, that's a good one to start with.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand I am not attacking anyone's religion, you are again taking me out of context. I wouldn't consider it a bigoted point of view because I see all religions as equals and of them flawed in the own way. Not that it matters give that they no longer serve a purpose.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Yeah, yeah, you're not attacking anyone's religion. What a horrible twist of context for me to say that. You're just saying Moses (if he existed) was worse than Hitler. Totally unrelated to attacking religion. /sarc
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand "Yeah, yeah, you're not attacking anyone's religion." Nice use of sarcasm. If I am attacking it would be a guy I don't really believe in (Moses) not a religion. Given that Moses even if he did exist was not a religion. Some people have elevated his story to make him almost god like but he was never even claimed as a god, so he is not a religion. Now He did make some claims of power in the story, but how did that work out for him. Not so good as the tail goes.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Do you know what sophistry is? That's all you're doing here - though certainly one of the lamer examples I've seen in a while. The logical holes are glaring.
"I don't believe in the guy, therefore attacking him doesn't mean anything! Plus, the guy's only a revered prophet, not the religion itself!" Listen to yourself. The "reasoning" there is just inane. Why don't you go tell a Muslim how evil Muhammad is "but I'm not attacking Islam" and see how that works out for you.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand No I didn't it not an attack because he didn't exist. I said it wasn't an attack on religion because he wasn't a religion. Again context. As for Muslims and Muhammad, have and will. You miss my main point. Now I tried to post some explanations on how the Hebrew words for Village of many tribes which is what the bible calls Jericho in the original text, not village but it didn't seem to post. I don't know if youtube like a post with to different types of texts in it. Did you get it?
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Correction) I didn't say it was not an attack.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky "it not an attack because he didn't exist"
Sophistry. There's ZERO logic there.
"SUPERMAN IS STUPID AND EVIL!!"
"Why do you attack Superman?"
"I didn't attack Superman. He's not real so it's not really an attack!"
"..."
canofsand 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@canofsand "it not an attack because he didn't exist" You did it again, you took my word out of context again. This is pointless and dishonest. One last time. It is not an attack on any RELIGION to make a claim about Moses. Not because he may or may not existed, but because he was NOT a RELIGION. The only way one could claim that I had made an attack on a religion is if I had, which I haven't. I tired of this circular argument with you can we move on?
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Sorry, but the "out of context" excuse only works when the context changes anything. You're the one employing logical fallacy. You rely on the FALSE ASSUMPTION that in order to attack religion you have to directly attack the religion itself, as if there's no other way to do so. That's just absurd.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand Quote me exactly then. Use the full and exact quote where I attack a religion. You can't because I haven't the is not a logical fallacy. This is a simple observation. I did not say that there is no other way to do so, I said I have not done it in any way. You claim that my insistence of the proper context is an excuse, but context does change everything when it comes to English. I is a language of contextual perfection when describing exacting details.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky I know perfectly well that context CAN change meaning, and YOU know perfectly well that partial quotes are often FINE. If I want to quote an idea from a book, I do not have to quote the entire chapter it's taken from, or the whole book, or the series it's from, or all the words the person who wrote it ever put to paper. Here's all the context I need: You say comparing people to the Nazis is bad. Someone says Moses was worse if he lived. And you defend that horrible notion. (more)
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky (continued) That is inflammatory. You don't even backtrack when called on it. That is very telling. And don't tell me you weren't defending it, either, with more of your bullcrap usage of a personal dictionary that doesn't allow the normal usage of words like "attack" or "defend" to apply because you say so. You've been very adamant in maintaining that the Moses story is one of genocide (despite evidence to the contrary). (more)
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky (continued) But we haven't even fully examined the vile notion you defend! I deflected the "genocide" charge, but we haven't even gone into exactly what the rationale behind the comparison is in the first place. What does it TAKE to be "worse" than Hitler? Killing more people? A more evil intent? What? And how can a rational person possibly say Moses fits those things? (more)
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky (continued) How can a rational person even say they CANNOT DISAGREE with someone saying such? The answer is obvious to the intellectually honest non-bigots: They can't. If you think you are intellectually honest and not a bigot yet you somehow cannot disagree with people saying Moses is worse than Hitler (how blatant can you get!), I challenge you to argue your case, but FIRST you should examine your own prejudices, because this stuff is bloody obvious. Ridiculously inflammatory.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand Now if you wish we can continue this tomorrow. Though I don't really see the point. It is late and I am going to bed. Have a good night. It's been stimulating, and thank you for your time.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand I have done nothing to attack anyone. You I didn't even make the claim that Moses (if he existed) was worse than Hitler. It was someone else all together that made that claim. I just didn't disagree. There is a difference between making a claim and not disagreeing with some one who has made the claim. Like I said I attack no one. I attack no ideas. I simply pointed out the needlessness of religions and the destructive past. I make no assumptions just observations.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky "I didn't make the claim. I just didn't disagree! And still don't disagree when pressed on it!" (paraphrased)
Yep, you're a sophist, all right.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand So you just admit that you are going to misquote me. This is dishonest. That is duplicates at best. Not to mention insulting. I have not done the same to you. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to this and it has made you seem a bit false. I do not mince words. If you have a true rebuttal to anything I've actually said (not paraphrased or out of context) please make it. Making blanketed claims based only on what you would have liked me to say does nothing.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky So, not only a sophist, but you think paraphrasing is misquoting. See, I've used this paraphrasing thing many times, and only recently have people (was it you both times, even?) started calling it "misquoting." It has very legitimate uses, such as pointing out the absurdity of what certain people post. HOW is my paraphrasing NOT a fair display of EXACTLY what you've said right here in this thread? Why don't you prove you disagree with that claim by, I dunno, directly DISAGREEING.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand Because paraphrasing does not full represent the person you are quoting. There for a MISquote. If you wish to quote some on quote them don't paraphrase, because it purely doesn't display the full meaning of what I wrote.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Again with the sophistry. Paraphrasing is a useful tool. If I mischaracterized what you said, prove it. YOU CAN'T, BECAUSE I SUMMED IT UP EXACTLY AND FAIRLY. No amount of extra fluff changes that you've been dancing around the issue like a weaselly politician. "I just didn't disagree." But I'm sticking your feet in the fire no matter how much you dance, and continued dancing only makes you look more guilty. IF YOU REALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT CLAIM, SAY SO, WITH NO OBFUSCATION.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand No I will not because I can not there is nothing that was said that I can disagree with.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky You've demonstrated yet again that my paraphrasing was totally justified. And now, you refuse to disagree. IF YOU WILL NOT DISAGREE WITH A POSITION, AND WHEN SOMEONE CALLS YOU ON IT, YOU DEFEND THAT POSITION, THEN THE SAFE BET IS YOU AGREE - WHETHER YOU'LL ADMIT IT TO YOURSELF OR NOT. How in the world can you not grasp such a SIMPLE concept? We're not playing devil's advocate, here. No REALITY-BASED defense exists for your "non-position" position. Sophist, enemy of logic.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand Correction) this is not a logical fallacy.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand So it did post my translations. How would you address them? The context of Village of many tribes has a lot different meaning then fortress. Doesn't it? Or are you going to say that this is an example of sophist? I both speak and read Hebrew and have read the Torah in Hebrew and it is very clear on the subject.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Irrelevant. It doesn't counter earlier arguments made about the paradoxical language used (yes, contradictory even; I don't mind saying it; I don't believe the text to be infallible; it was written by men, not directly by Deity, and changed over time) so it's pointless to even bring up. So what if it doesn't say fortress? You cannot point to archeological evidence that it was a population center or square it with language about intermarriage, etc.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand Archeological you can't point to 90% of the story in the bible. Your the one who tried to make the whole story sound less violent. If you admit that the bible is fallible and only written by men, and is as you say pointless to bring up. Why would you bring it up? I agree with you fully on this view of the bible, but would venture a bit further and say that it is outdated and doesn't really apply to our current world. Thus my point that religion is no longer needed.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Archeological neither proves nor disproves the story, as I already knew, but evidence of fortresses in appropriate places is there. Again, not proof, but all I need is lack of proof of your version of the narrative (which you don't believe in the first place, but nonetheless for the sake of argument call "genocide"). So we're back to language, which I've demonstrated isn't proof of "genocide." (more)
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky (continued) Boiling it down, saying a genocide occurred is highly in doubt, whether you believe Moses was real or not. Therefore, comparing Moses (hypothetical, or real) to Hitler is shaky at best, and therefore it is inflammatory if not outright hateful to flatly state that Moses was worse than Hitler. End.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand I can not disagree with you on this anymore then I can disagree with post that started this. Simply my point was that I couldn't disagree. Nothing more. This is not a attack. Given that you like metaphor I will step outside of my comfort zone and use one. Someone says to you. "I have smelled the worst smell ever just a moment ago in another room. Go smell it and tell me if you agree or disagree." You go into the room and a third person has opened the window the smell is gone.continued
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand continued. You can neither agree or disagree with the observation of on the smell because the smell only existed to the first person. I can not disagree because I would have to make an assumption based on ideas that are not provable.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky This isn't about something subjective like a smell. This is about an egregiously inflammatory notion and basic logic. Even taking it away from the religion aspect, if we were to take a story that we both agree is fiction, such as a fantasy novel, and one of the characters does something and the two of us disagree on what it was he did (it's not clear enough in the text), it'd still be wrong for you to insist that he MUST have done what you say he did when it's not clear. (more)
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky (continued) So you're on shaky ground to begin with. Now let's say you think the character murdered thousands of innocent people. A third person comes along and agrees with you, then says the character is "worse than Hitler" for doing that. (We all agree the character is fiction; it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in our discussion. We don't NEED disclaimers about that EVERY BLASTED TIME we mention him.) Then, inexplicably, you agree with that. I, of course, vehemently disagree. (more)
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky (continued) My position is the only tenable one here. We *could* have just agreed to disagree in this little scenario, but not after the Hitler nonsense was thrown into the pot. Such an inflammatory comparison is out of bounds without a great deal of support. The already shaky ground you were on does not fulfill the requirement, and even if the text did say the character murdered all those innocents, is that REALLY necessarily worse than the Holocaust? Come on.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand Okay here the deal. I didn't disagree. So you took a meager point of context and blew it way out of proportion. I have read the original in Hebrew and although it does not use the word genocide (because there was a equivalent word in Hebrew) it was a pretty clear idea of how god wanted them to deal with non-believers. Now as for the nub of your anger. I don't agree with the premiss either, I simply can not disagree. We have been over this so much it's losing all meaning.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand Your continued wrong claim that the text is unclear is the basis of your argument. The text in Hebrew is very clear. Like I said I have read it have you. Did you spend twelve years getting theology degrees? Have you written papers demonstrating the massive historical inaccuracies of the bible? Had those papers stand up under pear review? Because I have. So when I say the Moses according to the Torah order the killing of many thousands if not tens of thousands it is based off of..cont>
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky cont> a long and exhaustive study of the book. You anger seems to be based off of the idea that it is the comparison to Hitler that truly upsets you. Which I do agree comparing anyone at any time to Hitler is wrong with the qualifier that if that person committed equal or greater evil. This could easily be said about many fictional characters. Yet you seem to be really hung up on one that you even agree is not important. This is the silliest thing to insult someone over.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky You have wrongly and repeatably accused me of hating religion. This couldn't be further from the truth. Religion has been very good to me, not to mention a bit profitable. I was raised by very religious parents who I love and even though I no longer believe in their religion doesn't mean I hate it. Hate is a very strong word. With strong intent. I have only truly hated once in my adult life, and it had nothing to with religion. I am a man of peace. I see how my disregard more>
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky for the subject may lead you to this assumption. Yet hate is a very strong emotion and I do not take it lightly.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand Now it is the core of this whole thing that I am after so I will one last time explain my reasoning. Zaphod Beeblebrox is a fictional character like Moses. Zaphod was the leader of his people like Moses. Zaphod blew up the earth kill every living thing.This is the worst and most evil thing ever to happen to humanity (according to the writer).There for according to the writer Zaphod was worst the Hitler. I can not disagree. Why? Because it is a statement that is imposable to dis prove.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand So it seems that the main problem that you have with me is that I don't disagree with a comment the someone else made. Why haven't you brought your complaint with what they said up with them. Or have you and unlike me they gave no reply? Given your persistence I'm guessing if he/she had you would be having this discussion with them. My intent has never been to defend their claim. Only to defend my character against your needless insults. Make this all pointlessly academic.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand In closing I make no apologies for not disagree with something that I could not possible find a reason to disagree with. There is no point. I simple wished to demonstrate that you falsely accused me of being hateful. Which I feel I've done. Now you asked. "even if the text did say the character murdered all those innocents, is that REALLY necessarily worse than the Holocaust?" The simple answer is Yes. If the text of the bible was true, and if it claimed that Moses /con>
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand /con> did the horrible things described in the Torah. Then Yes that would make him worst then Hitler. I can't say absolutely one way or the other on the subject so my not disagreeing with anyone who makes this argument is as meaningless as if I were to agree. I have nothing more to say on the subject and have no interest in discussing it further. If you wish to continue I will not be replying till Monday. Weekends are family time, so I don't reply to emails. Family is more important.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Stop dodging the key point. Not disagreeing is ITSELF enough to condemn you. I don't NEED to you agree with the scumbag. Simply NOT DISAGREEING is enough given all that I've presented. I won't bother rehashing it; I did that extensively already and you didn't address a drop of it. You address side stuff that's not at all relevant and is arguable in any case. That's it. Your prejudices are exposed. You're toast.
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky (more) If you can't see that "tens of thousands" plus whatever else you claim Moses did is NOT comparable to the Holocaust, you are a fool. If you see it and won't admit it, you are intellectually dishonest. Those are the only options left. Ignorance is no excuse any more, not after this long conversation. Look at yourself. Seriously think on yourself. What the bloody heck is wrong with you that makes you refuse to condemn, let alone disagree with, that scumbag's obvious hate?
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky (See also the string of comments that goes into more detail about this that you didn't address, starting with "I know perfectly well that context CAN change meaning" and ending with the comment that starts "How can a rational person even say..." Unless you actually address this in a fashion that makes it look like I'm not talking to a wall, don't expect further replies. I made my case, you replied, I proved my point, you repeated yourself as if that changes anything, the end.)
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand You proved no point beyond that you are egocentric, and self righteous. I understand that you think you may have some how won but it is all in your head. If you had proved your point I would have changed my opinion, yet here we are and I still don't disagree and that still doesn't mean I have demonstrated any hate. So If you wish to continue being a bully and puffing out your chest go right ahead. I will continue standing my ground.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky You see nothing wrong with comparisons of Moses to Hitler but think calling me self-righteous is a good retort? Tell me PRECISELY what it is that holds you back from disagreeing with that notion, then. Or, hold your ground and show yourself to be an intellectual coward who "isn't disagreeing" (how blatantly weaselly can you get?) with a position I've demonstrated is untenable and you don't even try to show is tenable. You're like a politician. Good at dancing, no substance.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand The biggest problem you seem to have in all this is that I won't condemn the actions or words of another based on the idea that you don't like what they had to say. If you want a sycophantic follower to disagree with every point that you disagree with you'll have to look further. Acting a fool and claim I have addressed points that I clearly have just make you look petty and small minded. You defend something you don't even believe in what is your point in this argument?
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand Nothing, nothing is wrong with not condemning someone for claiming something that can not be proven or disprove. You claim the man/woman is a scumbag who hates things. This is a claim of the unknowable from what little they said. You pointless insult speak more about your hateful behavior then anyone else. You claim you are attacked when it is clear you are not then fling insults and claim a possession of higher morals. This is ego stroking on your part.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Sophistry. Nothing but sophistry from you.
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Hypothetical scenario, White House press conference:
Reporter: Mr. President, the Vice President just said that Moses is worse than Hitler. (Detailed explanation as to VP's reasoning follows.) Do you condemn these remarks?
Pres.: No comment.
Reporter: You just don't want to say anything at this time, or...?
Pres.: I cannot disagree with the Vice President's remarks.
I wonder how that'd go over.
You are so dead set on holding to your blatantly flawed position, it's insane.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand Oh, and to head off a potential irrelevant counter to the above: Substitute out the VP for virtually anyone else if you want. It makes no difference.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand You propose a anger that does exist on my part. For a subject that I have repeatedly dismissed as unimportant. This is not a fruitful conversation. Although I am deriving a far amount of pleasure from it. So you let us continue. Your claim is that I am some how wrong for not shouting down someone who has said nothing worth shouting down. You claim that I have attacked you yet you can not demonstrate this so called attack. You claim that if one reads the post below they continued.>
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand continued> they would agree with you. Yet I have received messages that would counter your assertions. You then on top of it all the whole Mose thing was only apart of what I didn't disagree with and you haven't even mentioned those thing. Do you agree with his assertion that the Catholic Church? If you don't shout him down for those comments you must agree that the Catholic Church is more evil the the Nazi's. You haven't so you must be with him. More>
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand More> although I wouldn't make this claim because it would be pointless. The only thing you have proven is that you enjoy denying the evidence and demonstrating that you only hear what you want to hear. Oh and when challenged you refuse to show the same respect you demand and ignore the challenge. I have repeatedly refuted your claims that I am in some way hateful and attacking you and religion. Yet as you say. When I held your feet to the fire and demanded proof you dodge the point.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
Comment removed
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Again: "But we haven't even fully examined the vile notion you defend! I deflected the 'genocide' charge [agree or not, it's irrelevant to the next point], but we haven't even gone into exactly what the rationale behind the comparison is in the first place. What does it TAKE to be 'worse' than Hitler? Killing more people? A more evil intent? What? And how can a rational person possibly say Moses fits those things?" (more)
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky (more) "How can a rational person even say they CANNOT DISAGREE with someone saying such? The answer is obvious to the intellectually honest non-bigots: They can't. If you think you are intellectually honest and not a bigot yet you somehow CANNOT disagree with people saying Moses is worse than Hitler (how blatant can you get!), I challenge you to argue your case, but FIRST you should examine your own prejudices, because this stuff is bloody obvious. Ridiculously inflammatory."
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand Did you even read my last few messages? By repeating that I haven't replied over and over doesn't change the fact that I have. Your continuing egotistical claims that I have not addressed your complaints is false and based on your own narcissistic desire to some how look like you've made some sort of huge moral gain. Here it is one last time. The point can neither be agreed or disagreed on because there are not enough facts at hand to base such a definitive yes or no answer.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand I ignore you because you've repeatedly ask a question that I have answered. Get over yourself. You have decided to continue on this silly nonsensical point of yours. You want me to admit that you are right about your view of a point that I didn't even make and that the whole basis of your complaint is that I do not disagree with a point that someone else made that can't possibly be disagreed with. Yes I understand that you disagree with it but it doesn't matter. Because -continued>
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand You have completely agreed that the whole account is fictional. There are many accounts of this of Moses and some of those make him out to be a horrible person. Yet you have not answered my questions on which accounts you've read. The entire supposition of your argument is that it is somehow wrong to not disagree with a point that I couldn't even care less about given that there is no factual basis for your argument. You want to make a huge deal out of nonsense it serves no purpose.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand "but we haven't even gone into exactly what the rationale behind the comparison is in the first place." No we have you choose to forget when I demonstrated the Hebrew text. You never answer have you read the Torah in Hebrew?
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand Yet I am not the President and have no desire to be so what is your point.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky Worst refutation of an analogy ever, or just the runner up?
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand You over use the word sophistry, and mostly you've misused it.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky "Sophists will try to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether their argument is logical and factual."
You fit the bill.
canofsand 1 year ago
Comment removed
canofsand 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky "nothing is wrong with not condemning someone for claiming something that can not be proven or disprove"
Not only can it be disproven, I've done exactly that, and you don't even TRY to poke holes in the reasoning I've laid out. "Worse than Hitler." Geeze, the very topic here is just so insane. The vast majority of liberals would quickly condemn such filth, no question. But you won't.
canofsand 1 year ago
@canofsand " ot only can it be disproven, I've done exactly that, and you don't even TRY to poke holes in the reasoning I've laid out." When? What an ego. I've read threw your four times now and I can find a single bit of proof of your side. Only an pure egotist would claim such a thing. Madness complete madness. To disprove my claim you must first disprove a whole slew of thing about the biblical text that you have in no way come close to. You can't even answer some of the simplest questions.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@canofsand Second you'd have to the disprove that what I have demonstrated about the writer of the original post was wrong. Which you can't because he/she won't reply to you. Now finally why would I want to "poke holes" in your "reasoning" when your reasoning is based on a false premiss. One that you admitted to when you agreed that the bible is (at least in part) fictional. Lastly what does the opinion of the "vast majority of liberals" have to do with anything said here? Mad completely mad.
Richardisdorky 1 year ago
@Richardisdorky You continue to ignore my point. EVEN IF it was agreed that Moses was real and really did those things you say he did, there'd STILL be no objective base at all for the "worse than Hitler" remark and such a fact would be so painfully obvious to all intellectually honest people who've got basic reasoning skills that anyone who would say they cannot disagree with it would be considered irrational. I've stated this in various ways repeatedly. You IGNORE it; the question becomes WHY.
canofsand 11 months ago
@canofsand Most of all after reading through all the points you made. I realized that you don't want me to justify how I see thinks. No you just want someone to agree with you. You have become exceedingly insulting because you are incapable of seeing anyone's side but your own. You have nothing to offer and are clearly ignoring the valid points that I have made. Hell you haven't answered even one of my questions even though I have answered all of yours. You'll probably ignore this as well
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand You are a silly little person who ignores the point of others then claims that they made no point. I have no more need for you or your nonsensical gibberish. Please stop bothering me.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky You ignore others' points, he says as he continues to ignore the point about how there's no comparison to even the "evil" Moses he's conjured up and Hitler. Keep digging the hole deeper, clown.
canofsand 11 months ago
@canofsand I didn't "conjured" up Moses. That again is complete nonsense. Given that I didn't write the bible this is not possible. The only thing that you have said that I have ignored is when you have tried to make this a political issue along party lines. I have addressed every "point" you've made. So stop lying. I have made it clear no less then ten the exact basis of my reasoning you have made the choice to not read them, then claim they weren't there. Well (cont>
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand (cont> that is fine. If you wish to deny the clear and educated reasoning of other to promote your own lies I will not stop you. I asked you once nicely to please leave me alone, and again I ask please leave me alone. Your continued regurgitation of the same nonsensical rhetoric has become tiresome and serves no purpose. You claim that I am doing myself some sort of damage. This is false. You repeatedly claim victory. This is also false. Your side of the argument is pointless more>
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand by your own standards. You will not give a reasonable reply because. One you are not reasonable and two you won't read this close enough to be able to form one. You claim I have dug a hole based on things I have never even said. You may some day realize that lying repeatedly doesn't make the lie anymore true. I doubt it will be today. Until you reply to anyone of my questions expect no response. This doesn't mean you've won. I just means I'm done with you. Don't claim victory
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand One could summarize the argument as thus. "I want you to apologize for something someone else said." Then I reply. "Given that I didn't say it I can't." You. "Yes but you didn't disagree with it so you might as well have said it, ha there (insert insult)" Me "That's not reasonable you can't hold me responsible for the words of some one else and here's why (reasons given)" You "I can and I will. You (insert insult) now take it back, if you don't I win."Me "No because you have no point
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky One COULD summarize it that way, but only if they're an intellectually dishonest coward incapable of objective thought. I didn't ask you for an "apology." I asked you to condemn extremely obvious and extremely vile incendiary remarks. There's a huge difference there. Not only did you *not* condemn it, you said you can't. That tells me you are irrational and quite likely have deep-seated hatred in your own heart. (more)
canofsand 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky (more) You just spent 5 YT-comments' worth of space dancing and spinning, totally ignoring my point in direct response to my pointing out how you ignore my point. Either that, or you're just so incredibly dense that you actually think you've made a good counter to it, which is just absurd. Seriously, you open with a complaint that implies I'm saying you conjured up Moses. That's just stupid. It's a non sequitur. Are you even READING my comments? At all? (more)
canofsand 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky (more) Are you even TRYING to understand what I'm posting? WHO SAID YOU CONJURED UP MOSES? Moreover, my point about the supposed crimes of Moses and the real crimes of Hitler - WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO COMPLETELY IGNORE - stands EVEN IF WE BUY YOUR (bullcrap-laden) ASSESSMENT OF WHAT IT IS MOSES (if he was real) DID, AS I DIRECTLY POINTED OUT. And you respond by implying I said you conjured him up. What the heck, man? What the heck? You are worthless at this. Just bloody worthless.
canofsand 11 months ago
@canofsand Oh so you don't like being taken out of context. "You ignore others' points, he says as he continues to ignore the point about how there's no comparison to even the "evil" Moses he's conjured up and Hitler. Keep digging the hole deeper, clown." Did you not say the above? Am I not the he you refer to. I was simple using your tools of misquoting and misdirection. Now you complain about me not reading your posts this is hilarious. You haven't answered one single question I've asked.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand "Moreover, my point about the supposed crimes of Moses and the real crimes of Hitler - WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO COMPLETELY IGNORE - stands EVEN IF WE BUY YOUR (bullcrap-laden) ASSESSMENT OF WHAT IT IS MOSES (if he was real) DID, AS I DIRECTLY POINTED OUT." This whole statement is a lie. I never ignored it. I repeatedly answered this. Go back and read my posts. This is not my assessment read the text in the original Hebrew it's very clear. I've said that before too.Demonstrated and clear
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand Again you accuse me of hate. Where have I demonstrated hate? Why should I bother asking, you don't actually answer questions. You puffer to make assumptions and then and insults. You don't display a genuine desire for reasonable dialog. No you rather grand stand and make up nonsensical scenarios where I am some how attacking you. For some reason you have the need to defend the reputation of a fictional character you don't even believe in. This is pointless.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand As for hate you accuse me of hate so often it's silly. Demonstrate one hateful think I've said. You can't I don't say hateful things, it's not in my nature. Hate is a very strong emotion that I have only felt twice in my adult life and avoid all together. It only serve to destroy the one who hates not the object of that hate. As for it being deep-seated in my heart. The only thing in my heart is some mussels, a few valves and some blood. The heart doesn't store emotions.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand I know the whole heart and emotion link is a common metaphor, but to be frank it's pretty dumb. We know that it only pumps blood. Your emotions come from you mind, which exist only in your brain.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand So today I have demonstrated that you lie, you misquote yet dislike being misquoted, you use out of date metaphors for the heart, you are arguing for the reputation of someone you don't believe existed. So in a sense you're arguing for no reason. You have ignored all my request to be left alone. Oh and you still like to end your posts with pointless personal insults. Aside from all that you're still fairly entertaining. Completely wrong by your own standards. Yet entertaining.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky We went over this: Paraphrasing is not "misquoting." When it has the SAME MEANING as the original, in context, there's nothing wrong with it. That you still don't understand this is pathetic. More importantly, you continue to ignore the fact that even if we take the morally-worst-possible interpretation of the text about Moses (within reason) to be accurate, he'd still not be worse than Hitler. Refusing to admit this fact is a sign of an intellectually bankrupt individual.
canofsand 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky (Oh, and SAYING you didn't ignore something doesn't mean you didn't ignore it. Replying to something but refusing to deal with its substance is equivalent to ignoring it. "Deal with this fact." // "I don't wanna." // "Stop ignoring this fact!" // "I didn't ignore you! I said 'I don't wanna,' see?!?!" Childish.)
canofsand 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky (And picking on the metaphor of the heart? Take it up with... I dunno, almost everyone else on the entire planet. Geeze, you're ridiculous. Also, judging by the conclusion you've made about my beliefs, you've made a silly assumption, buying your ilk's own lies about what the religious believe about the Bible and the prophets, a stereotype they use to make religious people look stupid.)
canofsand 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@canofsand Geeze, you're ridiculous. Also, judging by the conclusion you've made about my beliefs, you've made a silly assumption, buying your ilk's own lies about what the religious believe about the Bible and the prophets, a stereotype they use to make religious people look stupid.) This is absolute gibberish and has nothing to do with anything I said.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand (And picking on the metaphor of the heart? Take it up with... I dunno, almost everyone else on the entire planet.) So most of the people on the planet say lots of stupid things from time to time. It is still a stupid metaphor and has no use in a productive conversation. This is my whole point. I don't care what the majority have to say on a subject.I am only concerned with the facts. Not fairy tails, not useless metaphors, and not petty little arguments over things that don't matter
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand That all being said. Please again. Leave me alone. You serve no purpose to the advancement of my knowledge on the subject so you are doing me no good.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@canofsand "Deal with this fact." // "I don't wanna." // "Stop ignoring this fact!" // "I didn't ignore you! I said 'I don't wanna,' see?!?!" Childish.) Again you lie I said nothing of the sort.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@canofsand (We went over this: Paraphrasing is not "misquoting." When it has the SAME MEANING as the original, in context, there's nothing wrong with it.) This is would be true if what you were doing was paraphrasing. It's not. What you have done is misquote. You claim that the things that I have said have a meaning beyond the context. You lied. It is very simple. Then of course you followed it with an insult. Your form is constant.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand (More importantly, you continue to ignore the fact that even if we take the morally-worst-possible interpretation of the text about Moses (within reason) to be accurate, he'd still not be worse than Hitler.) No I addressed this.The conclusion is that it doesn't matter because he was FICTIONAL.You can't harm the character of FICTIONAL person because they don't exist so there for they have no character to harm. By simply restating the lie that I haven't answered this does make it true.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand (Moses (within reason) to be accurate) Who standard of reason? Which version? Who is the outside party you wish to base this claim on?
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand Now a point I have continued to make and will make again, mainly because your lack of answer amuses me. What's it to you? You agree that Moses probably never existed. So what is the gain for you in this? You are defending someone that you admit was most likely fictional. I don't really care what is said about Moses any more then I would care about someone insulting Mickey Mouse. Do you want to know why? Well here it is one more time. Their FICTIONAL so it doesn't matter.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand You have done something incredibly dishonest. You have gone back through the logs and removed the comments that you made where in you explain how you understand that the bible is fictional. Is this some kind of attempt to rewrite the history of our conversation. If so that is a very dishonest and shameful move. I would never remove a comment, unless I had been proven wrong. Which yes again you will claim you have done, yet you haven't.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand So again let me explain the simple logic.
You claim I should disagree with someone because the said Moses was worst then Hitler.
I said I can't because.
1 Depending on the text he may have been.
2 He was fictional, so there for it doesn't matter what is said about him. Because he can not be harmed.
You retort with the implication that I some how being mean or bigoted and only wish to do harm to Moses.
I explain 1 and 2 to again.Then you lie and say I haven't explained, again.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky It's amazing that you could be so wrong about every single little "rebuttal" you make over every single little thing you take from a post. You can't just be overall generally wrong, you've got to attempt to pick apart what I post sentence by sentence, and then push forward the most absurd crap just so you can disagree with every little thing I put forward. And you flat out LIE - YOU FLAT OUT LIE - about me removing comments! (more)
canofsand 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky 1) Me telling you you don't understand what I believe, you calling it gibberish: Just more signs that your reading comprehension is poor and you *don't* know what I believe. You don't have to believe Bible stories like Moses are entirely fiction to believe the translation over time isn't perfect.
2) Metaphor of the heart: Who made you the arbiter of what metaphors are "stupid"? It's not like this is on the order of "could care less" supposedly meaning "couldn't care less." (more)
canofsand 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky 3) "Leave me alone": Ha! This is a place for public comment! You can leave any time you want, but you just have to keep coming back for more. Can't deal with someone holding your feet to the fire? You *should* be bothered, though; you should feel intense guilt over your vile, perverse beliefs - and don't give me the spiel about "I didn't say it, I just didn't disagree even when pressed to do so." I don't care about that lame excuse. (more)
canofsand 11 months ago
@canofsand 4) "No I addressed this.The conclusion is that it doesn't matter because he was FICTIONAL": Who says he's fictional? Even if he was, I addressed THAT with my analogy to a novel earlier. BESIDES, what you're saying is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, not mention just flat out DISHONEST overall: An opinion's "importance" in your perception, let alone its actual importance, has no bearing on its VERACITY. "The conclusion is?" "I don't care" ISN'T A CONCLUSION AT ALL. (more)
canofsand 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky 5) "Who standard of reason?" ANY HONEST ONE. "Within reason" is a common expression. I almost didn't even throw it in but I didn't want you to weasel in some incredibly awful "interpretation" of the text that's just flat out disingenuous, so I only allow reasonable interpretations. Didn't want to give you the opportunity to stoop that low. I overestimated you: You're going to challenge even the stipulation of "within reason"?? (more)
canofsand 11 months ago
6) C'mon, SHOW me the REASONABLE interpretation that makes Moses comparable to Hitler. Do it. YOU CAN'T. THERE ISN'T ONE. The very worst reasonable interpretation is that he slaughtered a bunch of women and children but nothing even close to the Holocaust, let alone the other atrocities Hitler carried out. What's next, history revisionism, excuses for Hitler saying maybe he's not at fault for all that stuff?
(more)
canofsand 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky 7) AS I INDICATED WEEKS AGO, BEFORE YOU EVEN CLAIMED I WAS COVERING ANYTHING UP BY DELETING COMMENTS, "About recent removed/deleted comments - Did some edits and moved the replies down here so they're all in one place." You claim I covered up a mistake I made, or me saying that the Bible is fictional. That is utter BUNK. That's your flawed reading of something I posted, and what I actually said is still here. (And you've got comments removed yourself, which you never explained.)
canofsand 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky Given #6, you've got nothing to stand on. You ask, displaying as you do so that you've jumped to some false conclusions about me (and millions like me), why I care so much about this. I ask you why you don't care about incendiary, hateful, bigoted comments just because they're not aimed at something you believe in, and why you think others who don't believe in them shouldn't care either.
canofsand 11 months ago
@canofsand "Given #6, you've got nothing to stand on." And given that num 6 was utter garbage you can't use it as a denial of the written text. Your ego knows no bounds. Using yourself as reference, amazingly egotistical.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand "I ask you why you don't care about incendiary, hateful, bigoted comments just because they're not aimed at something you believe in, and why you think others who don't believe in them shouldn't care either." Ahh now you have said the first reasonable statement yet. Well I have said nothing about anyone's beliefs that hasn't been true. Now as far as your continued nonsensical accusations of hate and bigotry. I have no hate only a desire to share what I know.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand So your believe that you are defend the beliefs of others that I have some how attacked. Very noble, pointless, but noble. Pointless given that I have made no attack. The center of your distaste with me is that I didn't disagree with something you did. This is the silliest argument I've ever had. You claim knowledge that you could not possibly have. You claim things about my character that you could not possibly know. Then you claim victory that you couldn't possible have won. Silly.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand Yes, Yes like you said weeks ago. You like to rewrite your own history. I get it. You're a liar it's cool. Yes, yes by removing statements you disprove every thing I could claim about what you have said. SO you must not have said it. Very good.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand Yes I remove one comment three weeks ago that wasn't even addressed to you. I sent a comment to the wrong link. I covered that. Lies more lies.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand "C'mon, SHOW me the REASONABLE interpretation that makes Moses comparable to Hitler. Do it. YOU CAN'T. THERE ISN'T ONE." I can and will pick up the the standard Torah that you can get at any library. Learn Hebrew now spend five years getting your degrees in theology. Then come back and tell me that I'm wrong. You don't ever address that. You ignore it every time then claim a false victory and knowledge you can't back up.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand "The very worst reasonable interpretation is that he slaughtered a bunch of women and children but nothing even close to the Holocaust, let alone the other atrocities Hitler carried out" So are you saying that you have read every translation, every interpretation and have decided which ones are "reasonable" then decided which ones best apply here. Man you must be the smartest man in the world. Either that or you have a gigantic ego. I'm not let this one go.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky Well I think I just about covered all your nonsensical claims for today. If I missed anything I'm sure you'll let me know. Yes I could just ignore you, like you have ignored my requests to be left alone. Yet you say such boldly wrong things that I feel compelled to reply. It is as if a small child told me that the sky is plaid and if I disagree I must hate him and all that believe the sky is plaid. I couldn't just let the child go on being that wrong. So here we are.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@canofsand I just can't let this go. "C'mon, SHOW me the REASONABLE interpretation that makes Moses comparable to Hitler. Do it. YOU CAN'T. THERE ISN'T ONE. The very worst reasonable interpretation is that he slaughtered a bunch of women and children but nothing even close to the Holocaust," How do you come by this undeniable knowledge oh wise one. Your knowledge of the unknowable is amazing. Please tell me more.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand "almost didn't even throw it in but I didn't want you to weasel in some incredibly awful "interpretation" of the text that's just flat out disingenuous, so I only allow reasonable interpretations." Alright I'll play along with this nonsensical gibberish. Which on of the fourteen Hebrew versions would you like to use. I own eleven of them and can borrow the other three. "within reason"? Of course I'm going to challenge it. It is pointless double talk that needs to be challenge. More>
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand So who's outside "ANY HONEST ONE" standard of reason would you like to use? What truly amuse me is how you answer a simple question with the same nonsense that made me pose the question in the first place. Again you are very silly, I have enjoyed the laughs you have given me.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand "Who says he's fictional? Even if he was, I addressed THAT with my analogy to a novel earlier. BESIDES, what you're saying is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, not mention just flat out DISHONEST overall:" Well I've explained all this before as well you just chose to ignore it. I say he was fictional. It was part of my thesis that was peer reviewed and approved before I received my degrees in theology from an accredited state university. I'm a actual legal authority on the bible.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand Haaa Your "holding my feet to the fire" That is hilarious. First I would have hand to have done something wrong to have you do that. Which I haven't. Silly just silly. "you should feel intense guilt over your vile, perverse beliefs" I explained this before Sr. I don't have beliefs I use reason and logic, beliefs are useless. You are so silly you don't get to blame me for the words of others. You're so silly.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Richardisdorky Sorry, have had to have, not have hand to have
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@canofsand You clearly don't want anything more then to be told your right. Well your not. I sorry that's just the way it is.
Richardisdorky 11 months ago
@Richardisdorky Says the guy who wasn't going to reply, then was "only replying because [his] wife and son are out" for a day ... then came back... and came back again. Comparing a prophet of another religion to Hitler? That's just okay with you? The guilt should burn, seer into your mind, until you finally clear the haze of lies and hate (a passionate hate or not, it's there), to truly wake up from your stupor.
canofsand 11 months ago