Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2017, 06:58 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(16-01-2017 05:22 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  What you might call a conspiracy theory I call a conspiracy because I am convinced that it is not just a theory any longer but having already physically transpired in reality itself. Therefore to me some are not theories at all but a fact. This you have to understand.

If you are trying to convince someone of something, playing word games is a bad choice.

If you have something to say, find the forum and post it. Let others evaluate your ideas.

What you've been doing, the way you're going about it is NOT working.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
16-01-2017, 08:12 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(16-01-2017 06:58 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(16-01-2017 05:22 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  What you might call a conspiracy theory I call a conspiracy because I am convinced that it is not just a theory any longer but having already physically transpired in reality itself. Therefore to me some are not theories at all but a fact. This you have to understand.

If you are trying to convince someone of something, playing word games is a bad choice.

If you have something to say, find the forum and post it. Let others evaluate your ideas.

What you've been doing, the way you're going about it is NOT working.

For some of you it hasn't been working, others have responded in a more kindly fashion. If there is one thing I have learnt from all of this Hobbit, its that there is no one way to approach a group of people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2017, 09:10 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(16-01-2017 05:22 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  What you might call a conspiracy theory I call a conspiracy because I am convinced that it is not just a theory any longer but having already physically transpired in reality itself. Therefore to me some are not theories at all but a fact. This you have to understand.

The difference is in our opinions of the matter. Its just like many people feel evolution should not be considered a 'theory' any longer because of the insurmountable amount of proof regarding it.

Oh, okay then.

Post away with your facts and lets read and learn. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2017, 10:19 PM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2017 10:35 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  A wise man doesn't need the use of swear words to show his disapproval of something or someone.
Non-sequitur, profanity has no bearing on whether a person is wise or not.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Perhaps that sort of attitude is the only type of attitude that you and whiskey can comprehend.
I've mentioned several times now that it's not your attitude that's the problem. You could swear up a storm for all I care. It's your evasive and dishonest refusal to answer basic questions, criticisms, or arguments. It's your continuous documented lying (which you continue in these posts) that's the chief problem.

I physically could not be bothered less if every other word outta you was a swear if it was accompanied by a post that was more than base assertion and the ignoring of relevant arguments. However, it never is and that is the issue.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  *Ahem* let's give this a try shall we?
You keep trying and failing so what can one more attempt to avoid critism hurt.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Point out my dishonesty?
Yes repeatedly. It's been documented, demonstrated and I've even done long detailed posts during our previous debates with links and all.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Evasive?
Yes, repeatedly. Some examples include, but are not limited to the following:
  • Refusing to address the fact that the definition of taxes proves you 100% wrong on the issue of compulsory vs voluntary, then arguing as if the definition had never been shown.
  • Refusing to answer basic questions on taxation that refute your comparison entirely, on the grounds it's "dishonest" to ask a person what happens if you stop paying your taxes and then providing no evidence or explanation as to why it's dishonest.
  • Continuing to repeat assertions that had been debunked by ignoring the debunking, offering no counter arguments, and pretending like it didn't even happen.
  • Repeatedly changing your story as to why you continued to fail to offer any objections to arguments.
  • Claiming to have "won" the debate after a post where you failed to providea single sentence of counter argument to over 18+ separate and relevant arguments, the majority of which refute and demolish your position.
  • Arguing for several DAYS about taxation, being backed into a corner, and then trying to pretend you were actually talking about something else the entire time and that taxation didn't matter anyway.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You're the one who can't decide which hole you want to be fucked in,
That would be none as you lack both the mental capabilities to do so as well as the necessary equipment. Drinking Beverage

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  so you choose all the topics available hoping that your opponent will be to disoriented from all the options to properly fuck you in one hole in particular.
And with such a plethora of arguments to choose from in your responses you managed a whopping zero, multiple times. Every single one of my arguments had your post above it to which they were a direct and relevant response. If you lack the skill to follow more than a single point/argument at a time than maybe when people warn you how out of your league you are.... you should listen. If you CAN follow multiple points at once then you have no excuse for repeatedly failing to address them, and even less so for failing multipel times to address a single one.


(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Which you got fucked hard in, by me, in the other thread. Which I walked out of victoriously.
Once more I am left to wonder who this lie is meant to convince. It's not me as I know it's a lie. It can't be anyone else on the forum if your total, complete and deafening lack of support in that thread is any indication. That leaves ...you and as the author of this fabrication you can't believe it as you to know it's a lie.

Which leaves another possibility. That you are delusional. If you actually think that in a debate where your opponent gave clear answers, actual evidence, provided links in support of his position, gave coherent explanations, rational and relevant comparisons, had to take time from the debate to explain basic concepts to you, and received the support of multiple other people and you...did none of these things (despite repeated demands that you do so) that you "won" anything requires you to be delusional.
Personally, I think you're just continuing on with your pattern of lying but you are a conspiracy theorist so delusional is not exactly outside your wheelhouse.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Of course you would know something about getting fucked, you already said you're an asshole and if you're an asshole then I'm a dick.
I've stated several times exactly what you are but I'm trying to prove a point so I'll just say it rymes with dopid punt and leave it at that.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Sorry that you can't be faithful to that government cock you love to suck so much.
You have claimed that I'm both someone who "loves to suck the government's cock" and at the same time I'm a disgruntled anti-government person who "is bent outta shape about authority".
Which is it? Drinking Beverage

You claim that you want us to investigate our government (continuing to forget I'm not a Yank) and say we should treat it as a "criminal organization, a syndicate, a cartel, a mafia, a gang" while also making the assertion that taxation is voluntary (it's not) and you voluntarily fund them and praise them for the things they do for you on a personal level.
Which is it? Drinking Beverage

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You always claim you do something to stand up against the Catholic Church or the Government but you never go into detail into what you're doing.
1.) I've never claimed to "stand up against my government" and If you paid any attention at all to my posts you know that I have said that I think my government, for the most part, does a pretty good job and that I've repeatedly provided a link to me saying just that to counter your assertion that I was "bent outta shape about authority".
Which brings me to another point: you are simultaneously accusing me of claiming to stand up to my government while also claiming that I "loving to suck it's cock". I've stated before that the best sign a person is lying is that they can't keep their story strait.
2.) I've not gone into detail for several reasons the first being that I can't reliably do so without giving out personal information on a public forum which would be insanely stupid. The second reason is because you are trying to use it as a red herring. You have dozens upon dozens of arguments you still need to address weeks later but you're trying to pry into my personal life as if it would effect the validity of my or your arguments which it doesn't. It serves as a handy distraction for your inability to successfully defend your position which is why you kept trying to make the conversation about my personal life every time you got backed into a corner.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  And then you claim me to be evasive?
Yes, again you are demonstrably dishonest and I've done the documentation to prove it. It's a fact at this point.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If I'm evasive at this point its because I stopped trying after my victory.
This is a lie and an after the fact one at that. You have been both dishonest and evasive since well before you claimed "victory". Claiming "victory" does not entitle someone to act dishonestly or evasively at any point. And your victory is a delusion or a lie.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There's no need to go any further with you.
Go further requires you to have gone somewhere in the first place. This is not the case. You have made no progress whatsoever since you idiotically tried to compare the funding of an organization responsible for the protection and enabling of child rapists with not committing suicide because other people in the world occasionally do bad things.


(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I mounted you like the little bitch that you were, lets not pretend it didn't happen.
Who is this lie for? The only person playing pretend is you and that's clearly evidenced by the fact your playing alone.



(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The arguments I didn't reply to were either because they were red herrings.....hell if you had any more red herrings you could have a fish hatchery and become a millionaire overnight.
This is your ...third or forth different excuse for why you couldn't offer a response to dozens of arguments for several weeks. Previously it was because they were "not relevant to the conversation" (shown to be a lie when you failed to list a single example), then it was because you "didn't disagree with many of them" (shown to be a lie by the simple fact that every one of them negates your position in one way or another) now it's "red herrings". I find it funny how only now nearly a FULL MONTH after the fact do you make this assertion for the first time.
The best easiest way to tell if a person is lying is that his story constantly changes.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  or because I didn't disagree with them,
A lie but even if it was true you would still be dishonest because you repeatedly argued as if those arguments hadn't been made and were repeatedly called out for doing so.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Some of the arguments that I did agree but still chose to open a dialogue about was because I saw your hypocritical stance.
And again you repeatedly argued as if these arguments had not been made and were called out multiple times for doing so, making you an inherently dishonest debater.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Compulsory. Pah, if there was a law that made it compulsory for any government worker to come over and fuck your wife, and fucked you in the ass while you watched you'd probably just sit there and pretend that you couldn't do anything because 'it was compulsory'.
This does nothing to address the fact there are real and tangible differences between voluntary giving and compulsory taxation which you fail repeatedly to understand. By your logic, because you fail to differentiate between the two, you would be actively seeking out government agents because you want to volunteer yourself to such things.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You have no sense of free will, none at all. Its not 'anarchy' its called having a god damn choice.
How is it that even a month later you still don't even understand the point I was making? Also, I've never accused you of being an anarchist so I don't know what you are talking about on that point but I suspect at this point neither do you.
I've also never said it's NOT about "having a god damn choice" and a good example was the multiple pages where I tried to get you to tell me what would happen if you used your free will and right to choose to choose to just stop paying your taxes. Which hey, you ignored completely multiple times.

The answer to that question I'll remind you was the government forces you to do so because taxes are compulsory, proving my point that your entire original argument was fallacious and wrong and thus everything built on it (which was everything near abouts) is also wrong.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I've read a book,
I find this monumentally hard to believe. Drinking Beverage

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I can give you the ending and I can tell you of everything that's happened in the book, but you won't believe me unless you've read that book for yourself.
Not so, it largely depends on the book and the person telling me what the ending is. I mean... you personally can't as you have a demonstrated record of lying even when it's demonstrably harmful to yourself to do so. So ya... you can't but on principle someone could as the ending to a book is not an extraordinary claim and I don't require extraordinary evidence.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Therefore I can do nothing but urge you to read it you lazy fuck.
You ran out of room to call anyone lazy when you refused to take the time to properly read people's replies, respond to their arguments, or even provide a eyedroppers worth of evidence to support ANY of your claims despite being repeatedly being asked to do so.
Nice try though.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Calling me dishonest is really a reflection of yourself you're trying to cast onto me.
Another lie, your dishonesty, evasiveness, and many of your outright lies have been demonstrated, cataloged, and displayed on this forum by me and others. You are, as a matter of demonstrable fact, a dishonest liar.
You keep trying to say I'm the dishonest one so ...prove it. Demonstrate it. You keep asserting but never substantiating. So prove it.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I can't help it if every time you try and make an argument red herrings migrate like salmon going back to their breeding grounds.
Another lie, one invented out of whole cloth nearly a MONTH after the fact.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You're also being ad hominem...
Lolwut? I'm being to the man? English please.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  when you say stuff like like by the way, because you're just full of god damn logical fallacies.
I've demonstrated and explained what fallacies you're using, when, and why they are fallacious in the context you use them. You have been unable to provide a rebuttal to any of them. I've not just asserted you're being fallacious (that's your game) I've actually done the work to show it.

(16-01-2017 03:33 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The double standard is in your favor, when you or whiskey may do as I did, you would not speak out against your actions or his, yet you speak out against mine despite the fact that I am merely mirroring your's and whiskey's articulation.
There is no double standard because, as I have repeatedly pointed out, your not mirroring me if you just swear and continue to ignore everyone's points and arguments. I'll happily swear up a storm and call an idiot and idiot...WHILE I'm addressing my opponent's arguments and position.

Just dropping some F-bombs doesn't make you ANYTHING like me. You are still dishonest, evasive, and refuse to debate actual arguments. You are not in a league below me because you don't swear, you are there because you can't bring anything to the debate and I laugh everytime you think otherwise.


(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Given how little I know of human psychological reactions I have witnessed that some here do take kindly to a calmer more respectable form of conversation while others you and whiskey for example seem to hate that type of conversation.
Strawman of epic proportions. I don't "hate..conversations of a calmer and more respectable form" I have them all the time on this forum. For god's sake, my conversation in this thread with Vosur was perfectly calm and respectable. Do you know what that is? Vosur is a perfectly respectable gentleman.

You are not. A calm and respectable conversation is, in my opinion, not possible with a person like yourself who will lie and obfuscate and do anything to avoid admitting when he is wrong. If you want a calm and respectable form of conversation with me you need to not lie, be dishonest, evasive, and avoid dealing with direct and relevant criticism. And I've said this a dozen times.

You want the right to defecate on the rug but you don't want to have your face rubbed in it. Too bad.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  So you and Whiskey have now become my test subjects to see if you'd respond better to a manner like you and whiskey give.
You didn't have the intelligence or the moral fortitude to answer a direct question of the definition of a word, and you are sure as all get out not qualified to run any experiments short of a potato clock and I'd still want you to have adult supervision for that.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  In other words, if you can't take it without being a little bitch, don't dish it out.
This requires a suspension of reality I can't even imagine. YOU literally started an entire thread to whinge and complain. Your complete lack of self-awareness is so complete I'm amazed you haven forgotten that you even exist.

(16-01-2017 04:00 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  ..... my challenge is to get you to see things from my point of view.
And you have done a right bang-up job what with the complete lack of any supporting evidence for your assertion that you have provided. Drinking Beverage

(16-01-2017 04:35 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  For example, Whiskey and Morondog obviously don't care what I think about them and therefore aren't trying to prove anything to me.
This is a total non-sequitur, one does not follow from the other. I DON'T care what you think about me personally, but I spent an entire thread trying to prove MULTIPLE things to you.

(16-01-2017 04:35 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But since I am here to see if it is possible to prove something to all of you, and I understand the relationship between perception and giving someone credibility I try to maintain cordial relations.
1.) Cordial relations does not include lying, goal post shifting, evasiveness, general dishonesty, bald-faced assertions or any of the other duplicitous actions you have taken. Not swearing doesn't mean you are being cordial, it just means you're not swearing. Just for future reference.
2.) I could not physically care less about your credibility as I won't be judging your claims based on your credibility (even though you are a liar) but on the strength of your EVIDENCE. If you ever get around to providing any, which I seriously doubt, that is.
I don't care if the evidence comes from my own mother or from a time traveling Hitler, it stands and falls on it's own merits and the messenger has nothing to do with it.

(16-01-2017 04:35 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I have all the evidence need to prove to someone of all I believe in the realm of conspiracy.
I doubt that very very much but go ahead and prove it.

(16-01-2017 04:35 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  However I must first determine whether it is possible that anyone here will be even remotely likely to evaluate their current beliefs.
No. You really really really really really do not. All you are doing is setting up an escape route so that anyone who looks at your "evidence" and rejects it you can claim they did so because of their personal opinion of you and not because of the evidence no matter how garbage that evidence may or may not turn out to be. You are preemptively setting up an excuse to hand wave away criticism of your beliefs without having to put in the effort to defend them.

It's evasive and dishonest and I'm not surprised at all as it's just as transparent as your other attempts at such flagrant dishonesty. Do you think actual scientists pull this nonsense when they submit their evidence for peer review? No they bloody do not.

(16-01-2017 04:35 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The some that are open to the idea are very few.
That's because almost no one here is as gullible as you.

(16-01-2017 04:57 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Basically Whiskey is a bitch when it comes to authority figures. A complete and utter docile bitch. Probably from all that fluoride.

@Peebothuhul

Earlier parts of my post should have demonstrated how this is not accurate. Last month I was "bent outta shape over authority" and claimed to "stand up to my government" according to him and this month I'm the opposite.

CW argues from whatever strawman he needs to at any given time taking no account for his past assertions.
(16-01-2017 05:22 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  What you might call a conspiracy theory I call a conspiracy because I am convinced that it is not just a theory any longer but having already physically transpired in reality.
And without presenting any evidence, especially when you have been repeatedly asked to do so, you present yourself as having no substantive difference from a person laboring under a delusion.

(16-01-2017 05:22 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Its just like many people feel evolution should not be considered a 'theory' any longer because of the insurmountable amount of proof regarding it.
The only people who think that are people like you who don't seem to know what a theory is. Drinking Beverage



There ya go CW a whole post from me, WhiskeyDebates, without any profanity. Now let's see if you are capable of addressing any of the many points and arguments made when you can't curl up in a ball and cry about swear words or if you will just continue to be evasive and dishonest. I'm excited to hear what new excuse you will come up with for beign unabel to respond. Drinking Beverage

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
16-01-2017, 10:28 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
[Image: for-burns-box_zpswvumeusv.jpg]

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
16-01-2017, 10:51 PM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2017 11:03 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(16-01-2017 10:19 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  A wise man doesn't need the use of swear words to show his disapproval of something or someone.
Non-sequitur, profanity has no bearing on whether a person is wise or not.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Perhaps that sort of attitude is the only type of attitude that you and whiskey can comprehend.
I've mentioned several times now that it's not your attitude that's the problem. You could swear up a storm for all I care. It's your evasive and dishonest refusal to answer basic questions, criticisms, or arguments. It's your continuous documented lying (which you continue in these posts) that's the chief problem.

I physically could not be bothered less if every other word outta you was a swear if it was accompanied by a post that was more than base assertion and the ignoring of relevant arguments. However, it never is and that is the issue.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  *Ahem* let's give this a try shall we?
You keep trying and failing so what can one more attempt to avoid critism hurt.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Point out my dishonesty?
Yes repeatedly. It's been documented, demonstrated and I've even done long detailed posts during our previous debates with links and all.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Evasive?
Yes, repeatedly. Some examples include, but are not limited to the following:
  • Refusing to address the fact that the definition of taxes proves you 100% wrong on the issue of compulsory vs voluntary, then arguing as if the definition had never been shown.
  • Refusing to answer basic questions on taxation that refute your comparison entirely, on the grounds it's "dishonest" to ask a person what happens if you stop paying your taxes and then providing no evidence or explanation as to why it's dishonest.
  • Continuing to repeat assertions that had been debunked by ignoring the debunking, offering no counter arguments, and pretending like it didn't even happen.
  • Repeatedly changing your story as to why you continued to fail to offer any objections to arguments.
  • Claiming to have "won" the debate after a post where you failed to providea single sentence of counter argument to over 18+ separate and relevant arguments, the majority of which refute and demolish your position.
  • Arguing for several DAYS about taxation, being backed into a corner, and then trying to pretend you were actually talking about something else the entire time and that taxation didn't matter anyway.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You're the one who can't decide which hole you want to be fucked in,
That would be none as you lack both the mental capabilities to do so as well as the necessary equipment. Drinking Beverage

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  so you choose all the topics available hoping that your opponent will be to disoriented from all the options to properly fuck you in one hole in particular.
And with such a plethora of arguments to choose from in your responses you managed a whopping zero, multiple times. Every single one of my arguments had your post above it to which they were a direct and relevant response. If you lack the skill to follow more than a single point/argument at a time than maybe when people warn you how out of your league you are.... you should listen. If you CAN follow multiple points at once then you have no excuse for repeatedly failing to address them, and even less so for failing multipel times to address a single one.


(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Which you got fucked hard in, by me, in the other thread. Which I walked out of victoriously.
Once more I am left to wonder who this lie is meant to convince. It's not me as I know it's a lie. It can't be anyone else on the forum if your total, complete and deafening lack of support in that thread is any indication. That leaves ...you and as the author of this fabrication you can't believe it as you to know it's a lie.

Which leaves another possibility. That you are delusional. If you actually think that in a debate where your opponent gave clear answers, actual evidence, provided links in support of his position, gave coherent explanations, rational and relevant comparisons, had to take time from the debate to explain basic concepts to you, and received the support of multiple other people and you...did none of these things (despite repeated demands that you do so) that you "won" anything requires you to be delusional.
Personally, I think you're just continuing on with your pattern of lying but you are a conspiracy theorist so delusional is not exactly outside your wheelhouse.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Of course you would know something about getting fucked, you already said you're an asshole and if you're an asshole then I'm a dick.
I've stated several times exactly what you are but I'm trying to prove a point so I'll just say it rymes with dopid punt and leave it at that.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Sorry that you can't be faithful to that government cock you love to suck so much.
You have claimed that I'm both someone who "loves to suck the government's cock" and at the same time I'm a disgruntled anti-government person who "is bent outta shape about authority".
Which is it? Drinking Beverage

You claim that you want us to investigate our government (continuing to forget I'm not a Yank) and say we should treat it as a "criminal organization, a syndicate, a cartel, a mafia, a gang" while also making the assertion that taxation is voluntary (it's not) and you voluntarily fund them and praise them for the things they do for you on a personal level.
Which is it? Drinking Beverage

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You always claim you do something to stand up against the Catholic Church or the Government but you never go into detail into what you're doing.
1.) I've never claimed to "stand up against my government" and If you paid any attention at all to my posts you know that I have said that I think my government, for the most part, does a pretty good job and that I've repeatedly provided a link to me saying just that to counter your assertion that I was "bent outta shape about authority".
Which brings me to another point: you are simultaneously accusing me of claiming to stand up to my government while also claiming that I "loving to suck it's cock". I've stated before that the best sign a person is lying is that they can't keep their story strait.
2.) I've not gone into detail for several reasons the first being that I can't reliably do so without giving out personal information on a public forum which would be insanely stupid. The second reason is because you are trying to use it as a red herring. You have dozens upon dozens of arguments you still need to address weeks later but you're trying to pry into my personal life as if it would effect the validity of my or your arguments which it doesn't. It serves as a handy distraction for your inability to successfully defend your position which is why you kept trying to make the conversation about my personal life every time you got backed into a corner.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  And then you claim me to be evasive?
Yes, again you are demonstrably dishonest and I've done the documentation to prove it. It's a fact at this point.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If I'm evasive at this point its because I stopped trying after my victory.
This is a lie and an after the fact one at that. You have been both dishonest and evasive since well before you claimed "victory". Claiming "victory" does not entitle someone to act dishonestly or evasively at any point. And your victory is a delusion or a lie.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There's no need to go any further with you.
Go further requires you to have gone somewhere in the first place. This is not the case. You have made no progress whatsoever since you idiotically tried to compare the funding of an organization responsible for the protection and enabling of child rapists with not committing suicide because other people in the world occasionally do bad things.


(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I mounted you like the little bitch that you were, lets not pretend it didn't happen.
Who is this lie for? The only person playing pretend is you and that's clearly evidenced by the fact your playing alone.



(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The arguments I didn't reply to were either because they were red herrings.....hell if you had any more red herrings you could have a fish hatchery and become a millionaire overnight.
This is your ...third or forth different excuse for why you couldn't offer a response to dozens of arguments for several weeks. Previously it was because they were "not relevant to the conversation" (shown to be a lie when you failed to list a single example), then it was because you "didn't disagree with many of them" (shown to be a lie by the simple fact that every one of them negates your position in one way or another) now it's "red herrings". I find it funny how only now nearly a FULL MONTH after the fact do you make this assertion for the first time.
The best easiest way to tell if a person is lying is that his story constantly changes.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  or because I didn't disagree with them,
A lie but even if it was true you would still be dishonest because you repeatedly argued as if those arguments hadn't been made and were repeatedly called out for doing so.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Some of the arguments that I did agree but still chose to open a dialogue about was because I saw your hypocritical stance.
And again you repeatedly argued as if these arguments had not been made and were called out multiple times for doing so, making you an inherently dishonest debater.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Compulsory. Pah, if there was a law that made it compulsory for any government worker to come over and fuck your wife, and fucked you in the ass while you watched you'd probably just sit there and pretend that you couldn't do anything because 'it was compulsory'.
This does nothing to address the fact there are real and tangible differences between voluntary giving and compulsory taxation which you fail repeatedly to understand. By your logic, because you fail to differentiate between the two, you would be actively seeking out government agents because you want to volunteer yourself to such things.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You have no sense of free will, none at all. Its not 'anarchy' its called having a god damn choice.
How is it that even a month later you still don't even understand the point I was making? Also, I've never accused you of being an anarchist so I don't know what you are talking about on that point but I suspect at this point neither do you.
I've also never said it's NOT about "having a god damn choice" and a good example was the multiple pages where I tried to get you to tell me what would happen if you used your free will and right to choose to choose to just stop paying your taxes. Which hey, you ignored completely multiple times.

The answer to that question I'll remind you was the government forces you to do so because taxes are compulsory, proving my point that your entire original argument was fallacious and wrong and thus everything built on it (which was everything near abouts) is also wrong.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I've read a book,
I find this monumentally hard to believe. Drinking Beverage

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I can give you the ending and I can tell you of everything that's happened in the book, but you won't believe me unless you've read that book for yourself.
Not so, it largely depends on the book and the person telling me what the ending is. I mean... you personally can't as you have a demonstrated record of lying even when it's demonstrably harmful to yourself to do so. So ya... you can't but on principle someone could as the ending to a book is not an extraordinary claim and I don't require extraordinary evidence.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Therefore I can do nothing but urge you to read it you lazy fuck.
You ran out of room to call anyone lazy when you refused to take the time to properly read people's replies, respond to their arguments, or even provide a eyedroppers worth of evidence to support ANY of your claims despite being repeatedly being asked to do so.
Nice try though.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Calling me dishonest is really a reflection of yourself you're trying to cast onto me.
Another lie, your dishonesty, evasiveness, and many of your outright lies have been demonstrated, cataloged, and displayed on this forum by me and others. You are, as a matter of demonstrable fact, a dishonest liar.
You keep trying to say I'm the dishonest one so ...prove it. Demonstrate it. You keep asserting but never substantiating. So prove it.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I can't help it if every time you try and make an argument red herrings migrate like salmon going back to their breeding grounds.
Another lie, one invented out of whole cloth nearly a MONTH after the fact.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You're also being ad hominem...
Lolwut? I'm being to the man? English please.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  when you say stuff like like by the way, because you're just full of god damn logical fallacies.
I've demonstrated and explained what fallacies you're using, when, and why they are fallacious in the context you use them. You have been unable to provide a rebuttal to any of them. I've not just asserted you're being fallacious (that's your game) I've actually done the work to show it.

(16-01-2017 03:33 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The double standard is in your favor, when you or whiskey may do as I did, you would not speak out against your actions or his, yet you speak out against mine despite the fact that I am merely mirroring your's and whiskey's articulation.
There is no double standard because, as I have repeatedly pointed out, your not mirroring me if you just swear and continue to ignore everyone's points and arguments. I'll happily swear up a storm and call an idiot and idiot...WHILE I'm addressing my opponent's arguments and position.

Just dropping some F-bombs doesn't make you ANYTHING like me. You are still dishonest, evasive, and refuse to debate actual arguments. You are not in a league below me because you don't swear, you are there because you can't bring anything to the debate and I laugh everytime you think otherwise.


(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Given how little I know of human psychological reactions I have witnessed that some here do take kindly to a calmer more respectable form of conversation while others you and whiskey for example seem to hate that type of conversation.
Strawman of epic proportions. I don't "hate..conversations of a calmer and more respectable form" I have them all the time on this forum. For god's sake, my conversation in this thread with Vosur was perfectly calm and respectable. Do you know what that is? Vosur is a perfectly respectable gentleman.

You are not. A calm and respectable conversation is, in my opinion, not possible with a person like yourself who will lie and obfuscate and do anything to avoid admitting when he is wrong. If you want a calm and respectable form of conversation with me you need to not lie, be dishonest, evasive, and avoid dealing with direct and relevant criticism. And I've said this a dozen times.

You want the right to defecate on the rug but you don't want to have your face rubbed in it. Too bad.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  So you and Whiskey have now become my test subjects to see if you'd respond better to a manner like you and whiskey give.
You didn't have the intelligence or the moral fortitude to answer a direct question of the definition of a word, and you are sure as all get out not qualified to run any experiments short of a potato clock and I'd still want you to have adult supervision for that.

(16-01-2017 12:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  In other words, if you can't take it without being a little bitch, don't dish it out.
This requires a suspension of reality I can't even imagine. YOU literally started an entire thread to whinge and complain. Your complete lack of self-awareness is so complete I'm amazed you haven forgotten that you even exist.

(16-01-2017 04:00 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  ..... my challenge is to get you to see things from my point of view.
And you have done a right bang-up job what with the complete lack of any supporting evidence for your assertion that you have provided. Drinking Beverage

(16-01-2017 04:35 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  For example, Whiskey and Morondog obviously don't care what I think about them and therefore aren't trying to prove anything to me.
This is a total non-sequitur, one does not follow from the other. I DON'T care what you think about me personally, but I spent an entire thread trying to prove MULTIPLE things to you.

(16-01-2017 04:35 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But since I am here to see if it is possible to prove something to all of you, and I understand the relationship between perception and giving someone credibility I try to maintain cordial relations.
1.) Cordial relations does not include lying, goal post shifting, evasiveness, general dishonesty, bald-faced assertions or any of the other duplicitous actions you have taken. Not swearing doesn't mean you are being cordial, it just means you're not swearing. Just for future reference.
2.) I could not physically care less about your credibility as I won't be judging your claims based on your credibility (even though you are a liar) but on the strength of your EVIDENCE. If you ever get around to providing any, which I seriously doubt, that is.
I don't care if the evidence comes from my own mother or from a time traveling Hitler, it stands and falls on it's own merits and the messenger has nothing to do with it.

(16-01-2017 04:35 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I have all the evidence need to prove to someone of all I believe in the realm of conspiracy.
I doubt that very very much but go ahead and prove it.

(16-01-2017 04:35 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  However I must first determine whether it is possible that anyone here will be even remotely likely to evaluate their current beliefs.
No. You really really really really really do not. All you are doing is setting up an escape route so that anyone who looks at your "evidence" and rejects it you can claim they did so because of their personal opinion of you and not because of the evidence no matter how garbage that evidence may or may not turn out to be. You are preemptively setting up an excuse to hand wave away criticism of your beliefs without having to put in the effort to defend them.

It's evasive and dishonest and I'm not surprised at all as it's just as transparent as your other attempts at such flagrant dishonesty. Do you think actual scientists pull this nonsense when they submit their evidence for peer review? No they bloody do not.

(16-01-2017 04:35 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The some that are open to the idea are very few.
That's because almost no one here is as gullible as you.

(16-01-2017 04:57 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Basically Whiskey is a bitch when it comes to authority figures. A complete and utter docile bitch. Probably from all that fluoride.

@Peebothuhul

Earlier parts of my post should have demonstrated how this is not accurate. Last month I was "bent outta shape over authority" and claimed to "stand up to my government" according to him and this month I'm the opposite.

CW argues from whatever strawman he needs to at any given time taking no account for his past assertions.
(16-01-2017 05:22 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  What you might call a conspiracy theory I call a conspiracy because I am convinced that it is not just a theory any longer but having already physically transpired in reality.
And without presenting any evidence, especially when you have been repeatedly asked to do so, you present yourself as having no substantive difference from a person laboring under a delusion.

(16-01-2017 05:22 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Its just like many people feel evolution should not be considered a 'theory' any longer because of the insurmountable amount of proof regarding it.
The only people who think that are people like you who don't seem to know what a theory is. Drinking Beverage



There ya go CW a whole post from me, WhiskeyDebates, without any profanity. Now let's see if you are capable of addressing any of the many points and arguments made when you can't curl up in a ball and cry about swear words or if you will just continue to be evasive and dishonest. I'm not holding my breath.

You expect me to write out an essay based on the flaws of your caricature? You don't even see that what I was doing was ad hominem do you?

For claiming to be someone who showed me my logical fallacies you couldn't even see a logical fallacy when it was glaring right in front of you.

Quote:
Quote:ad hominem...
Lolwut? I'm being to the man? English please.

is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Your red herrings in our previous argument were often included ad hominem tactics as well. There was no need to argue with something I agreed with, and there was also no need to argue against something that was so clearly a logical fallacy.

Even in your response to my ad hominem post you were ad hominem towards me. You didn't need to respond at all to the ad hominem posts I made and yet you chose to. Probably because you can't recognize what is and isn't a logical fallacy. But there is nothing that I need to prove about myself.

You love waving the logical fallacy flag around a lot, but you understand it so little.

Also there wasn't really any need to prove to you your red herrings, I still won, and I stopped trying to argue with you after I won.

Are you a man who argues just for the sake of arguing whiskey?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2017, 11:50 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(16-01-2017 05:22 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(16-01-2017 06:22 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Except that last I checked, you conflated a conspiracy with a conspiracy theory. The two terms are completely different.


I'm fairly sure that most of the posters here would revise their beliefs if presented with sufficient evidence.

What would you do if evidence was presented that disproved your pet theory?


theBorg, yourself and who I wonder...

What you might call a conspiracy theory I call a conspiracy because I am convinced that it is not just a theory any longer but having already physically transpired in reality itself. Therefore to me some are not theories at all but a fact. This you have to understand.

The difference is in our opinions of the matter. Its just like many people feel evolution should not be considered a 'theory' any longer because of the insurmountable amount of proof regarding it.

So your evidence is as strong as that for evolution? Yet you have to dance around looking for people predisposed to agree with you before you present it? You're really confident aren't you? Can't possibly take a risk of someone pointing out how fucking dense you are - as Whiskey has done repeatedly and I don't know how he has the patience.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
17-01-2017, 12:21 AM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2017 09:29 AM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You expect me to write out an essay....
That took me less than 6 minutes to write. How slow do you write? Shocking

No, an essay is not necessary but perhaps a single response to a single argument would have made your evasion less obvious, if admittedly no more than you have been able to muster in the past.

However, I'm glad we are past the point of you pretending to be after civil, calm, and respectful conversation because you don't seem to have anything of value to say either way.


(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  based on the flaws of your caricature?

Assertion without example or evidence. Rejected as the obvious lie it is.

(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You don't even see that what I was doing was ad hominem do you?
That was very obvious. Do you have a point? The fact you did so doesn't mean I can't, or shouldn't, point out your stupidity. Are you operating under the assumption that that if you make ad hominem you can say whatever you like and it's the OTHER person who's in the wrong for correcting those statements? 'Cause...that would be really stupid.

(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  For claiming to be someone who showed me my logical fallacies......
No, no no no no no. NO. Do you understand the difference between making a claim and demonstrating a claim? I demonstrate my claims, and I have demonstrated your use of fallacious reasoning multiple times, YOU make the claim and leave it at that. You do not demonstrate your assertion and you can't even when pressed to do so as you display above and below int his very post with "caricature" and with "red herring".

Do you comprehend the fact that there is a fundamental and demonstrable difference between making a claim and demonstrating that claim?


(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Your red herrings in our previous argument were often included ad hominem tactics as well.
No, goddamn stupid child, no. I didn't tell you to mindlessly repeat your assertion about red herrings I told you to demonstrate it, and I certainly didn't tell you to add a second, additional, lie on top of it.

Assertion without evidence or example. Rejected as the obvious lie that it is.
Do you comprehend the fact that there is a fundamental and demonstrable difference between makin g a claim and demonstrating that claim?


(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There was no need to argue with something I agreed with...
That was not the criticism I raised. Jesus H Christ your reading comprehension is just as bad as I ever. The actual criticism was you dishonestly arguing AGAINST a position you are now claiming you agreed with AFTER the argument you claim to agree with was made.

Example:
You claim that 1+1=3.
I make the argument that no, 1+1=2.
You than regurgitate that 1+1=3.
Weeks later you claim you agreed with me the entire time.

(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Even in your response to my ad hominem post you were ad hominem towards me.
Assertion without evidence or example. Rejected as the obvious lie that it is.

(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You didn't need to respond at all to the ad hominem posts I made and yet you chose to.
I'm going to respond to any stupidity you throw my way, intentional or otherwise. I've been really really clear on this, yet you keep acting like it's a surprise.

(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Probably because you can't recognize what is and isn't a logical fallacy.
The entire post I'm responding to is as you are attacking ANYTHING OTHER THAN MY ARGUMENTS just like always. This is not a new tactic for you, it was our ENTIRE debate from you. Which is why no arguments ever got addressed by you.

(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But there is nothing that I need to prove about myself.
I never asked you to prove anything about yourself, I already know everything relevant about you and your not worth learning anything else about. I aksed you to prove your damn claims, even one of them, but you ignored the argument and repeated the claim.

Fuck me you are Call_of_the_wild's sock ain't you.

(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You love waving the logical fallacy flag around a lot, but you understand it so little.
I've actively and repeatedly demonstrated your fallacious reasoning and you have a success rate of refuting my demonstrations of exactly 0%.

(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Also there wasn't really any need to prove to you your red herrings,
Meaning you can't find a single example. Thanks for admitting it, douchbag.

(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I still won,
WHO IS THIS LIE FOR? NO ONE BELIEVES YOU. WHO IS IT FOR?

(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  and I stopped trying to argue with you after I won.
You never started arguing as you have been dishonestly evading my criticism since the first post you made towards me. What are you even talking about?

(16-01-2017 10:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Are you a man who argues just for the sake of arguing whiskey?
No, are you a boy who keeps lying just for the sake of lying. Rhetorical question, I already know the fuckin' answer.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
17-01-2017, 12:23 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(16-01-2017 11:50 PM)morondog Wrote:  Can't possibly take a risk of someone pointing out how fucking dense you are - as Whiskey has done repeatedly and I don't know how he has the patience.
It's really really really easy to do, as he does most of the heavy lifting himself either through personal stupidity or incompetence of a general kind. Drinking Beverage

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2017, 12:39 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(17-01-2017 12:21 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  That was very obvious. Do you have a point? The fact you did so doesn't mean I can't, or shouldn't, point out your stupidity. Are you operating under the assumption that that if you make ad hominem you can say whatever you like and it's the OTHER person who's in the wrong for correcting those statements? 'Cause...that would be really stupid.

Why would you bother replying to something that was obviously ad hominem? It doesn't progress the discussion in any useful manner. You weren't exactly correcting my statements, correcting them would have been saying that they were ad hominem and advising me against such tactics. It would be the proper thing to do, as the other party should know of their transgression and arguing against a logical fallacy bears no fruit.

You are very perplexing. That or I think I've just solved one of the greatest mysteries that has confounded me for years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: