Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[CrusaderFrank]

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy

She and Desi were investigated with a lot of innuendo...split hairs much? McCarthy had nothing to do do with HUAC? Give me a break...He was the leader and started the whole disgraceful mess...

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Let's examine this Issue. McCarthy was a Senator; the HUAC was a H. of Rep. Committee. So (surprise), CF is technically correct. But when we consider Ted Cruz and his recent efforts to influence the H. of Rep., the possibility of McCarthy colluding with members of the HUAC, and the HUAC being Crazy Right Wing before it became fashionable, is not an inappropriate assumption.

I'm not just "technically correct" Freddo, McCarthy had NOTHING to do with it, not once, not ever.

McCarthy never "Colluded" with them, you're just making shit up now because unlike FranCoWTf you might have more than 2 functioning brain cells and see how stupid and dishonest the McCarthy/HUAC meme is

Associating McCarthy with HUAC was "not an inappropriate assumption" is was a Goebbels Big Lie perpetrated by the Communist Progressives who were directing the message. They repeated this Goebbels Big Lie for generations until people like yourself and FranCoWTf assumed it was the truth.

Listen (or read) asshole, how do you know (post the evidence) that McCarthy hadn't ever colluded with the HUAC? You don't, nor do I. I never said he did, and you claiming I did makes you a LIAR!

I suggested it was possible (learn to read, asshole) and you won't continue to make a fool of yourself.

Of course you are a liar, for you posted this (without once bit of evidence), "McCarthy never "Colluded" with them". How do you know (you don't). You're really too stupid to engage in an argument when you partisan biases blind you to what I post, and you are a typical dishonest right wing hack.

It's obvious you fucked up and walked into the McCarthy HUAC trap and are now trying to back away spewing insults.

What did McCarthy ever do to Lucille Ball?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm still waiting for you to offer any logical or rational reason why religion is required for morality. Or why the abandonment of religion is the abandonment of morality.

There is no reason. Its entirely possible to use one's own moral reasoning to make moral decisions. I simply don't need to believe that a cheeseburger is an abomination in order to recognize that killing is wrong.

No... In truth, you're not still waiting.

What you're doing is pretending that you're waiting. This against the tide of reality, wherein the question has been answered time and again. Because in every one of the respective demonstrations, you've failed to offer a sustainable response; proving through one deflection after another obfuscation that perverse reasoning is incapable of competing with sound reason.

But... to be fair. If I were pushing an unsustainable position and had failed at every point of contest to sustain my feeble point of view, I would probably repeat such deceitful attempts to fraudulently influence the reader.

So, it serves reason that you would.

Of course the threat is that the perverse reasoning is accepted, and sufficiently so, that it becomes 'normal'.

At that point delusion becomes the norm and its at that point that the culture succumbs to the unenviable consequences of flirting with the pervs.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah... well, that's the thing about being free... people will set their own rules. And when they're a hard people, it pays to not cross that line.

And the founders chose to interpret the Bible literally, killing gays for sodomy. That's not a view that modern American Christians share to any significant degree. You can't explain why the founders religious interpretations and modern American Christians intepretations are different without tapping culture, society, history and personal context.

Disproving your bizarre claim that religion cannot be effected by culture, society, history or personal context. It obviously can. It obviously is. As the contrast between the founder's religious interpretations and Christians today so elegantly demonstrates.

I mean... I said that sexual abnormality is a function of perverse reasoning... and here YOU are blaming the law for the executions!

You seem confused. I've attributed the executions and the law to the founder's religious interpretations of the Bible. With Pennsylvania actually quoting Leviticus 20:13 word for word as their law:

If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

Leviticus 20 13

A passage that you have summarily dismissed, despite it coming directly from 'The Lord'. And in the process demonstrate the absurd degree of subjectivity in religion. As any theist can ignore any law, commandment, passage or tenet they wish at any time......by doing exactly what you did: imagining some alternate interpretation.

You morphed 'they must be put to death' into meaning that they don't actually have to be put to death. And any theist can do the exact same thing, dismissing or ignoring any portion of any text or tenet that they don't like. Based on whatever interpretation they wish.

And this you call 'objective'? I don't think objective means what you think it means.

Now... I ask the reader, if THAT were to become a majority position. Think about it, if the law became subject to the needs of the criminal... what good would come of that? Is it more likely that the individual would be more secure, or less secure? Would the collective be more secure, or less secure? Would the cost of government go up, or down? And so on... .

Don't forget to remind the reader that the law you're trying to justify with your logic....is that gays should be executed for sodomy.

You're not gonna find much support for that in the US. Though you might do better in Iran or Saudi Arabia where your fellow theists hold much more sway over the government.

 

[francoHFW]

She and Desi were investigated with a lot of innuendo...split hairs much? McCarthy had nothing to do do with HUAC? Give me a break...He was the leader and started the whole disgraceful mess...

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Let's examine this Issue. McCarthy was a Senator; the HUAC was a H. of Rep. Committee. So (surprise), CF is technically correct. But when we consider Ted Cruz and his recent efforts to influence the H. of Rep., the possibility of McCarthy colluding with members of the HUAC, and the HUAC being Crazy Right Wing before it became fashionable, is not an inappropriate assumption.

I'm not just "technically correct" Freddo, McCarthy had NOTHING to do with it, not once, not ever.

McCarthy never "Colluded" with them, you're just making shit up now because unlike FranCoWTf you might have more than 2 functioning brain cells and see how stupid and dishonest the McCarthy/HUAC meme is

Associating McCarthy with HUAC was "not an inappropriate assumption" is was a Goebbels Big Lie perpetrated by the Communist Progressives who were directing the message. They repeated this Goebbels Big Lie for generations until people like yourself and FranCoWTf assumed it was the truth.

Listen (or read) asshole, how do you know (post the evidence) that McCarthy hadn't ever colluded with the HUAC? You don't, nor do I. I never said he did, and you claiming I did makes you a LIAR!

I suggested it was possible (learn to read, asshole) and you won't continue to make a fool of yourself.

Of course you are a liar, for you posted this (without once bit of evidence), "McCarthy never "Colluded" with them". How do you know (you don't). You're really too stupid to engage in an argument when you partisan biases blind you to what I post, and you are a typical dishonest right wing hack.

It's obvious you fucked up and walked into the McCarthy HUAC trap and are now trying to back away spewing insults.

What did McCarthy ever do to Lucille Ball?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

That was HUAC and other RW a-holes.. McCarthy only started McCarthyism, a disgrace, like Rush, Beck, West, or Cruz. Or your bs politics..

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yeah... well, that's the thing about being free... people will set their own rules. And when they're a hard people, it pays to not cross that line.

And the founders chose to interpret the Bible literally, killing gays for sodomy.

The Founders were not interpreting anything. They were reading the law, weighing the evidence of advanced charges and upon conviction, sentencing those who had violated the law, against the remedies scheduled by the legal code of their respective States.

That a state used the Laws set forth in Leviticus, is irrelevant. As a free people, they are entitled to set the law over which each individual is fairly governed, as they see fit.

In their defense, they didn't have much trouble out of the sexually abnormal. So, the hard line worked REALLY well.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I've been waiting for about a day. And after skimming your reply, I suspect I'll be waiting for quite a while longer. I won't hold my breath.

What you're doing is pretending that the question has not been answered time and again.

Oh, you've replied to my post. But you've never been able to provide a rational or logical reason in answer to my questions. As the assumptions that one must accept for your reasoning to work are laughably invalid. You claim that religion is objective. Which is nonsense....as you demonstrated when you 'interpreted around' a clear and direct commandment from 'the Lord' to put gays to death for sodomy. You dismissed the 'Lord's' commandment, ignoring it completely by making up caveats and non-existent 'laws of nature', that you imagine trump the 'Lord'.

And guess what? Any theist can make up any subjective, imaginary excuses they want to ignore any portion of any text or tenet in any religion for any reason they wish. As religion is hopelessly, inevitably, shamelessly subjective.

Of course, you've given no reason why a person can't use their own moral reasoning to come to moral decisions. You simply insist it can't be so....apparently because you said so. Alas, your ability to type a claim isn't actually evidence of its merit or veracity. You citing yourself is just personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is gloriously subjective.

Because in every one of the respective demonstrations, you've failed to offer a sustainable response; proving through one deflection after another obfuscation that perverse reasoning is incapable of competing with sound reason.

Obvious nonsense. I just shredded your claim that religion is objective....using specific and superb examples that you provided me, vastly better reasoning, and consistent logic. As I have at least a dozen times before. And as you did every time before, you ignore it all. And then pretend that if you ignore it, it doesn't exist.

Sigh...if only reality worked that way. My points above remain pristinely unrefuted and uncontested. And while you can ignore any of the truck sized holes in your claims, you can't make us ignore them.

Which is why you failed.

 

[francoHFW]

Plenty of people have been perfectly moral without religion, dingbat. Hang up the ignorant RW bs.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh, I've been waiting for about a day. And after skimming your reply, I suspect I'll be waiting for quite a while longer. I won't hold my breath.

What you're doing is pretending that the question has not been answered time and again.

Oh, you've replied to my post. But you've never been able to provide a rational or logical reason in answer to my questions. As the assumptions that one must accept for your reasoning to work are laughably invalid. You claim that religion is objective. Which is nonsense....as you demonstrated when you 'interpreted around' a clear and direct commandment from 'the Lord' to put gays to death for sodomy. You dismissed the 'Lord's' commandment, ignoring it completely by making up caveats and non-existent 'laws of nature', that you imagine trump the 'Lord'.

And guess what? Any theist can make up any subjective, imaginary excuses they want to ignore any portion of any text or tenet in any religion for any reason they wish. As religion is hopelessly, inevitably, shamelessly subjective.

Of course, you've given no reason why a person can't use their own moral reasoning to come to moral decisions. You simply insist it can't be so....apparently because you said so. Alas, your ability to type a claim isn't actually evidence of its merit or veracity. You citing yourself is just personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is gloriously subjective.

Because in every one of the respective demonstrations, you've failed to offer a sustainable response; proving through one deflection after another obfuscation that perverse reasoning is incapable of competing with sound reason.

Obvious nonsense. I just shredded your claim that religion is objective....using specific and superb examples that you provided me, vastly better reasoning, and consistent logic. As I have at least a dozen times before. And as you did every time before, you ignore it all. And then pretend that if you ignore it, it doesn't exist.

Sigh...if only reality worked that way. My points above remain pristinely unrefuted and uncontested. And while you can ignore any of the truck sized holes in your claims, you can't make us ignore them.

Which is why you failed.

Your concession is AGAIN... duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

The Founders were not interpreting anything. They were reading the law, weighing the evidence of advanced charges and upon conviction, sentencing those who had violated the law, against the remedies scheduled by the legal code of their respective States.

Ah, but you forget the gloriously subjective nature of religion. As you offered us the new testament as your excuse why 'they must be put to death' doesn't mean 'they must be put to death'. They didn't use your new testament excuse. They interpreted the old testament literally.

Most Modern Christians don't. They've imagined their own interpretations. And superbly demonstrated the fluid, changing, malleable and subjective nature of religious practice in doing so. As any theist in any faith can do what they did, what you did: imagine up an excuse to ignore whatever you don't like.

Which is the epitome of subjectivity.

That a state used the Laws set forth in Leviticus, is irrelevant.

Not when determining what the basis of that law actually is. Its undeniably religious in origin. Which is exactly my point; the founders interpreted the Bible literally, killing gays as leviticus says you must. Modern Christians in American don't believe gays should be executed for sodomy and give a litany of excuses why....including the one that you made up: that the New Testament preaches forgiveness and that is just 'old testament stuff'.

Its the same new testament in the Founders era. The same old testament. But they interpreted it radically differently than you or most modern American Christians did. And you can't provide us with any rational explanation why without tapping culture, society, history and personal context.

Debunking your own absurd claim that religion cannot be affected by culture, society, history or personal context. It obviously can. And is. And was. As the founder's radically different interpretations of the exact same text demonstrate so elegantly.

And these radically different, changing, and contradictory intepretations are what you call 'objective'?

Laughing....um, no.

 

[Skylar]

Plenty of people have been perfectly moral without religion, dingbat. Hang up the ignorant RW bs.

Yup. Its entirely possible to use one's own capacity for moral reasoning to make moral decisions.

But Keyes doubled down on fallacious nonsense in hapless defense of his claims, insisting that religion can't be effected by culture, society, history or personal context. And yet can't explain why the religious interpretations of say, the Founders were so radically different than those of modern American Christians....without tapping culture, society, history or personal context.

Its like watching a dog chase his own tail.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I've been waiting for about a day. And after skimming your reply, I suspect I'll be waiting for quite a while longer. I won't hold my breath.

What you're doing is pretending that the question has not been answered time and again.

Oh, you've replied to my post. But you've never been able to provide a rational or logical reason in answer to my questions. As the assumptions that one must accept for your reasoning to work are laughably invalid. You claim that religion is objective. Which is nonsense....as you demonstrated when you 'interpreted around' a clear and direct commandment from 'the Lord' to put gays to death for sodomy. You dismissed the 'Lord's' commandment, ignoring it completely by making up caveats and non-existent 'laws of nature', that you imagine trump the 'Lord'.

And guess what? Any theist can make up any subjective, imaginary excuses they want to ignore any portion of any text or tenet in any religion for any reason they wish. As religion is hopelessly, inevitably, shamelessly subjective.

Of course, you've given no reason why a person can't use their own moral reasoning to come to moral decisions. You simply insist it can't be so....apparently because you said so. Alas, your ability to type a claim isn't actually evidence of its merit or veracity. You citing yourself is just personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is gloriously subjective.

Because in every one of the respective demonstrations, you've failed to offer a sustainable response; proving through one deflection after another obfuscation that perverse reasoning is incapable of competing with sound reason.

Obvious nonsense. I just shredded your claim that religion is objective....using specific and superb examples that you provided me, vastly better reasoning, and consistent logic. As I have at least a dozen times before. And as you did every time before, you ignore it all. And then pretend that if you ignore it, it doesn't exist.

Sigh...if only reality worked that way. My points above remain pristinely unrefuted and uncontested. And while you can ignore any of the truck sized holes in your claims, you can't make us ignore them.

Which is why you failed.

Your concession is AGAIN... duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...and when your claims are debunked, your reasoning smashed and you've painted yourself in a rhetorical corner, you always flee to the same place: your 'concession' schtick in place of a reasoned reply.

Its your white flag. When you find the courage to address the point I've raised rather than running from them, I'll be here.

 

[francoHFW]

Some fool has never heard of philosophy...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Founders were not interpreting anything. They were reading the law, weighing the evidence of advanced charges and upon conviction, sentencing those who had violated the law, against the remedies scheduled by the legal code of their respective States.

Ah, but you forget the gloriously subjective nature of religion.

No... As you'e been repeatedly told, you're conflating the objective religion, with the subjective human being.

Now you've drug poor old Leviticus through the thread sufficiently long, that I should fairly point out that objectively, God says kill the sexually abnormal. The subjective human says: "Sally is a great guy... and he pays his bills, has two kids from his marriage to Marge, and is paying two mortgages plus child support. We shouldn't kill him just because he was found at the park head with Eddy's penis in his mouth."

So, we've gone from the hard Line days where Sally would have been hung in the spring ... and it would be a cold day in February before someone else was caught with a ... well, you know, to today where we're being told that we can't amend our State Constitutions to respect the natural standards of Marriage, and if we don't help the sexually abnormal celebrate their would-be marriages, we'll be bankrupted, run out of business and/or put into prison.

SO... we violated the law and what happened? Did our behavior produce a better society, greater prosperity, a deeper commitment to civility and a happier, healthier culture? Or are we reaping the consequences of not recognizing, respecting, defending and adhering to the laws of nature, OKA: God?

Now it seems fairly obvious to me, that in a world where death routinely comes as a result of a UTI... those people were less inclined to push against the consequential tide. And who can blame 'em? Who would CHOOSE to live in a time where men were marrying goats, woman were marrying dogs and the Catholic Priest is the greatest threat the well being of a young boys chastity?

So, it follows that the founders, being supremely reasoned, well inclined to push a hard line and living in a time when the consequences of pushing against nature came quick and with a vengeance, that they'd be certain to not cut much slack to those who couldn't figure out the biological complexities intrinsic to 'inees and outees'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh, I've been waiting for about a day. And after skimming your reply, I suspect I'll be waiting for quite a while longer. I won't hold my breath.

What you're doing is pretending that the question has not been answered time and again.

Oh, you've replied to my post. But you've never been able to provide a rational or logical reason in answer to my questions. As the assumptions that one must accept for your reasoning to work are laughably invalid. You claim that religion is objective. Which is nonsense....as you demonstrated when you 'interpreted around' a clear and direct commandment from 'the Lord' to put gays to death for sodomy. You dismissed the 'Lord's' commandment, ignoring it completely by making up caveats and non-existent 'laws of nature', that you imagine trump the 'Lord'.

And guess what? Any theist can make up any subjective, imaginary excuses they want to ignore any portion of any text or tenet in any religion for any reason they wish. As religion is hopelessly, inevitably, shamelessly subjective.

Of course, you've given no reason why a person can't use their own moral reasoning to come to moral decisions. You simply insist it can't be so....apparently because you said so. Alas, your ability to type a claim isn't actually evidence of its merit or veracity. You citing yourself is just personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is gloriously subjective.

Because in every one of the respective demonstrations, you've failed to offer a sustainable response; proving through one deflection after another obfuscation that perverse reasoning is incapable of competing with sound reason.

Obvious nonsense. I just shredded your claim that religion is objective....using specific and superb examples that you provided me, vastly better reasoning, and consistent logic. As I have at least a dozen times before. And as you did every time before, you ignore it all. And then pretend that if you ignore it, it doesn't exist.

Sigh...if only reality worked that way. My points above remain pristinely unrefuted and uncontested. And while you can ignore any of the truck sized holes in your claims, you can't make us ignore them.

Which is why you failed.

Your concession is AGAIN... duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...and when your claims are debunked, your reasoning smashed and you've painted yourself in a rhetorical corner, you always flee to the same place: your 'concession' schtick in place of a reasoned reply.

Its your white flag. When you find the courage to address the point I've raised rather than running from them, I'll be here.

Your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(I should point out that you're Intellectual Average is sitting on the line of acceptable efficacy. I would ask that you take some time to consider how you might improve and I would suggest that your tactic of repeatedly pretending that your posts have no been given the courtesy of a response, should be immediately scuttled.

As where such occurs, even once more, you will be sentenced to Summary "Ignor-cution,"

You're an annoying imbecile, but there are so few among the sexually abnormal who can last as long as you've managed, so I would hate to see ya go. But, alas, the law IS the law. So please... for your own sake, bring up your game.

Ok?)

 

[Unkotare]

The GOP also caused the Great Depression that led to chaos and the rise of militarists in Germany and Japan (same kind of thing in the Booosh SECOND corrupt Pub depression-see ME and Russia). AND stopped us from stopping them in Spain and elsewhere. AND wrecked the League of Nations. Great job as always...

You are an ignorant fool in every possible way.

Masters in World History, first half 20th century Europe concentration. You...?

First of all, you're full of shit. Second, no degree makes your idiotic opinion anything other than the empty nonsense that it is. Finally, I've been teaching history for more than 20 years, and it is easy to see that you are a weak-minded fool who cannot distinguish between fact and partisan bullshit.

You said you were a tutor last time. What happened?

Not everyone is a lazy, illiterate fool like you is what happened.

 

[Skylar]

No... you're conflating the objective religion, with the subjective human being.

There's no way to practice any religion without subjective human beings. The Bible doesn't interpret shit. Its just inanimate paper. People do every last bit of the interpreting. And they disagree. Wildly contradicting each other over something as fundamental as who to execute. And why?

Because of the very process you demonstrated for us: interpretation and emphasis. Any theist can ignore any portion of any text or tenet with any made up, imaginary justification they wish to imagine for any reason that suits them. As you did, morphing 'they must be put to death' into 'they don't really have to be put to death'........through the magic of the inescapable, inevitable and undeniably glorious power of subjectivity!

AKA: You just made shit up. Imagining up some non-existent 'law of nature' that provided you with caveats, exceptions and 'but only's that the Bible never mentions, and 'the Lord' never includes. And you're hardly alone in this. Any theist can do it. And almost all of them do, laying their own interpretations, opinions and preconceptions over the text, tenet or myth.

And interpretations, opinions and preconceptions are the epitome of subjectivity. And the only way that religion can possibly be practiced...for the very reasons you noted: human beings are subjective. And we're the only one's interpreting our religious texts, myths and stories.

Debunking your absurd claim that religion is objective and can't be effected by culture, society, history or personal context. Religion is spectacularly subjective. It obviously can be affected by culture, society, history and personal contact. It obviously is. As you so graciously demonstrated for us with your 'but only' excuses for ignoring the commandments of 'the Lord'.

So, we've gone from the hard Line days where Sally would have been hung in the spring ... and it would be a cold day February before someone else was caught with a ... well, you know, to today where we're being told that we can't make amend our State Constitutions to respect the natural standards ofMarriage, and if we don't help the sexually abnormal celebrate their would-be marriages, we'll be bankrupted, run out of business and/or put into prison.

Wow....you seem absolutely desperate to change the topic. State constitutions? Marriage? Bankruptcy? I take it the 'there can be no morality without religion' and 'rejecting religion means rejecting morality' nonsense weren't working out so well for you.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to abandon them. If even you are going to treat your claims like the useless flotsam they are, surely you can understand why we treat your claims the same way.

 

[francoHFW]

The GOP also caused the Great Depression that led to chaos and the rise of militarists in Germany and Japan (same kind of thing in the Booosh SECOND corrupt Pub depression-see ME and Russia). AND stopped us from stopping them in Spain and elsewhere. AND wrecked the League of Nations. Great job as always...

You are an ignorant fool in every possible way.

Masters in World History, first half 20th century Europe concentration. You...?

First of all, you're full of shit. Second, no degree makes your idiotic opinion anything other than the empty nonsense that it is. Finally, I've been teaching history for more than 20 years, and it is easy to see that you are a weak-minded fool who cannot distinguish between fact and partisan bullshit.

You said you were a tutor last time. What happened?

Not everyone is a lazy, illiterate fool like you is what happened.

Idiot Pubtroll "tutor". So bitter and useless.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I've been waiting for about a day. And after skimming your reply, I suspect I'll be waiting for quite a while longer. I won't hold my breath.

What you're doing is pretending that the question has not been answered time and again.

Oh, you've replied to my post. But you've never been able to provide a rational or logical reason in answer to my questions. As the assumptions that one must accept for your reasoning to work are laughably invalid. You claim that religion is objective. Which is nonsense....as you demonstrated when you 'interpreted around' a clear and direct commandment from 'the Lord' to put gays to death for sodomy. You dismissed the 'Lord's' commandment, ignoring it completely by making up caveats and non-existent 'laws of nature', that you imagine trump the 'Lord'.

And guess what? Any theist can make up any subjective, imaginary excuses they want to ignore any portion of any text or tenet in any religion for any reason they wish. As religion is hopelessly, inevitably, shamelessly subjective.

Of course, you've given no reason why a person can't use their own moral reasoning to come to moral decisions. You simply insist it can't be so....apparently because you said so. Alas, your ability to type a claim isn't actually evidence of its merit or veracity. You citing yourself is just personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is gloriously subjective.

Because in every one of the respective demonstrations, you've failed to offer a sustainable response; proving through one deflection after another obfuscation that perverse reasoning is incapable of competing with sound reason.

Obvious nonsense. I just shredded your claim that religion is objective....using specific and superb examples that you provided me, vastly better reasoning, and consistent logic. As I have at least a dozen times before. And as you did every time before, you ignore it all. And then pretend that if you ignore it, it doesn't exist.

Sigh...if only reality worked that way. My points above remain pristinely unrefuted and uncontested. And while you can ignore any of the truck sized holes in your claims, you can't make us ignore them.

Which is why you failed.

Your concession is AGAIN... duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...and when your claims are debunked, your reasoning smashed and you've painted yourself in a rhetorical corner, you always flee to the same place: your 'concession' schtick in place of a reasoned reply.

Its your white flag. When you find the courage to address the point I've raised rather than running from them, I'll be here.

Your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(I should point out that you're Intellectual Average is sitting on the line of acceptable efficacy. I would ask that you take some time to consider how you might improve and I would suggest that your tactic of repeatedly pretending that your posts have no been given the courtesy of a response, should be immediately scuttled.

As where such occurs, even once more, you will be sentenced to Summary "Ignor-cution,"

You're an annoying imbecile, but there are so few among the sexually abnormal who can last as long as you've managed, so I would hate to see ya go. But, alas, the law IS the law. So please... for your own sake, bring up your game.

Ok?)

Note you don't actually address, refute or even disagree with any point I've raised. You just awkwardly attempt to insult me personally, summarily declare victory...and ignore the huge, truck sized holes in your reasoning.

Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. When and if you muster the courage to address the points I've raised or the holes I've punched into your reasoning, I'll be about.

 

[Unkotare]

You are an ignorant fool in every possible way.

Masters in World History, first half 20th century Europe concentration. You...?

First of all, you're full of shit. Second, no degree makes your idiotic opinion anything other than the empty nonsense that it is. Finally, I've been teaching history for more than 20 years, and it is easy to see that you are a weak-minded fool who cannot distinguish between fact and partisan bullshit.

You said you were a tutor last time. What happened?

Not everyone is a lazy, illiterate fool like you is what happened.

Idiot Pubtroll "tutor". So bitter and useless.

Learn the language or get out of my country, fool.

 

[Wry Catcher]

She and Desi were investigated with a lot of innuendo...split hairs much? McCarthy had nothing to do do with HUAC? Give me a break...He was the leader and started the whole disgraceful mess...

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Let's examine this Issue. McCarthy was a Senator; the HUAC was a H. of Rep. Committee. So (surprise), CF is technically correct. But when we consider Ted Cruz and his recent efforts to influence the H. of Rep., the possibility of McCarthy colluding with members of the HUAC, and the HUAC being Crazy Right Wing before it became fashionable, is not an inappropriate assumption.

I'm not just "technically correct" Freddo, McCarthy had NOTHING to do with it, not once, not ever.

McCarthy never "Colluded" with them, you're just making shit up now because unlike FranCoWTf you might have more than 2 functioning brain cells and see how stupid and dishonest the McCarthy/HUAC meme is

Associating McCarthy with HUAC was "not an inappropriate assumption" is was a Goebbels Big Lie perpetrated by the Communist Progressives who were directing the message. They repeated this Goebbels Big Lie for generations until people like yourself and FranCoWTf assumed it was the truth.

Listen (or read) asshole, how do you know (post the evidence) that McCarthy hadn't ever colluded with the HUAC?

ROFLMNAO!

So the Relativist only requires that its opposition go through every move that a person who lived 70 years ago, made... to PROVE that they did not do something.

Which they require because they can't show the behavior which THEY DEMAND the individual DID.

Now if one is a person who suffers from a perversion of human reasoning... OKA: A Relativist... that makes 'perfect sense'.

Wow, you really are a dishonest piece of shit, as well as an arrogant asshole.