Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2016, 04:06 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
What in the actual fuck even is this conversation

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
13-03-2016, 04:07 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2016 04:11 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 04:00 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I challenge you to provide one instance where you proved I did something wrong in your next post then.
Fuck you, I'lld o nothing of the sort awhile I'm still waiting on you to answer mine from months ago. Self entitled cocksucker. I have done so dozens of times, and just like in other threads you have asked me before to restate and then ignored it and then when challenged on it played dumb and asked for it again only to ignore it again. This is the 12th+ time I've gone around in this circle with you and it fuck ends now. You can claim whatever you want but I don't share your delusion and you being a liar is now firmly established in the community.
Claim to be the king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat for all I care, you lost any right to issue challenges ages ago. I don't lose a challenge cause your to fucking pig ignorant to accept the answers the first dozen times.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Last time we had this same challenge you accepted and failed.
Delusional and a lie, I presented not jsut one but multiple ones. Are you claiming you didn't lie when yous aid you asked a legal professional about plagiarism and they agreed with you, despite not existing?

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When I asked you to give another one you ran.
Abject lie, I've doen it over and over and over and over and over and over and fucking over again. You don't read people replies, and that's not my fault.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I actually look forward to finding my character flaws but you don't seem to have the ability to help.
Lies on both counts, I've been demonstrating and proving your dishonesty for months now. Fuck off in to a gas fire.
So I asked you to prove your accusations of my wrong doings and your response was "I'll do nothing of the sort" because you feel emotionally wronged by me because I failed to answer some question you supposedly asked me months ago?
The only thing you are demonstrating is a "claim" that you have demonstrated at this point. I think you are making a mockery of the scientific process here.

At this point I would simply ask you to repeat the question I supposedly ignored months ago, so we can proceed.
Do you play chess? I believe the word "Check" is in order. Your turn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 04:08 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 04:06 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What in the actual fuck even is this conversation
A witch tribunal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 04:15 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2016 04:28 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 03:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-03-2016 03:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't know if I'm on tract (I'm a skeptic), but your understanding of murder isn't very common.
Not everyone would agree with you there:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/23651-th...y-the-most
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

It's "on track" .... these constant verbal screw ups tell me you have little to no formal education. I feel pretty sorry for you. Maybe that's how you went SO far off the rails in your debate.

1. The god in the OT has NOTHING to do with the point.
2. Legal people (who are the ONLY people that count in that argument, WOULD agree with me). Saying "not every one would agree" is no argument and irrelevant.
Taking human life is entirely situationally relative. A soldier who kills is a hero. A thief who kills is (usually) also guilty of "murder". The law has all sorts of definitions of varying degrees of homicide.
There are many positively influential individuals throughout humanity that has had no formal education. Michael Faraday ring any bells? I fail to see your point, but It could be in there somewhere.

I think your memory has failed you a bit here. The discussion has taken a direction of wrong doing resulting in a plagiarism accusation. It falls under the category of morality.
Type in plagiarism in http://www.xefer.com to have a better idea of the categories.

Legal people are not the only people that count in an argument about Morality. In fact some would say they are the worst.

You are right in stating that murder being considered wrong is entirely situational because murder is an act. Every act absent implied or proven intent is neutral on the spectrum of morality.
As I stated before only a thought can bare the burden of objective morality.
This is why intent is highly prized when seeking to accuse someone of wrong doing.

Where is the proof of my intent (proven or otherwise)
If you can't show that then at least show where someone has been wronged in this whole debacle.

Absent those 2 required pieces of evidence I fail to see how can you get an accusation of wrong doing to stick.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 04:20 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 04:08 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(13-03-2016 04:06 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What in the actual fuck even is this conversation
A witch tribunal.

*Holds up hand*

No, it's not a Witch trial because at no point has any one identified as/Been pointed out as/Or claimed another to actually be a Witch.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 04:22 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 03:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are claiming that only a lawyer can tell me what is right and wrong?
No I'm not. Fuck you and your strawman, I'm pointing out that in the debate of the legal difference between murder and a killing in self-defense, doing an appeal to authority to someone who is not an authority int hat field is fallacious.
Reading comprehension, give it a fucking try you silly twat.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A lawyer of all people? To give me advice on right and wrong?
You got a good laugh out of the notion of using a lawyer to give advice on the legal differences between murder and a killing in self-defense/ You know legal advice is part of their fucking job right?
Do you have ANY points that are not strawman fallacies? At all?

STOP TALKING ABOUT THE LAW, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!!


(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Since when is the legal system of whiskey debates country the globally accepted authority on morality?
Never claimed that it was, fuck you and your strawman.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There are levels of murder 1st, 2nd, 3rd.
There is also 4th degree murder, but thank you for regurgitating what you remembered from a half watched episode of Law and Order. Now what does this have to do with you trying to assert that all intentional killing is murder when it's factually not? Relevance your stupidness?


(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The point is it's not the label which makes an act wrong.
Funny cause earlier in the thread you were arguing the label of plagiarism is exactly what made what you did in stealing the doctors work not wrong. Why am I better at keeping your bullshit strait then you are?

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's the intention.
And by taking someone work and deliberately changing it to say things it doesn't you intentionally tried to mislead readers and your debate opponent.
Eat all the dicks.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I asked to make a morality thread to further discuss it. Bucky refused.
Perhaps you would like to have a go at it with me.
Why on earth would I want to willingly waste my time in more then one thread with a lying dishonest cockroach? Honestly asking, why would I engage in a debate with a person I know lies, lacks the intelligence, and can't admit even the tiniest mistake he has made? Why would I do that, your not my equal.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Some would say the only true good or bad thing is a thought.
Ya well those people are cunts and lucky for us, but not you, the law and academia ain't among that list of cunts. So shove your woo up your ass.


(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Acts themselves aren't good or bad if you don't know the intention of the perpetrator.
And your intention to deliberately mislead and lie is well established.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 04:32 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 04:22 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(13-03-2016 03:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are claiming that only a lawyer can tell me what is right and wrong?
No I'm not. Fuck you and your strawman, I'm pointing out that in the debate of the legal difference between murder and a killing in self-defense, doing an appeal to authority to someone who is not an authority int hat field is fallacious.
Reading comprehension, give it a fucking try you silly twat.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A lawyer of all people? To give me advice on right and wrong?
You got a good laugh out of the notion of using a lawyer to give advice on the legal differences between murder and a killing in self-defense/ You know legal advice is part of their fucking job right?
Do you have ANY points that are not strawman fallacies? At all?

STOP TALKING ABOUT THE LAW, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!!


(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Since when is the legal system of whiskey debates country the globally accepted authority on morality?
Never claimed that it was, fuck you and your strawman.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There are levels of murder 1st, 2nd, 3rd.
There is also 4th degree murder, but thank you for regurgitating what you remembered from a half watched episode of Law and Order. Now what does this have to do with you trying to assert that all intentional killing is murder when it's factually not? Relevance your stupidness?


(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The point is it's not the label which makes an act wrong.
Funny cause earlier in the thread you were arguing the label of plagiarism is exactly what made what you did in stealing the doctors work not wrong. Why am I better at keeping your bullshit strait then you are?

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's the intention.
And by taking someone work and deliberately changing it to say things it doesn't you intentionally tried to mislead readers and your debate opponent.
Eat all the dicks.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I asked to make a morality thread to further discuss it. Bucky refused.
Perhaps you would like to have a go at it with me.
Why on earth would I want to willingly waste my time in more then one thread with a lying dishonest cockroach? Honestly asking, why would I engage in a debate with a person I know lies, lacks the intelligence, and can't admit even the tiniest mistake he has made? Why would I do that, your not my equal.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Some would say the only true good or bad thing is a thought.
Ya well those people are cunts and lucky for us, but not you, the law and academia ain't among that list of cunts. So shove your woo up your ass.


(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Acts themselves aren't good or bad if you don't know the intention of the perpetrator.
And your intention to deliberately mislead and lie is well established.
No i got a good laugh about using only a lawyer to determine morality.
It would seem you think absent some form of educational certification we should all be classed as clueless.
I'm sorry, but I don't quite share that belief.
For an atheist you sure have an overwhelming number of beliefs in unprovable claims.
Just an observation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 04:36 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 04:01 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Aren't you the same person that posted this definition?
"Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.""
You realize that by FINALLY acknowledging those definitions you can't argue that it's not a negative right? What with the word "stealing" right in it and all.

(13-03-2016 04:01 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you shifting the goal post on me here?
No that would actually still be you, given that the definition that was good enough for you then ain't now and also for bringing in an other definition (which makes you look even stupider...somehow) instead of showing where in the definition YOU entered into the "debate" agrees with your assertion like you were asked.

Also you claimed that "The definition of Plagairism requires a negative intent or outcome.". By finding examples of definitions that DO include that (which thanks for admitting your entirely wrong by the way), does not change that there are definitions that DON'T include that pretty much means that it's NOT required, proving my point.

Just stop dude, come on.

(13-03-2016 04:01 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Besides what's the point in giving someone an implied negative label if you can't prove they did something wrong?
Stupid thing to ask considering MULTIPLE people have proven it.
(13-03-2016 04:01 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Not that you wouldn't have made some point but it seems arbitrary now doesn't it?
No it seems like your a moron who can't grasp basic concepts.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 04:36 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2016 04:57 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 04:22 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(13-03-2016 03:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are claiming that only a lawyer can tell me what is right and wrong?
No I'm not. Fuck you and your strawman, I'm pointing out that in the debate of the legal difference between murder and a killing in self-defense, doing an appeal to authority to someone who is not an authority int hat field is fallacious.
Reading comprehension, give it a fucking try you silly twat.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A lawyer of all people? To give me advice on right and wrong?
You got a good laugh out of the notion of using a lawyer to give advice on the legal differences between murder and a killing in self-defense/ You know legal advice is part of their fucking job right?
Do you have ANY points that are not strawman fallacies? At all?

STOP TALKING ABOUT THE LAW, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!!


(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Since when is the legal system of whiskey debates country the globally accepted authority on morality?
Never claimed that it was, fuck you and your strawman.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There are levels of murder 1st, 2nd, 3rd.
There is also 4th degree murder, but thank you for regurgitating what you remembered from a half watched episode of Law and Order. Now what does this have to do with you trying to assert that all intentional killing is murder when it's factually not? Relevance your stupidness?


(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The point is it's not the label which makes an act wrong.
Funny cause earlier in the thread you were arguing the label of plagiarism is exactly what made what you did in stealing the doctors work not wrong. Why am I better at keeping your bullshit strait then you are?

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's the intention.
And by taking someone work and deliberately changing it to say things it doesn't you intentionally tried to mislead readers and your debate opponent.
Eat all the dicks.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I asked to make a morality thread to further discuss it. Bucky refused.
Perhaps you would like to have a go at it with me.
Why on earth would I want to willingly waste my time in more then one thread with a lying dishonest cockroach? Honestly asking, why would I engage in a debate with a person I know lies, lacks the intelligence, and can't admit even the tiniest mistake he has made? Why would I do that, your not my equal.

(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Some would say the only true good or bad thing is a thought.
Ya well those people are cunts and lucky for us, but not you, the law and academia ain't among that list of cunts. So shove your woo up your ass.


(13-03-2016 03:48 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Acts themselves aren't good or bad if you don't know the intention of the perpetrator.
And your intention to deliberately mislead and lie is well established.
1. You are well established in your opinions absent actually proving them, unless you are willing post them now.
I know you claim some form of emotional barrier stopping you from posting them but wouldn't it be fair to still post them given my openness and insistence on addressing them here?
I don't mean to be rude but, why are you so scared?

2. When did I assert that all intentional killings are murder? I thought I had asserted quite the opposite:
All murders are intentional killings, but that does not make it morally wrong.
Only the type of intent can determine it's morality.

3. We aren't debating the legal authority of murder here. We are discussing murder as an act of morality and how it can be determined. The legal system varies for each country and certain religions as well.
It's apparent you do not share the same understanding of murder that I do. Can you state what you think murder is or we may just be arguing about 2 totally different meanings.
If you are going to tell me murder is only considered murder if we agree to use a specific legal authority on the matter then it means that murder is purely subjective. What if I don't agree with the opinion of the legal authority with a justifiably good reason? Being punished because someone else thinks you did something wrong regardless of them being able to prove intention or motive seems rather primitive to me.
If they can prove intent I would be hard pressed to object and thus be subject to punishment or at the very least labelling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2016, 04:56 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(13-03-2016 04:06 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What in the actual fuck even is this conversation

Weeeeeeeeell:
  • Shane said something stupid, and I called him on it.
  • Then he got all prissy with me, and I ended up pointing out the fact he is a dishonest, lying, plagiarist.
  • He then asked me to prove it so I did. Then several other people did. then we did it again, and again, and again and again, etc etc.
  • Shane got all pissy and then lied about it not being plagiarism cause he said it was not his before anyone pointed it out, which was a lie. He also thought asking the mods to delete the evidence after it had been commented on was a good argument...for some reason. Well "reason".
  • Then he lied and claimed according to the law it has to be "official" to be plagiarism. This was a lie because there are NO laws governing it, it's not even mentioned in statutes. He invented a whole person and has refused to acknowledge this fact since it was proved.
  • Then he lied about a few other things, before presenting a definition he thought was in support of him but actually destroyed his entire defense. That was funny.
  • After that he's now doing what you see now making arguments that amount to " Well some people say that the only good or bad things are thoughts..man, so prove me stealing and lying is wrong".
  • Meanwhile: I proved the thing I originally called him stupid for so damn hard he hasn't brought it up again and utterly refuses to even comment on it when I do. That was also funny.
  • While all that was going on he also: lied about lying, acted both sexist and homophobic, repeatedly failed to read peoples posts and asking questions and making statements that had been dealt with and refuted in the post he was quoting ( multiple times), acted like a general cunt, lied some more, called me and Bucky trolls while claiming that all strait men are offended when gay mean use terms of endearment (see: homophobic), acted delusional, kept using "we" in arguments that included only himself as support (no idea, man I just went with it). He also keeps challenging me, I respond, he ignores my response, issues the challenge again (this went on about 6-10ish times) and then claims victory when I don't repeat myself for the 12th time. Also enough strawmen to starve the known world to death, Jesus the strawmen.
  • Oh he also tried to tell my future, told me that the forum would look down on me (right before my rep went up and his went down 2 points (also hilarious)), pretended to know things he didn't about *deep breath* Physics, law, psychology, law again, philosophy, law again, and the law again.
More or less everything off the top of my head worth mentioning.
TL;DR: Shane stole someones work, changed it to support him when it didn't, lied about it, fabricated support from his ass, and acted like a cunt when he couldn't get his way.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: