Terrorist Kills American Tourist and Four Others in the West Bank

[Indeependent]

Tourist? Hardly.

"Schwartz was delivering food to IDF soldiers when the van he was riding in was shot at by a Palestinian man armed with a machine gun. The man proceeded to ram his vehicle into the van. He passed away shortly after."
Christine Rousselle - Massachusetts Teen Killed in West Bank Terrorist Attack

If the van was unmarked, this is murder, pure and simple.

 

[sealybobo]

Liberals are indeed rational, you might want to strive for both.........

I am both...

Only in your imagination...... Here's a hint, Progressives ain't liberals, they're fringers.........

I'm not a progressive but I fully support progress, all liberals do.

Im a progressive liberal Democrat. What's wrong with that?

Progressives aren't liberals........ They're the DNC's version of the Tea Party........

Since when? Give some examples of how progressives are the polar opposite of tea baggers. This is the first time ever hearing this.

 

[sealybobo]

Liberals are indeed rational, you might want to strive for both.........

I am both...

Only in your imagination...... Here's a hint, Progressives ain't liberals, they're fringers.........

I'm not a progressive but I fully support progress, all liberals do.

Im a progressive liberal Democrat. What's wrong with that?

There are three words which you've used to describe yourself.

The first is a dam' lie. The word implies the advancement of humanity, while those who claim the word, advocate for ideas which promote regression (that's the opposite of progress).

The second word is also a dam' lie. It implies that you advocate for liberty for the individual... but liberty is only possible where the individual bears the responsibility that sustains their liberty... . You and your comrades reject individual responsibility... thus the consequences of what you stand for is tyranny (that's the opposite of liberty).

The third word is ALSO a dam' Lie... as the word implies government through the legislative will of the people.

Yet your cult has taken action which stripped the legislative will of the majority from the majority of the people who voted against YOU!

So... what have we learned?

We've learned that you're either a LIAR... or you're delusional, believing that which can NOT possibly BE TRUE: AS TRUTH.

Which it is, is quite irrelevant, as in either case...

The Reader of this board cannot reasonably place any trust in what you say.

You're just brainwashed. The other day my bro says to me, "you're not a liberal because liberals want socialism"

He and you listen to too much rush and watch too much fox. What you think liberals are and what they actually are are two different things.

In other words you aren't smart enough to be talking politics. The average voter.

 

[Ringel05]

I am both...

Only in your imagination...... Here's a hint, Progressives ain't liberals, they're fringers.........

I'm not a progressive but I fully support progress, all liberals do.

Im a progressive liberal Democrat. What's wrong with that?

Progressives aren't liberals........ They're the DNC's version of the Tea Party........

Since when? Give some examples of how progressives are the polar opposite of tea baggers. This is the first time ever hearing this.

First time? You're joking..... right? You have no idea of the political spectrum layout? For the left; moderates, liberals, progressives then leftists roughly in that order.
For the right; moderates, conservatives, tea partiers, reactionaries roughly in that order.
That's correct, neither progressives nor tea partiers are the farthest wings of their respective ideological bases but they are considered by political academics to be about equal distance from the center. Tea partiers tend to want smaller, less intrusive government, progressives tend to want just the opposite (especially in terms of "wealth equality"), there are moderates who for whatever reason associate themselves with either the tea party or the progressives muddying up the mix a little, maybe they like the names.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am both...

Only in your imagination...... Here's a hint, Progressives ain't liberals, they're fringers.........

I'm not a progressive but I fully support progress, all liberals do.

Im a progressive liberal Democrat. What's wrong with that?

There are three words which you've used to describe yourself.

The first is a dam' lie. The word implies the advancement of humanity, while those who claim the word, advocate for ideas which promote regression (that's the opposite of progress).

The second word is also a dam' lie. It implies that you advocate for liberty for the individual... but liberty is only possible where the individual bears the responsibility that sustains their liberty... . You and your comrades reject individual responsibility... thus the consequences of what you stand for is tyranny (that's the opposite of liberty).

The third word is ALSO a dam' Lie... as the word implies government through the legislative will of the people.

Yet your cult has taken action which stripped the legislative will of the majority from the majority of the people who voted against YOU!

So... what have we learned?

We've learned that you're either a LIAR... or you're delusional, believing that which can NOT possibly BE TRUE: AS TRUTH.

Which it is, is quite irrelevant, as in either case...

The Reader of this board cannot reasonably place any trust in what you say.

You're just brainwashed.

ROFLMNAO!

You describe yourself through demonstrable deceit... using words which represent the diametrical opposite of what your ideas produce... and from all of that, you 'feel' that > I < am brainwashed.

LOL!

All of which answers the question: Is she a liar or is she suffering an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder... OKA: D e l u s i o n a l.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Only in your imagination...... Here's a hint, Progressives ain't liberals, they're fringers.........

I'm not a progressive but I fully support progress, all liberals do.

Im a progressive liberal Democrat. What's wrong with that?

Progressives aren't liberals........ They're the DNC's version of the Tea Party........

Since when? Give some examples of how progressives are the polar opposite of tea baggers. This is the first time ever hearing this.

First time? You're joking..... right? You have no idea of the political spectrum layout? For the left; moderates, liberals, progressives then leftists roughly in that order.
For the right; moderates, conservatives, tea partiers, reactionaries roughly in that order.
That's correct, neither progressives nor tea partiers are the farthest wings of their respective ideological bases but they are considered by political academics to be about equal distance from the center. Tea partiers tend to want smaller, less intrusive government, progressives tend to want just the opposite (especially in terms of "wealth equality"), there are moderates who for whatever reason associate themselves with either the tea party or the progressives muddying up the mix a little, maybe they like the names.

Do you understand that what you're describing as 'The Ideological Center', is where people accept a 50-50 mix of Unsound Ideas and Sound Ideas? Which is to say a mix of half Evil and Half Good?

Do you realize that there is no such thing a half evil? Half Evil is just Evil... . Meaning that half Good is Evil... .

Compromising with those who demand that you accept their unsound ideas, instantly converts sound ideas into unsound ideas?

There is no such thing as an "Ideological Center"... because there is no such thing as "The Ideological Right".

The Left exists upon 'Ideas' void of any sense of principle. Thus, the Left operates upon ideas that stand in opposition to nature's truth. Therefore, the Left is quite naturally wrong.

Understand... "The Right" is not a term which describes a spacial orientation... it is a status... The Right does not stand opposed to 'The Left'... The Right stands in opposition to that which is WRONG.

The Right is philosophical... not ideological.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm not a progressive but I fully support progress, all liberals do.

Im a progressive liberal Democrat. What's wrong with that?

Progressives aren't liberals........ They're the DNC's version of the Tea Party........

Since when? Give some examples of how progressives are the polar opposite of tea baggers. This is the first time ever hearing this.

First time? You're joking..... right? You have no idea of the political spectrum layout? For the left; moderates, liberals, progressives then leftists roughly in that order.
For the right; moderates, conservatives, tea partiers, reactionaries roughly in that order.
That's correct, neither progressives nor tea partiers are the farthest wings of their respective ideological bases but they are considered by political academics to be about equal distance from the center. Tea partiers tend to want smaller, less intrusive government, progressives tend to want just the opposite (especially in terms of "wealth equality"), there are moderates who for whatever reason associate themselves with either the tea party or the progressives muddying up the mix a little, maybe they like the names.

Do you understand that what you're describing as 'The Ideological Center', is where people accept a 50-50 mix of Unsound Ideas and Sound Ideas? Which is to say a mix of half Evil and Half Good?

Do you realize that there is no such thing a half evil? Half Evil is just Evil... . Meaning that half Good is Evil... .

Compromising with those who demand that you accept their unsound ideas, instantly converts sound ideas into unsound ideas?

There is no such thing as an "Ideological Center"... because there is no such thing as "The Ideological Right".

The Left exists upon 'Ideas' void of any sense of principle. Thus, the Left operates upon ideas that stand in opposition to nature's truth. Therefore, the Left is quite naturally wrong.

Understand... "The Right" is not a term which describes a spacial orientation... it is a status... The Right does not stand opposed to 'The Left'... The Right stands in opposition to that which is WRONG.

The Right is philosophical... not ideological.

Help for you, what was the bombing of Japan? A good or the lesser of two evils (supposedly)?

Lesser of two evils principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ringel05]

I'm not a progressive but I fully support progress, all liberals do.

Im a progressive liberal Democrat. What's wrong with that?

Progressives aren't liberals........ They're the DNC's version of the Tea Party........

Since when? Give some examples of how progressives are the polar opposite of tea baggers. This is the first time ever hearing this.

First time? You're joking..... right? You have no idea of the political spectrum layout? For the left; moderates, liberals, progressives then leftists roughly in that order.
For the right; moderates, conservatives, tea partiers, reactionaries roughly in that order.
That's correct, neither progressives nor tea partiers are the farthest wings of their respective ideological bases but they are considered by political academics to be about equal distance from the center. Tea partiers tend to want smaller, less intrusive government, progressives tend to want just the opposite (especially in terms of "wealth equality"), there are moderates who for whatever reason associate themselves with either the tea party or the progressives muddying up the mix a little, maybe they like the names.

Do you understand that what you're describing as 'The Ideological Center', is where people accept a 50-50 mix of Unsound Ideas and Sound Ideas? Which is to say a mix of half Evil and Half Good?

Do you realize that there is no such thing a half evil? Half Evil is just Evil... . Meaning that half Good is Evil... .

Compromising with those who demand that you accept their unsound ideas, instantly converts sound ideas into unsound ideas?

There is no such thing as an "Ideological Center"... because there is no such thing as "The Ideological Right".

The Left exists upon 'Ideas' void of any sense of principle. Thus, the Left operates upon ideas that stand in opposition to nature's truth. Therefore, the Left is quite naturally wrong.

Understand... "The Right" is not a term which describes a spacial orientation... it is a status... The Right does not stand opposed to 'The Left'... The Right stands in opposition to that which is WRONG.

The Right is philosophical... not ideological.

No, the middle is based on the center of extreme ideologies, those in the middle do not hold to the more extreme ideologies of either the right of the left but a possible combination of approaches that are the more moderate aspects (depending on the issue at hand).
Unlike you (and your opposites on the far left) I'm not making a moral or personal ideological statement, simply relating the political spectrum. I consider both far right and left to be extremest nutjobs who would enslave the nation to their ideals of what is right or wrong. (BTW the last sentence was a personal, moral judgement).

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, the middle is bases on the center of extreme ideologies

Hmm... So you're speaking of the extremes? Therefore, there can be no connection from that which exists in the middle and that which exists on the extreme edge?

Oh... Now THAT is fascinatin'!

Pray tell... how does that work?

Please explain what you feel represents 'The Far Left and Right'.... . And most importantly, do so without revealing any evidence of moral turpitude or virtue.

 

[Montrovant]

Do you realize that there is no such thing a half evil? Half Evil is just Evil... . Meaning that half Good is Evil... .

At what percentage does something go from being evil to being good? 60%? 80%? Or is even the slightest hint of evil enough to make a belief or idea evil? Are only the ideologically pure (which one assumes you consider yourself) actually good?

 

[Ringel05]

No, the middle is bases on the center of extreme ideologies

Hmm... So you're speaking of the extremes? Therefore, there can be no connection from that which exists in the middle and that which exists on the extreme edge?

Oh... Now THAT is fascinatin'!

Pray tell... how does that work?

Please explain what you feel represents 'The Far Left and Right'.... . And most importantly, do so without revealing any evidence of moral turpitude or virtue.

It's purely academic, far right is considered (and always has been) to be a dictatorial social control system (typically but not always religion based) plus (in our socioeconomic system) unfettered capitalism. Far left is considered a pure sociopolitical government control of all systems.
Historically our founding fathers were Classical Liberals (Libertarianism and many in the Tea Party promote a form of Neo-classical Liberalism) and was put in place when the country was mostly farmers and what could be considered cottage industries, the advent of the industrial age and it's resultant abuse by a few lead to modern social liberalism and the ideas of socialism/communism. Currently it's a push pull between the Neo-classicals and those who desire a more pure form of a Socialist Democracy (Progressives). The balance lies somewhere in between.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Do you realize that there is no such thing a half evil? Half Evil is just Evil... . Meaning that half Good is Evil... .

At what percentage does something go from being evil to being good? 60%? 80%? Or is even the slightest hint of evil enough to make a belief or idea evil? Are only the ideologically pure (which one assumes you consider yourself) actually good?

At the precise point where that something bears no sense of profound immorality and/or malevolence, thus does not harm or otherwise tend to injure, which is to say, the point at which it comes into adherence with the laws of nature governing human behavior.

FYI: Evil is not ideological... it is philosophical, specifically metaphysical.

 

[Preacher]

Who gives a shit? Just jews.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, the middle is bases on the center of extreme ideologies

Hmm... So you're speaking of the extremes? Therefore, there can be no connection from that which exists in the middle and that which exists on the extreme edge?

Oh... Now THAT is fascinatin'!

Pray tell... how does that work?

Please explain what you feel represents 'The Far Left and Right'.... . And most importantly, do so without revealing any evidence of moral turpitude or virtue.

It's purely academic, far right is considered (and always has been) to be a dictatorial social control system. ...

LOL! So the Far Right is communist?

Well.. I see you've given this a LOT of thought. Thank you.

And THAT Reader is what happens when people are separated from their soul... thus from God. They lose the means to reason in the light, therefore they are separated from the means to reason soundly.

They are lead to believe that that principle is 'relative' to this and that..., in the above instance, we're told that the laws of nature governing human behavior, OKA: Human principle, was altered by the industrialization of the culture.

When in truth, principle... is immutable, inalterable... timeless. And as such, it is not affected by anything, at all... ever.

The only thing that changes, are the rationalizations to avoid the intrinsic accountability for the consequences common to their failure to adhere to such.

What we see in the above rationalization is a demonstration of 'Relativism', wherein the contributor seeks offers up an attempt to explain or justify their own and other's behavior and/or attitude with logical, plausible reasons, despite such being untrue and otherwise inappropriate; therein demonstrating the intrinsic deceit... and this without regard to whether the subject is aware of it, or not.

As noted earlier, there is no such thing as "Far Evil"... thus there is no such thing as the would-be antithesis of such, OKA: the "Far Right".

 

[Ringel05]

No, the middle is bases on the center of extreme ideologies

Hmm... So you're speaking of the extremes? Therefore, there can be no connection from that which exists in the middle and that which exists on the extreme edge?

Oh... Now THAT is fascinatin'!

Pray tell... how does that work?

Please explain what you feel represents 'The Far Left and Right'.... . And most importantly, do so without revealing any evidence of moral turpitude or virtue.

It's purely academic, far right is considered (and always has been) to be a dictatorial social control system. ...

LOL! So the Far Right is communist?

Well.. I see you've given this a LOT of thought. Thank you.

And THAT Reader is what happens when people are separated from their soul... thus from God. They lose the means to reason in the light, therefore they are separated from the means to reason soundly.

They are lead to believe that that principle is 'relative' to this and that..., in the above instance, we're told that the laws of nature governing human behavior, OKA: Human principle, was altered by the industrialization of the culture.

When in truth, principle... is immutable, inalterable... timeless. And as such, it is not affected by anything, at all... ever.

The only thing that changes, are the rationalizations to avoid the intrinsic accountability for the consequences common to their failure to adhere to such.

What we see in the above rationalization is a demonstration of 'Relativism', wherein the contributor seeks offers up an attempt to explain or justify their own and other's behavior and/or attitude with logical, plausible reasons, despite such being untrue and otherwise inappropriate; therein demonstrating the intrinsic deceit... and this without regard to whether the subject is aware of it, or not.

As noted earlier, there is no such thing as "Far Evil"... thus there is no such thing as the would-be antithesis of such, OKA: the "Far Right".

LOL! So the Far Right is communist

Is that all you understand? Communist or American? You really are an uneducated moron.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, the middle is bases on the center of extreme ideologies

Hmm... So you're speaking of the extremes? Therefore, there can be no connection from that which exists in the middle and that which exists on the extreme edge?

Oh... Now THAT is fascinatin'!

Pray tell... how does that work?

Please explain what you feel represents 'The Far Left and Right'.... . And most importantly, do so without revealing any evidence of moral turpitude or virtue.

It's purely academic, far right is considered (and always has been) to be a dictatorial social control system. ...

LOL! So the Far Right is communist?

Well.. I see you've given this a LOT of thought. Thank you.

And THAT Reader is what happens when people are separated from their soul... thus from God. They lose the means to reason in the light, therefore they are separated from the means to reason soundly.

They are lead to believe that that principle is 'relative' to this and that..., in the above instance, we're told that the laws of nature governing human behavior, OKA: Human principle, was altered by the industrialization of the culture.

When in truth, principle... is immutable, inalterable... timeless. And as such, it is not affected by anything, at all... ever.

The only thing that changes, are the rationalizations to avoid the intrinsic accountability for the consequences common to their failure to adhere to such.

What we see in the above rationalization is a demonstration of 'Relativism', wherein the contributor seeks offers up an attempt to explain or justify their own and other's behavior and/or attitude with logical, plausible reasons, despite such being untrue and otherwise inappropriate; therein demonstrating the intrinsic deceit... and this without regard to whether the subject is aware of it, or not.

As noted earlier, there is no such thing as "Far Evil"... thus there is no such thing as the would-be antithesis of such, OKA: the "Far Right".

LOL! So the Far Right is communist

Is that all you understand? Communist or American? You really are an uneducated moron.

So you're asking if my understanding spans Evil and that which rests entirely upon the laws of nature that govern human behavior, and the means to avoid manifesting evil?

Yes... my understanding spans those two poles.

But it's SUPER COOL that you feel that ignorance is defined by the recognition that a merger of good and evil does not represent good.

I absolutely ADORE the sweeter irony.

 

[Ringel05]

No, the middle is bases on the center of extreme ideologies

Hmm... So you're speaking of the extremes? Therefore, there can be no connection from that which exists in the middle and that which exists on the extreme edge?

Oh... Now THAT is fascinatin'!

Pray tell... how does that work?

Please explain what you feel represents 'The Far Left and Right'.... . And most importantly, do so without revealing any evidence of moral turpitude or virtue.

It's purely academic, far right is considered (and always has been) to be a dictatorial social control system. ...

LOL! So the Far Right is communist?

Well.. I see you've given this a LOT of thought. Thank you.

And THAT Reader is what happens when people are separated from their soul... thus from God. They lose the means to reason in the light, therefore they are separated from the means to reason soundly.

They are lead to believe that that principle is 'relative' to this and that..., in the above instance, we're told that the laws of nature governing human behavior, OKA: Human principle, was altered by the industrialization of the culture.

When in truth, principle... is immutable, inalterable... timeless. And as such, it is not affected by anything, at all... ever.

The only thing that changes, are the rationalizations to avoid the intrinsic accountability for the consequences common to their failure to adhere to such.

What we see in the above rationalization is a demonstration of 'Relativism', wherein the contributor seeks offers up an attempt to explain or justify their own and other's behavior and/or attitude with logical, plausible reasons, despite such being untrue and otherwise inappropriate; therein demonstrating the intrinsic deceit... and this without regard to whether the subject is aware of it, or not.

As noted earlier, there is no such thing as "Far Evil"... thus there is no such thing as the would-be antithesis of such, OKA: the "Far Right".

LOL! So the Far Right is communist

Is that all you understand? Communist or American? You really are an uneducated moron.

So you're asking if my understanding spans Evil and that which rests entirely upon the laws of nature that govern human behavior, and the means to avoid manifesting evil?

Yes... my understanding spans those two poles.

But it's SUPER COOL that you feel that ignorance is defined by the recognition that a merger of good and evil does not represent good.

I absolutely ADORE the sweeter irony.

Obviously....... And I'm absolutely positive you'll miss the irony in your statement.........

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hmm... So you're speaking of the extremes? Therefore, there can be no connection from that which exists in the middle and that which exists on the extreme edge?

Oh... Now THAT is fascinatin'!

Pray tell... how does that work?

Please explain what you feel represents 'The Far Left and Right'.... . And most importantly, do so without revealing any evidence of moral turpitude or virtue.

It's purely academic, far right is considered (and always has been) to be a dictatorial social control system. ...

LOL! So the Far Right is communist?

Well.. I see you've given this a LOT of thought. Thank you.

And THAT Reader is what happens when people are separated from their soul... thus from God. They lose the means to reason in the light, therefore they are separated from the means to reason soundly.

They are lead to believe that that principle is 'relative' to this and that..., in the above instance, we're told that the laws of nature governing human behavior, OKA: Human principle, was altered by the industrialization of the culture.

When in truth, principle... is immutable, inalterable... timeless. And as such, it is not affected by anything, at all... ever.

The only thing that changes, are the rationalizations to avoid the intrinsic accountability for the consequences common to their failure to adhere to such.

What we see in the above rationalization is a demonstration of 'Relativism', wherein the contributor seeks offers up an attempt to explain or justify their own and other's behavior and/or attitude with logical, plausible reasons, despite such being untrue and otherwise inappropriate; therein demonstrating the intrinsic deceit... and this without regard to whether the subject is aware of it, or not.

As noted earlier, there is no such thing as "Far Evil"... thus there is no such thing as the would-be antithesis of such, OKA: the "Far Right".

LOL! So the Far Right is communist

Is that all you understand? Communist or American? You really are an uneducated moron.

So you're asking if my understanding spans Evil and that which rests entirely upon the laws of nature that govern human behavior, and the means to avoid manifesting evil?

Yes... my understanding spans those two poles.

But it's SUPER COOL that you feel that ignorance is defined by the recognition that a merger of good and evil does not represent good.

I absolutely ADORE the sweeter irony.

Obviously....... And I'm absolutely positive you'll miss the irony in your statement.........

Oh.... by all means, please explain to the Reader, the irony in my statement, that you feel I missed.

No doubt that the Reader missed it too ... that would be very helpful.

(Reader, note that the point of the discussion has departed from the original issue. This is because the point that the would-be contributor was trying to make has been eviscerated; wholly refuted.

Humiliated... and lacking the means to reason objectively, the contributor is unable to accept that the defeat of its reasoning, is an irrefutable indication that its reasoning is fatally flawed, thus the problem cannot be in their reasoning; in itself... 'the problem' must therefore be elsewhere... and for the relativist, that is ALWAYS 'in the individual who refuted their reasoning'.

You need understanding NOTHING else beyond that... to recognize the true nature 'the problem'.

OH! And FTR: The would-be 'contributor' will not be offering any further information with regard to the irony it mentioned, as no such irony exists. But how ADORABLE was it that it needed to expose itself so?)

 

[Ringel05]

It's purely academic, far right is considered (and always has been) to be a dictatorial social control system. ...

LOL! So the Far Right is communist?

Well.. I see you've given this a LOT of thought. Thank you.

And THAT Reader is what happens when people are separated from their soul... thus from God. They lose the means to reason in the light, therefore they are separated from the means to reason soundly.

They are lead to believe that that principle is 'relative' to this and that..., in the above instance, we're told that the laws of nature governing human behavior, OKA: Human principle, was altered by the industrialization of the culture.

When in truth, principle... is immutable, inalterable... timeless. And as such, it is not affected by anything, at all... ever.

The only thing that changes, are the rationalizations to avoid the intrinsic accountability for the consequences common to their failure to adhere to such.

What we see in the above rationalization is a demonstration of 'Relativism', wherein the contributor seeks offers up an attempt to explain or justify their own and other's behavior and/or attitude with logical, plausible reasons, despite such being untrue and otherwise inappropriate; therein demonstrating the intrinsic deceit... and this without regard to whether the subject is aware of it, or not.

As noted earlier, there is no such thing as "Far Evil"... thus there is no such thing as the would-be antithesis of such, OKA: the "Far Right".

LOL! So the Far Right is communist

Is that all you understand? Communist or American? You really are an uneducated moron.

So you're asking if my understanding spans Evil and that which rests entirely upon the laws of nature that govern human behavior, and the means to avoid manifesting evil?

Yes... my understanding spans those two poles.

But it's SUPER COOL that you feel that ignorance is defined by the recognition that a merger of good and evil does not represent good.

I absolutely ADORE the sweeter irony.

Obviously....... And I'm absolutely positive you'll miss the irony in your statement.........

Oh.... by all means, please explain to the Reader, the irony in my statement, that you feel I missed.

No doubt that the Reader missed it too ... that would be very helpful.

(Reader, note that the point of the discussion has departed from the original issue. This is because the point that the would-be contributor was trying to make has been eviscerated; wholly refuted.

Humiliated... and lacking the means to reason objectively, the contributor is unable to accept that the defeat of its reasoning, is an irrefutable indication that its reasoning is fatally flawed, thus the problem cannot be in their reasoning; in itself... 'the problem' must therefore be elsewhere... and for the relativist, that is ALWAYS 'in the individual who refuted their reasoning'.

You need understanding NOTHING else beyond that... to recognize the true nature 'the problem'.

OH! And FTR: The would-be 'contributor' will not be offering any further information with regard to the irony it mentioned, as no such irony exists. But how ADORABLE was it that it needed to expose itself so?)

It's easy when one (you) isn't rationalizing to protect one's paradigm.........
I'm speaking from a purely unbiased academic and historical standpoint........ You might want to try it sometime........

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! So the Far Right is communist?

Well.. I see you've given this a LOT of thought. Thank you.

And THAT Reader is what happens when people are separated from their soul... thus from God. They lose the means to reason in the light, therefore they are separated from the means to reason soundly.

They are lead to believe that that principle is 'relative' to this and that..., in the above instance, we're told that the laws of nature governing human behavior, OKA: Human principle, was altered by the industrialization of the culture.

When in truth, principle... is immutable, inalterable... timeless. And as such, it is not affected by anything, at all... ever.

The only thing that changes, are the rationalizations to avoid the intrinsic accountability for the consequences common to their failure to adhere to such.

What we see in the above rationalization is a demonstration of 'Relativism', wherein the contributor seeks offers up an attempt to explain or justify their own and other's behavior and/or attitude with logical, plausible reasons, despite such being untrue and otherwise inappropriate; therein demonstrating the intrinsic deceit... and this without regard to whether the subject is aware of it, or not.

As noted earlier, there is no such thing as "Far Evil"... thus there is no such thing as the would-be antithesis of such, OKA: the "Far Right".

LOL! So the Far Right is communist

Is that all you understand? Communist or American? You really are an uneducated moron.

So you're asking if my understanding spans Evil and that which rests entirely upon the laws of nature that govern human behavior, and the means to avoid manifesting evil?

Yes... my understanding spans those two poles.

But it's SUPER COOL that you feel that ignorance is defined by the recognition that a merger of good and evil does not represent good.

I absolutely ADORE the sweeter irony.

Obviously....... And I'm absolutely positive you'll miss the irony in your statement.........

Oh.... by all means, please explain to the Reader, the irony in my statement, that you feel I missed.

No doubt that the Reader missed it too ... that would be very helpful.

(Reader, note that the point of the discussion has departed from the original issue. This is because the point that the would-be contributor was trying to make has been eviscerated; wholly refuted.

Humiliated... and lacking the means to reason objectively, the contributor is unable to accept that the defeat of its reasoning, is an irrefutable indication that its reasoning is fatally flawed, thus the problem cannot be in their reasoning; in itself... 'the problem' must therefore be elsewhere... and for the relativist, that is ALWAYS 'in the individual who refuted their reasoning'.

You need understanding NOTHING else beyond that... to recognize the true nature 'the problem'.

OH! And FTR: The would-be 'contributor' will not be offering any further information with regard to the irony it mentioned, as no such irony exists. But how ADORABLE was it that it needed to expose itself so?)

It's easy when one (you) isn't rationalizing to protect one's paradigm.........
I'm speaking from a purely unbiased academic and historical standpoint........ You might want to try it sometime........

So, you're saying that you can't actually point out the irony which you have now demonstrated does not exist.

Ya see scamp... pointing out the fatal flaws in your argument, is a very specific, irrefutable fact. There's no potential rationalization in that. Stating that merging Evil with Good only results in evil... is again, ANOTHER objective demonstration of the fatal flaw in your reasoning.

Which brings us to your total failure at every point of this discussion, to support anything that you've claimed... you have precisely ZERO of your points standing... .

Now... be sure to inform the Reader that you feel that you've defended each of your points... and direct them to where you did so.

(Again Reader, all we're seeing here is the same only rationalization which seeks to define 'the moderate' as the singular point of reason. When in truth, all the moderate is, is a Leftist, who lacks the courage to FULLY commit to evil. They're the one's who wanted to only allow homosexuals to "BE"... who ASSURED us that there was No Chance that Homosexuals could ever demand to 'Be Married"... . They're the one's whose endless needs have resulted in 19 trillion dollars in debt on the books and 150 trillion in unfunded debt... they're the one's that elect enemy insurgents in the name of HOPE and CHANGE... and so on. And it ALL came as a result of merging Evil with Good. Understand: There are NO MODERATES.)