Corporate Comedian Ron Pearson

Visit http://www.funny-business.com to Hire Ron Pearson for your Corporate Party or Event.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Ron Pearson
• Corporate Comedy
• Corporate Comedian
• Corporate Entertainment
• Corporate Party
• Corporate Event
• Comedy
• Juggler
• Funny
• Hire

[rustedromeo]

That was pretty fucking good.



[newagedesi]

WOW

[polemius01]

@QUIGONJINN777 The only waste of time has been the fact that the pearls of wisdom I have written were tossed to swine.

[QUIGONJINN777]

@polemius01 Why I waste time with you here is beyond me. As such, I am done with you. No amount of truth will ever convince you. Enjoy eternity.

[polemius01]

@QUIGONJINN777 Pt 3:

4. On slavery and child-beating. Your claim that the Bible doesn't endorse such things is another indication of your basic dishonesty. The last sentence of your posting is either written from ignorance ("Read it" yourself), or, an outright lie.

You and Rom Pearson: hate-mongers, bigots, liars, and not funny at all.

[polemius01]

@QUIGONJINN777 Pt 2:

2 (cont'd): Physics, for example, was entirely philosophical until empiricism. Aristotle even wrote "The Physics," and "Metaphysics" as philosophical texts. You don;t know what you're talking about when you address philosophy.

3. You keep dodging the archeological point of the "Nephilim" reference. You're a dishonest person. Either address it or admit that there is no proof of them and your Hittite reference was a desperate ploy.

[polemius01]

@QUIGONJINN777 Pt 1: You are really out of your depth.

1. "Philosophy" is the study of all human endeavors from a rational outlook (something you don't share). The branch of philosophy that studies, as you so quaintly put it, "things we cannot know" is called "metaphysics."

2. More quaintness: "the second it is proved," is so cutely facile. If you're referring to "empiricism," that branch of science developed later, and, has a philosophical underpinning all its own.

[QUIGONJINN777]

@polemius01 Philosophy? Better? Now that's worth a laugh. Philosophy is the study of things we cannot know. The second it is proved one way or the other, it is no longer philosophy. Calling it an actual field is a tremendous error in itself. Also, what are you so confused about regarding the sons of Seth? Regarding the actions the bible "endorses," you are sadly mistaken. Read the thing before you speak of it. Nowhere does it say for us to keep slaves, or kill, or stone. Read it.

[polemius01]

@QUIGONJINN777 Pt 3: "An object." I suppose those who argued that the Bible was flawed before certain archeological discoveries wished to destroy every "object," i.e., every printed Bible in every language. Where is your proof of that? Or, they merely wished to point out that the Bible is not always verifiable empirically. Ahem, the Nephilim?

You and Ron Pearson remain hate-filled homophobes.

[polemius01]

@QUIGONJINN777 Pt 2: So nothing is "better" than a book that endorses killing, slavery and stoning? You've got really low standards (if any).

The fact that you claim you would "follow" anything "better" indicates that you don't have the ability for individual cognition and action. I feel sorry for your slaves.

"Perfect for such a length of time." St. Anselm of Canterbury mandates "perfect" as eternal, so, your characterization is not even up to Scholasticism's standards.

[polemius01]

@QUIGONJINN777 Pt 1: More irrationality from the individual who shares Ron Pearson's hate-filled bigotry.

"Most true" is an illogical statement. Something is either "true" or "false." "Belief" is neither true nor false. Only things that can be empirically verifiable can be said to exist.

"Better than the Bible." "Better" is an individual evaluation. Lots of things can be said to be "better" for people than the Bible; philosophy, for instance.

[QUIGONJINN777]

@polemius01 I have always had the belief system that I follow what is most true. If someone could show me something better than the bible, I would follow that. As is, nothing has ever come so close to being perfect for such a length of time. Also, the argument was used to bring destruction to an object, in this case an idea.  It would qualify for the term "weapon,"