1. Whatever, dude. I get it, you say a shit ton more than you have to in order to resemble a point without offering one. You essentially just said, "Nuh-huh!". If you can't comprehend where you've gone wrong when you're saying we can vilify people for their approach on a matter in the past because we know better now but that people who may know even better in the future can't vilify us for our lack of understanding compared to them then you just aren't at the level of comprehending these apparently complex positions.
2. I'm happy to inform you that you absolutely have, which is why all you had was a "Nuh-huh" in response, no matter how badly you attempted to flesh-out that "Nuh-huh!" to make it seem like you had a point. Infact, your response was an ad hom. Still at it, I see.
3. I wouldn't be throwing around the big intellectual cohunes by claiming I need you to give me some handicaps, S.W. There is a list of things you've failed on with me but that Jennifer Lawrence shit alone would work.
He literally said that was his stance. Are you insane? He even makes a cannibalism analogy in regards to it, that cannibalism is wrong but at some points in history people fell on it's requirements to not starve. How are you going to try and represent this as not being his position? Awww, fuck. Why do I even bother. Jesus Christ.
4. Unironically, yes you do. You agreed that the people of the future that may do better than us now would be wrong in vilifying us for our selfish uses of slave labour that they abolish. By that angle you cannot then say that the people of our past were wrong for their use of slave labour, quite literally not being able to say it was bad back then when it happened because they weren't as established as us, just as we aren't as established as the hypothetical future people that you agreed would not be justified in vilifying us for our part.
5. You can't claim I'm making a wrong comparison when you don't even know the position (Lloyd's) that you're arguing against. We don't need to be perfect 100% copies, we simply need to be aspects that if removed the machine would stop working. Like a card castle, it doesn't matter which one of the bottom gets removed they all can bring it down.
6. Nope. I actually don't think you have the capacity to understand the layers of this discussion.
7. This is actually pretty funny because you don't know how relevant to the actual topic this point is. Let me be a bit blunt on this one actually. If you had to enslave ten people to save 100 from starvation (let's just assume it's as explained) would you allow the 100 to die in order to not let the 10 be enslaved or vice versa?
why are you atheist? why are you theist?
← View full post
1. Whatever, dude. I get it, you say a shit ton more than you have to in order to resemble a point without offering one. You essentially just said, "Nuh-huh!". If you can't comprehend where you've gone wrong when you're saying we can vilify people for their approach on a matter in the past because we know better now but that people who may know even better in the future can't vilify us for our lack of understanding compared to them then you just aren't at the level of comprehending these apparently complex positions.
2. I'm happy to inform you that you absolutely have, which is why all you had was a "Nuh-huh" in response, no matter how badly you attempted to flesh-out that "Nuh-huh!" to make it seem like you had a point. Infact, your response was an ad hom. Still at it, I see.
3. I wouldn't be throwing around the big intellectual cohunes by claiming I need you to give me some handicaps, S.W. There is a list of things you've failed on with me but that Jennifer Lawrence shit alone would work.
He literally said that was his stance. Are you insane? He even makes a cannibalism analogy in regards to it, that cannibalism is wrong but at some points in history people fell on it's requirements to not starve. How are you going to try and represent this as not being his position? Awww, fuck. Why do I even bother. Jesus Christ.
4. Unironically, yes you do. You agreed that the people of the future that may do better than us now would be wrong in vilifying us for our selfish uses of slave labour that they abolish. By that angle you cannot then say that the people of our past were wrong for their use of slave labour, quite literally not being able to say it was bad back then when it happened because they weren't as established as us, just as we aren't as established as the hypothetical future people that you agreed would not be justified in vilifying us for our part.
5. You can't claim I'm making a wrong comparison when you don't even know the position (Lloyd's) that you're arguing against. We don't need to be perfect 100% copies, we simply need to be aspects that if removed the machine would stop working. Like a card castle, it doesn't matter which one of the bottom gets removed they all can bring it down.
6. Nope. I actually don't think you have the capacity to understand the layers of this discussion.
7. This is actually pretty funny because you don't know how relevant to the actual topic this point is. Let me be a bit blunt on this one actually. If you had to enslave ten people to save 100 from starvation (let's just assume it's as explained) would you allow the 100 to die in order to not let the 10 be enslaved or vice versa?