and where did I go wrong? how is it I am not saying the same thing as FM?JohnG@lt wrote:
FM is the only one using logic in this entire thread. Too bad I can't karma him again.
Topic closed
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Lowing's criminal's deserve to be executed thread
The fact is, Lowing actually is a user who has a solid idealology ( for him ) and I find it curious that because of that fact you ( the mob ) act as if he has done something wrong.
The fact that he has remained unmoveable makes him a target for some of you, which says far more about your inability to coherently debate than it is a statement about his pugalistic nature.
Demonstrating that this board ias divided into silly, petty hemispheres you collectively fail in your attempts to change his point of view and resort to the braindead charge of " troll ".
I mock this forum.
The fact that he has remained unmoveable makes him a target for some of you, which says far more about your inability to coherently debate than it is a statement about his pugalistic nature.
Demonstrating that this board ias divided into silly, petty hemispheres you collectively fail in your attempts to change his point of view and resort to the braindead charge of " troll ".
I mock this forum.
oohhkay, you will defend this as debate;Amra wrote:
which says far more about your inability to coherently debate than it is a statement about his pugalistic nature.
his tactic - join me, or i attack you.lowing wrote:
I would think you would join me in debating against that bullshit, but obviously you seem to agree with it, so yeah go stand over there.
wtf do you know about this forum, hmm?
It's not so much his ideas. It's the fact that I think he enjoys being intractable and 'the rock that liberals break themselves on' just to be an ass. I had a debate with him yesterday that lasted a page and a half where it could've been reduced to exactly two exchanges. Why? He just enjoys infuriating people that disagree with him more than he enjoys making a point or even trying to win an argument. His entire tactic is to stonewall until the other person gets frustrated enough to throw their hands up in disgust. It's effective, to a point, but it certainly wins him no friends.Amra wrote:
The fact is, Lowing actually is a user who has a solid idealology ( for him ) and I find it curious that because of that fact you ( the mob ) act as if he has done something wrong.
The fact that he has remained unmoveable makes him a target for some of you, which says far more about your inability to coherently debate than it is a statement about his pugalistic nature.
Demonstrating that this board ias divided into silly, petty hemispheres you collectively fail in your attempts to change his point of view and resort to the braindead charge of " troll ".
I mock this forum.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
an astute assessment. i don't think lowing comes to make friends. i also don't think he argues for arguments sake, i think he believes what he posts.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's effective, to a point, but it certainly wins him no friends.
that, i agree with - if you don't believe it, don't post. what i'm having a hard time with about lowing is his intractability is blinding him from even his own arguments, makes him rush to judgement and precludes him from conceding a point even in agreement with someone. i don't think the man wants friends from this forum or real life, if it means that someone might disagree with him.
I rarely "attack" anyone. it has happened, but for the most part I maintain a level head.burnzz wrote:
oohhkay, you will defend this as debate;Amra wrote:
which says far more about your inability to coherently debate than it is a statement about his pugalistic nature.his tactic - join me, or i attack you.lowing wrote:
I would think you would join me in debating against that bullshit, but obviously you seem to agree with it, so yeah go stand over there.
wtf do you know about this forum, hmm?
In the Kmarion thread, the issue was brought to the table that the criminals were somehow victims. I challenged that assumption. Nothing more nothing less.
"The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends." -Nietzsche
your position is well known. some will incite you, i have seen it happen. i am not that someone lowing, and through PM's i've even apologized for the time that i did. your intractibility led to the statement i quoted - "but obviously you seem to agree with it" - was obvious only to you. i neither defend nor oppose any 'points' from Kmarion's thread.lowing wrote:
I rarely "attack" anyone. it has happened, but for the most part I maintain a level head.burnzz wrote:
oohhkay, you will defend this as debate;Amra wrote:
which says far more about your inability to coherently debate than it is a statement about his pugalistic nature.his tactic - join me, or i attack you.lowing wrote:
I would think you would join me in debating against that bullshit, but obviously you seem to agree with it, so yeah go stand over there.
wtf do you know about this forum, hmm?
In the Kmarion thread, the issue was brought to the table that the criminals were somehow victims. I challenged that assumption. Nothing more nothing less.
This particular sub-forum is titled "Debate and Serious Talk" and members pleaded to leave the debate out of that particular thread. i know you lowing to be a principaled man, it's just now i see your principle is to be right at all costs.
My title was given to me, I did not ask for it.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's not so much his ideas. It's the fact that I think he enjoys being intractable and 'the rock that liberals break themselves on' just to be an ass. I had a debate with him yesterday that lasted a page and a half where it could've been reduced to exactly two exchanges. Why? He just enjoys infuriating people that disagree with him more than he enjoys making a point or even trying to win an argument. His entire tactic is to stonewall until the other person gets frustrated enough to throw their hands up in disgust. It's effective, to a point, but it certainly wins him no friends.Amra wrote:
The fact is, Lowing actually is a user who has a solid idealology ( for him ) and I find it curious that because of that fact you ( the mob ) act as if he has done something wrong.
The fact that he has remained unmoveable makes him a target for some of you, which says far more about your inability to coherently debate than it is a statement about his pugalistic nature.
Demonstrating that this board ias divided into silly, petty hemispheres you collectively fail in your attempts to change his point of view and resort to the braindead charge of " troll ".
I mock this forum.
in the thread you and I were discussing yesterday I was right on the money. the issue, as you argued it, was not about my approval or disapproval of the issue, it was about discrimination. I showed, quite well, I might add, that there was no discrimination taking place under the current laws we were discussing. It was later that you made my opinion on the matter a topic for discussion. 2 distinctly different topics.
I also am observing that I am disagreed with for no other reason, than because I said it. You, in this thread is the latest example. Something I find amusing, and will entertain it whenever presented, those disagreeing for the sake of doing so, and I expressing my opinions honestly and openly.
I am not interested in friends in this forum, if you want a friend get a dog. the last thing I seek are people that agree with me. where is the fun in that?
I am not purposely trying to infuriate anyone, I am honest about my beliefs and my opinions. I am also not stonewalling, if a point is made I concede it, however, on issues like Islam, the argument of a peaceful and tolerant Islam just is not there, hence no concession.
Who is the moron that gave you it?lowing wrote:
My title was given to me, I did not ask for it.
You would not believe the post i just deleted regarding your observation of me.burnzz wrote:
an astute assessment. i don't think lowing comes to make friends. i also don't think he argues for arguments sake, i think he believes what he posts.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's effective, to a point, but it certainly wins him no friends.
that, i agree with - if you don't believe it, don't post. what i'm having a hard time with about lowing is his intractability is blinding him from even his own arguments, makes him rush to judgement and precludes him from conceding a point even in agreement with someone. i don't think the man wants friends from this forum or real life, if it means that someone might disagree with him.
suffice it to say, you are wrong
One who knows the board far better than you son.13/f/taiwan wrote:
Who is the moron that gave you it?lowing wrote:
My title was given to me, I did not ask for it.
I do not "need to be right". But if I am wrong there are better ways to show me other than calling me a mother fucker, and a cock sucker. Like maybe argue a point?burnzz wrote:
your position is well known. some will incite you, i have seen it happen. i am not that someone lowing, and through PM's i've even apologized for the time that i did. your intractibility led to the statement i quoted - "but obviously you seem to agree with it" - was obvious only to you. i neither defend nor oppose any 'points' from Kmarion's thread.lowing wrote:
I rarely "attack" anyone. it has happened, but for the most part I maintain a level head.burnzz wrote:
oohhkay, you will defend this as debate;Amra wrote:
which says far more about your inability to coherently debate than it is a statement about his pugalistic nature.
his tactic - join me, or i attack you.
wtf do you know about this forum, hmm?
In the Kmarion thread, the issue was brought to the table that the criminals were somehow victims. I challenged that assumption. Nothing more nothing less.
This particular sub-forum is titled "Debate and Serious Talk" and members pleaded to leave the debate out of that particular thread. i know you lowing to be a principaled man, it's just now i see your principle is to be right at all costs.
Do I think I am right? Of course, why would I post and argue something I thought was wrong?
As far as the Kmarion thread goes, if you think I am just gunna read that a criminal holding a gun to an innocnet mans head is the victim, without a challenge, yer wrong. In fact those 2 who made the claim that he was probably just trying to feed his family, or just trying to pay his bills are the ones you should be jumping on, but hey, lowing is more fun to attack, and ya get more karma.
ATG I think put it there, not sure. Although, he is far from a moron in my opinion.13/f/taiwan wrote:
Who is the moron that gave you it?lowing wrote:
My title was given to me, I did not ask for it.
To provide possible motives for their actions does not lend credence to those motives. Do not mistake the two. To deduce that a man would steal a TV in order to feed a family is entirely logical, but I didn't see anyone condoning the mans actions. Logically, the thief would've better served not only his family and himself, but society as a whole if he found a job and earned the money legally instead.lowing wrote:
As far as the Kmarion thread goes, if you think I am just gunna read that a criminal holding a gun to an innocnet mans head is the victim, without a challenge, yer wrong. In fact those 2 who made the claim that he was probably just trying to feed his family, or just trying to pay his bills are the ones you should be jumping on, but hey, lowing is more fun to attack, and ya get more karma.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you did not read a single word i had written, had you?lowing wrote:
I do not "need to be right". But if I am wrong there are better ways to show me other than calling me a mother fucker, and a cock sucker. Like maybe argue a point?burnzz wrote:
your position is well known. some will incite you, i have seen it happen. i am not that someone lowing, and through PM's i've even apologized for the time that i did. your intractibility led to the statement i quoted - "but obviously you seem to agree with it" - was obvious only to you. i neither defend nor oppose any 'points' from Kmarion's thread.lowing wrote:
I rarely "attack" anyone. it has happened, but for the most part I maintain a level head.
In the Kmarion thread, the issue was brought to the table that the criminals were somehow victims. I challenged that assumption. Nothing more nothing less.
This particular sub-forum is titled "Debate and Serious Talk" and members pleaded to leave the debate out of that particular thread. i know you lowing to be a principaled man, it's just now i see your principle is to be right at all costs.
Do I think I am right? Of course, why would I post and argue something I thought was wrong?
As far as the Kmarion thread goes, if you think I am just gunna read that a criminal holding a gun to an innocnet mans head is the victim, without a challenge, yer wrong. In fact those 2 who made the claim that he was probably just trying to feed his family, or just trying to pay his bills are the ones you should be jumping on, but hey, lowing is more fun to attack, and ya get more karma.
*edit; ok, Amra, the evidence is before you. i ask you to look, and see.
Last edited by burnzz (2009-12-03 19:04:23)
yup I did, what did I not address?burnzz wrote:
you did not read a single word i had written, had you?lowing wrote:
I do not "need to be right". But if I am wrong there are better ways to show me other than calling me a mother fucker, and a cock sucker. Like maybe argue a point?burnzz wrote:
your position is well known. some will incite you, i have seen it happen. i am not that someone lowing, and through PM's i've even apologized for the time that i did. your intractibility led to the statement i quoted - "but obviously you seem to agree with it" - was obvious only to you. i neither defend nor oppose any 'points' from Kmarion's thread.
This particular sub-forum is titled "Debate and Serious Talk" and members pleaded to leave the debate out of that particular thread. i know you lowing to be a principaled man, it's just now i see your principle is to be right at all costs.
Do I think I am right? Of course, why would I post and argue something I thought was wrong?
As far as the Kmarion thread goes, if you think I am just gunna read that a criminal holding a gun to an innocnet mans head is the victim, without a challenge, yer wrong. In fact those 2 who made the claim that he was probably just trying to feed his family, or just trying to pay his bills are the ones you should be jumping on, but hey, lowing is more fun to attack, and ya get more karma.
*edit; ok, Amra, the evidence is before you. i ask you to look, and see.
Sorry, that was not a thread to be used to address the criminal element remember? ONLY Kamarion's well being.JohnG@lt wrote:
To provide possible motives for their actions does not lend credence to those motives. Do not mistake the two. To deduce that a man would steal a TV in order to feed a family is entirely logical, but I didn't see anyone condoning the mans actions. Logically, the thief would've better served not only his family and himself, but society as a whole if he found a job and earned the money legally instead.lowing wrote:
As far as the Kmarion thread goes, if you think I am just gunna read that a criminal holding a gun to an innocnet mans head is the victim, without a challenge, yer wrong. In fact those 2 who made the claim that he was probably just trying to feed his family, or just trying to pay his bills are the ones you should be jumping on, but hey, lowing is more fun to attack, and ya get more karma.
I also take note that between me and those criminals, most in that thread decided I was the one to be attacked, and not the criminals or their actions. In fact, the attempt was made to rationalize and justify their actions while I was called all kinds of foul crap for not buying into it.
Besides, you have other posts you should be addressing.
I do?lowing wrote:
Sorry, that was not a thread to be used to address the criminal element remember? ONLY Kamarion's well being.JohnG@lt wrote:
To provide possible motives for their actions does not lend credence to those motives. Do not mistake the two. To deduce that a man would steal a TV in order to feed a family is entirely logical, but I didn't see anyone condoning the mans actions. Logically, the thief would've better served not only his family and himself, but society as a whole if he found a job and earned the money legally instead.lowing wrote:
As far as the Kmarion thread goes, if you think I am just gunna read that a criminal holding a gun to an innocnet mans head is the victim, without a challenge, yer wrong. In fact those 2 who made the claim that he was probably just trying to feed his family, or just trying to pay his bills are the ones you should be jumping on, but hey, lowing is more fun to attack, and ya get more karma.
I also take note that between me and those criminals, most in that thread decided I was the one to be attacked, and not the criminals or their actions. In fact, the attempt was made to rationalize and justify their actions while I was called all kinds of foul crap for not buying into it.
Besides, you have other posts you should be addressing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
yup ya do,JohnG@lt wrote:
I do?lowing wrote:
Sorry, that was not a thread to be used to address the criminal element remember? ONLY Kamarion's well being.JohnG@lt wrote:
To provide possible motives for their actions does not lend credence to those motives. Do not mistake the two. To deduce that a man would steal a TV in order to feed a family is entirely logical, but I didn't see anyone condoning the mans actions. Logically, the thief would've better served not only his family and himself, but society as a whole if he found a job and earned the money legally instead.
I also take note that between me and those criminals, most in that thread decided I was the one to be attacked, and not the criminals or their actions. In fact, the attempt was made to rationalize and justify their actions while I was called all kinds of foul crap for not buying into it.
Besides, you have other posts you should be addressing.
Oh well, so much for my 15 minutes of fame. I really want to thank all who made this lowing bashing thread a reality. If not for you liberals out there, sucking my wallet dry to pay for your entitlement and fairness, I more than likely would never have anything to bitch about in this forum.
Scratch that, you Islamic goon sympathizers still leave plenty to discuss.
Why why why?
If I may...Lowing isn't trying to convert anyone. That's your own personal choice.
It's his opinion.
Regarding the topic - misappropriation of funds via gunpoint or government waste.
I don't think using government funds is a criminal act. I do think that some things the government pays for is "criminally" stupid.
If I may...Lowing isn't trying to convert anyone. That's your own personal choice.
It's his opinion.
Regarding the topic - misappropriation of funds via gunpoint or government waste.
I don't think using government funds is a criminal act. I do think that some things the government pays for is "criminally" stupid.
Then why play in the grey area at all if the correct choice is to make a legal living?JohnG@lt wrote:
To provide possible motives for their actions does not lend credence to those motives. Do not mistake the two. To deduce that a man would steal a TV in order to feed a family is entirely logical, but I didn't see anyone condoning the mans actions. Logically, the thief would've better served not only his family and himself, but society as a whole if he found a job and earned the money legally instead.lowing wrote:
As far as the Kmarion thread goes, if you think I am just gunna read that a criminal holding a gun to an innocnet mans head is the victim, without a challenge, yer wrong. In fact those 2 who made the claim that he was probably just trying to feed his family, or just trying to pay his bills are the ones you should be jumping on, but hey, lowing is more fun to attack, and ya get more karma.
For instance:
How about selling the gun they used to buy food?...if that's really a poor guy who can't feel his family or collect government welfare...
Or is a Best-of-both-worlds choice? where the guy can continue to collect welfare. Since I don't own a car, I usually carjack someone so I don't have to walk to the grocery store to use my foodstamps.
i <3 lowing.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Because he's making the choice to gamble on his life. If he thinks he can get away with armed robbery, his short term gains would be higher than the money he would receive just selling the gun. Of course his long term gains are almost zero because he will more than likely get caught. People are stupid and stupid people make stupid decisions. Nothing more to it.Pug wrote:
Then why play in the grey area at all if the correct choice is to make a legal living?JohnG@lt wrote:
To provide possible motives for their actions does not lend credence to those motives. Do not mistake the two. To deduce that a man would steal a TV in order to feed a family is entirely logical, but I didn't see anyone condoning the mans actions. Logically, the thief would've better served not only his family and himself, but society as a whole if he found a job and earned the money legally instead.lowing wrote:
As far as the Kmarion thread goes, if you think I am just gunna read that a criminal holding a gun to an innocnet mans head is the victim, without a challenge, yer wrong. In fact those 2 who made the claim that he was probably just trying to feed his family, or just trying to pay his bills are the ones you should be jumping on, but hey, lowing is more fun to attack, and ya get more karma.
For instance:
How about selling the gun they used to buy food?...if that's really a poor guy who can't feel his family or collect government welfare...
Or is a Best-of-both-worlds choice? where the guy can continue to collect welfare. Since I don't own a car, I usually carjack someone so I don't have to walk to the grocery store to use my foodstamps.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Not really my point.JohnG@lt wrote:
Because he's making the choice to gamble on his life. If he thinks he can get away with armed robbery, his short term gains would be higher than the money he would receive just selling the gun. Of course his long term gains are almost zero because he will more than likely get caught. People are stupid and stupid people make stupid decisions. Nothing more to it.Pug wrote:
Then why play in the grey area at all if the correct choice is to make a legal living?JohnG@lt wrote:
To provide possible motives for their actions does not lend credence to those motives. Do not mistake the two. To deduce that a man would steal a TV in order to feed a family is entirely logical, but I didn't see anyone condoning the mans actions. Logically, the thief would've better served not only his family and himself, but society as a whole if he found a job and earned the money legally instead.
For instance:
How about selling the gun they used to buy food?...if that's really a poor guy who can't feel his family or collect government welfare...
Or is a Best-of-both-worlds choice? where the guy can continue to collect welfare. Since I don't own a car, I usually carjack someone so I don't have to walk to the grocery store to use my foodstamps.
Prove to me that robbing someone is the only way to support yourself in the United States. Even if you are unemployed. As in, robbing is only option, therefore I can say "well maybe..." to rationalize the behavior.
That would be my point.
If you apply that logic to your last post...you'll understand why I'm going to rob you tomorrow - because I know you are okay with me doing it.
Topic closed
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Lowing's criminal's deserve to be executed thread