Here's my issue with your questions. Take a look again at the definition of troll.
Online it originally meant the act of posting a message in a newsgroup (and later on a blog) that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
That's are all your questions in a nutshell. You begin with your hubris (as most right wing douches do) by assuming that all liberals are naive idiots. That's why you asked the questions the way you did. Take the Constitution question, for example. If I answer "yes," you can then proceed on to the next phase of your trollness and "show me" how all the laws that liberals have passed violate the Constitution (gun laws, health care etc). By answering "no" (and one can, given how you worded the question), you can then accuse me of being a traitor or some other bit of psychotic nonsense. Of course, what's interesting here is how someone who believes so strongly in state's rights is taking such an absolutist position on federal power. What happened? But I really don't think you've thought it through that much. Nor have you likely thought about how things like a photo ID law or laws against gay marriage (two laws you do support) are in violation of the document that is absolute law, given the nature of those laws. So, your contention that the Constitution is absolute law rings completely hollow considering your previously stated ideology. That's why answering this question leads to more madness.
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements), the tyranny question (any answer allows you to continue your trollness), the false-truth question (again, I recently heard a 10 year old ask this question), and the ER question (I answer that we have to treat everyone, you say it's really the government's fault, then, I ask you if you would let people die, you ignore that and then spout latin or some dime store logic and the madness continues). Sadly, I have no doubt that even this engagement will perpetuate the psychosis.
"obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic"
That's all the questions you keep asking.
Reading comprehension fail....
ex·ag·ger·ate: to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately: to exaggerate the difficulties of a situation.
Asking you answer questions DIRECTLY RELATED to your own posts is not exaggeration. Having to repeatedly ask them because YOU FAIL TO DEFEND YOUR POSITION is not exaggeration either.
en·tice: to lead on by exciting hope or desire; allure; inveigle
Only if you consider the enticement offered to be disagreement with your position. Do you feel that MNM is alluring you with sweet nothings?
"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.
That he actually said that—and that this is confirmed by a hard-left news organization—makes it "a Fox news like characterization"? Wow. You really don't like simple facts, do you?
He went on to say this:
"But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives," he said.
That would be things like this. So why aren't you talking about them instead of pushing things YOU know won't fix anything.
Oh, wait, that's this question!
Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (51 days and counting)
In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
From Collins Dictionary:
intr (computing, slang) to post deliberately inflammatory articles on an internet discussion board
From Urban Dictionary:
1. One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
2. One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
How many Google pages did you have to go through to find the one obscure definition that you could use (wrongly) to malign NMN?
Using your own definition NMN's questions would have to EXAGGERATE something. His questions DO NOT DO THAT.
Under the EASILY available definitions I have provided NMN is posting questions that are ON TOPIC, NOT INFLAMMATORY (except to you because they place your arguments in a bind), HAVE SUBSTANCE AND RELEVANCE.
Actually, under these definitions you seem to be the troll.
You don't like the questions. I get that. You don't like them because they force you to either defend the indefensible or contradict your previous arguments and positions. Tough choice for you.
Of course instead you ignore and deflect instead of defending your arguments and positions. That is a very intellectually shallow tactic. But if that's all you've got.....
As I have stated previously, the reason why I won't answer your questions (and I have actually answered some of them but you ignored what I wrote and continued with your psychosis) is because you're an asshole. You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff so you act like a 12 year old and frame the questions in a very childishly dishonest way. Everything is geared towards a "win" via semantics and traps. But that's what you conservatives are all about these days because you don't have anything to stand behind of your own. It's all about commentary or dissent...dysentery, if you will:)
You refuse to elaborate on your own questions and continue to answer my questions with more questions. That's why cowardly dickheads do, NMN. Usually, I don't go in for such personal and pointed statements directed at one person but it really does seem to matter to you what I think and write so now you and all the imaginary people that you think read the comments section (and are hoping to sway into the bubble) know where I am at.
Either it is law, or it isn't. There is no middle ground.
In your explanation of why you refuse to answer the question, you admitted why you don't want to admit the truth (that the Constitution is law): because doing so would undermine what you want Democrats doing.
Here's the thing, Mark. By refusing the answer the question, you're not fooling anybody. Taking a calcified, unjustifiable ideological position like that is obviously irrational. Everyone knows that it is law. But you want to keep arguing for the things (like gun control) that violate that law; or otherwise treat the Constitution as something other than law. Therefore, you try to run away from the question.
By staking out an irrational position, all of the arguments you base on that position are likewise irrational. (An irrational justification cannot lead to a rational conclusion.) The only person you are fooling is yourself and those willing to be equally irrational.
Domination Trolls: This is where the trollers' strategy extends to the creation and running of apparently bona-fide mailing lists.
Or blogs.
I thought that the first time I read that. But I wasn't really willing to go there because that would have the appearance of the tu quoque fallacy, even though that wouldn't actually be the case. I am pretty tired of his projection.
You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff
I am trying to convince you to change your mind. That is why it is necessary to stay after you on simple, easily observed FACTS, some of which you have literally been running away from for years.
This particular topic (homosexuality) is based one of those "avoiding for years" issues:
What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? (125 days and counting — actually more than a year, but I'm limiting the count to this specific wording.)
The "Brave Sir Robin" response. When the monsters get too close, he disappears for a few days, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.
In fact, there's another question there about one of the justifications you tried to use to replace the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality with your own preferences:
So you're claiming that the Jeremiah 31:33-34 prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yahweh as his/her God, even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly? (4 days and counting)
Then comes step 2 of SR #10: "…only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters." That is this post.
And now you have the temerity to claim that attempting to continue the same conversation on a new post is "trolling"? "Honesty" isn't a word you understand, is it?
Hmm...I think I need to revise my NMN response a little...
Here's my issue with your questions. Take a look again at the definition of troll.
Online it originally meant the act of posting a message in a newsgroup (and later on a blog) that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
That's all of your questions in a nutshell. You begin with your hubris (as most right wing douches do) by assuming that all liberals are naive idiots. That's why you asked the questions the way you did. Take the Constitution question, for example. If I answer "yes," you can then proceed on to the next phase of your trollness and "show me" how all the laws that liberals have passed violate the Constitution (gun laws, health care etc). By answering "no" (and one can, given how you worded the question), you can then accuse me of being a traitor or some other bit of psychotic nonsense. Of course, what's interesting here is how someone who believes so strongly in state's rights is taking such an absolutist position on federal power. What happened? But I really don't think you've thought it through that much. Nor have you likely thought about how things like a photo ID law or laws against gay marriage (two laws you do support) are in violation of the document that is absolute law, given the nature of those laws. So, your contention that the Constitution is absolute law rings completely hollow considering your previously stated ideology. That's why answering this question leads to more madness.
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements), the tyranny question (any answer allows you to continue your trollness, recently proven when I gave you a percentage of the chances that tyranny would happen here), the false-truth question (again, I recently heard a 10 year old ask this question), the God telling humans to write question (framing, baiting, sophomoric and already answered), the militia question (dishonest and out of context as you left out the part about the federal government training militias), the parent-child question (again, dishonest with gotcha elements), the faith question (obvious and you are just being obnoxious here), the registration question (dishonest, half truths, panic mongering) and the ER question (I answer that we have to treat everyone, you say it's really the government's fault, then, I ask you if you would let people die, you ignore that and then spout latin or some dime store logic and the madness continues). Sadly, I have no doubt that even this engagement will perpetuate the psychosis.
Of course, the main reason why I won't answer your questions is because you're an asshole. You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff so you act like a 12 year old and frame the questions in a very childishly dishonest way. Everything is geared towards a "win" via semantics and traps. But that's what you conservatives are all about these days because you don't have anything to stand behind of your own. It's all about commentary or dissent...dysentery, if you will:)
You refuse to elaborate on your own questions and continue to answer my questions with more questions. That's why cowardly dickheads do, NMN. Usually, I don't go in for such personal and pointed statements directed at one person but it really does seem to matter to you what I think and write so now you and all the imaginary people that you think read the comments section (and are hoping to sway into the bubble) know where I am at.
All of this could change, however, if you do, NMN. No Boaz's 14 points.No answering questions with more questions. No more obsession with yours truly.
someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog,
This post was about gay marriage and gay rights. Only one or maybe two of his questions are related to that. Now, my rules for comments are that anyone can post anything they want, off topic or not, but, by YOUR definition of trolls, NMN now fits the bill.
I am pretty tired of his projection.
Right, so now I'm the troll? I'm rubber you're glue...perhaps calling you adolescent is to mature:)
The words of Jesus are written in red. There isn't a single word about homosexuals in any of His words.
Here's what he did say:
And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” — Mark 10:5–9
Notice two things here:
1) His definition of marriage is one man, one woman. Or are you saying that "man" doesn't mean, well, "man"? And that "woman" means "gendermorph of uncertain sexuality"? Get real, Mark!
Sin, by definition, is "any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature." (From Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem.) Why does Jesus have to list every possible deviation from God's law when all He has to do is simply state the law?
2) In this passage He is not loosening the restrictions of the Mosaic Law, He's TIGHTENING them! Moses allowed for divorce because people are willful idiots. But Jesus says that not how He designed things; divorce is not supposed to be an option. But YOU magically claim that He did the opposite of this:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” — Matthew 5:17–18
He also said this:
And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” — Mark 7:20–23
So tell me, what is Jesus' definition of "sexual immorality" and "sensuality" given that he made a distinction from adultery and He said He did not come to overturn the Old Testament?
The other thing to consider is how their culture viewed homosexuality and how ours does today.
Aaaaaaaand here we go. Once again, we come around to this idea you have that the God who could create the universe with a word, can keep track of every single star by name without missing one, knows all that will ever happen before it does, who can defeat death even when He has died—this mighty and powerful God is totally unable to do what any mere human can do: have someone write what HE wants written. Your argument can ONLY work if God has all the power of a toadstool.
Gee, look. That's one of the questions you refuse to answer:
What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? (125 days and counting — actually more than a year, but I'm limiting the count to this specific wording.)
This post was about gay marriage and gay rights. Only one or maybe two of his questions are related to that.
Hah!
MNM has made a signature line of points YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS repeatedly.
Over and over again you REFUSE TO ADDRESS points in DIRECT RESPONSE to YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.
YOU cut and run when the questions get too tough for you. In other words - the brave sir robin routine.
Then you show up and repeat the same tired spiel at a later date, acting like the previous conversation and questions never happened.
NMN is providing a consistency and continuance to the argument. His signature lines shows your intellectual dishonesty. I understand that you don't like that. But that in no way whatsoever means it is off topic. You've cut and run repeatedly from the argument that you have started over again in this very post. NMN's signature line shows that. If you don't like it - QUIT THE BRAVE SIR ROBIN ROUTINE.
Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem similar to NMN's rcp...
You begin with your hubris (as most right wing douches do) by assuming that all liberals are naive idiots. That's why you asked the questions the way you did. Take the Constitution question, for example. If I answer "yes," you can then proceed on to the next phase of your trollness and "show me" how all the laws that liberals have passed violate the Constitution (gun laws, health care etc). By answering "no" (and one can, given how you worded the question), you can then accuse me of being a traitor or some other bit of psychotic nonsense. Of course, what's interesting here is how someone who believes so strongly in state's rights is taking such an absolutist position on federal power. What happened? But I really don't think you've thought it through that much. Nor have you likely thought about how things like a photo ID law or laws against gay marriage (two laws you do support) are in violation of the document that is absolute law, given the nature of those laws. So, your contention that the Constitution is absolute law rings completely hollow considering your previously stated ideology. That's why answering this question leads to more madness.
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements), the tyranny question (any answer allows you to continue your trollness, recently proven when I gave you a percentage of the chances that tyranny would happen here), the false-truth question (again, I recently heard a 10 year old ask this question), the God telling humans to write question (framing, baiting, sophomoric and already answered), the militia question (dishonest and out of context as you left out the part about the federal government training militias), the parent-child question (again, dishonest with gotcha elements), the faith question (obvious and you are just being obnoxious here), the registration question (dishonest, half truths, panic mongering) and the ER question (I answer that we have to treat everyone, you say it's really the government's fault, then, I ask you if you would let people die, you ignore that and then spout latin or some dime store logic and the madness continues). Sadly, I have no doubt that even this engagement will perpetuate the psychosis.
Of course, the main reason why I won't answer your questions is because you're an asshole. You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff so you act like a 12 year old and frame the questions in a very childishly dishonest way. Everything is geared towards a "win" via semantics and traps. But that's what you conservatives are all about these days because you don't have anything to stand behind of your own. It's all about commentary or dissent...dysentery, if you will:)
You refuse to elaborate on your own questions and continue to answer my questions with more questions. That's why cowardly dickheads do, NMN. Usually, I don't go in for such personal and pointed statements directed at one person but it really does seem to matter to you what I think and write so now you and all the imaginary people that you think read the comments section (and are hoping to sway into the bubble) know where I am at.
All of this could change, however, if you do, NMN. No Boaz's 14 points.No answering questions with more questions. No more obsession with yours truly.
Mark, that pony must really be blocking your view of the topic.
Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. The Pony is blocking the view. It just couldn't be that Mark is doing a Brave Sir Robin and running away from the topic by talking about something else, is it? He just can't see it because The Pony is in the way.
17 comments:
Here's my issue with your questions. Take a look again at the definition of troll.
Online it originally meant the act of posting a message in a newsgroup (and later on a blog) that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
That's are all your questions in a nutshell. You begin with your hubris (as most right wing douches do) by assuming that all liberals are naive idiots. That's why you asked the questions the way you did. Take the Constitution question, for example. If I answer "yes," you can then proceed on to the next phase of your trollness and "show me" how all the laws that liberals have passed violate the Constitution (gun laws, health care etc). By answering "no" (and one can, given how you worded the question), you can then accuse me of being a traitor or some other bit of psychotic nonsense. Of course, what's interesting here is how someone who believes so strongly in state's rights is taking such an absolutist position on federal power. What happened? But I really don't think you've thought it through that much. Nor have you likely thought about how things like a photo ID law or laws against gay marriage (two laws you do support) are in violation of the document that is absolute law, given the nature of those laws. So, your contention that the Constitution is absolute law rings completely hollow considering your previously stated ideology. That's why answering this question leads to more madness.
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements), the tyranny question (any answer allows you to continue your trollness), the false-truth question (again, I recently heard a 10 year old ask this question), and the ER question (I answer that we have to treat everyone, you say it's really the government's fault, then, I ask you if you would let people die, you ignore that and then spout latin or some dime store logic and the madness continues). Sadly, I have no doubt that even this engagement will perpetuate the psychosis.
Originally posted by guardduck in response to this idiocy:
"obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic"
That's all the questions you keep asking.
Reading comprehension fail....
ex·ag·ger·ate: to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately: to exaggerate the difficulties of a situation.
Asking you answer questions DIRECTLY RELATED to your own posts is not exaggeration. Having to repeatedly ask them because YOU FAIL TO DEFEND YOUR POSITION is not exaggeration either.
en·tice: to lead on by exciting hope or desire; allure; inveigle
Only if you consider the enticement offered to be disagreement with your position. Do you feel that MNM is alluring you with sweet nothings?
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements),
Biden: New gun controls likely won't end shootings
"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.
That he actually said that—and that this is confirmed by a hard-left news organization—makes it "a Fox news like characterization"? Wow. You really don't like simple facts, do you?
He went on to say this:
"But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives," he said.
That would be things like this. So why aren't you talking about them instead of pushing things YOU know won't fix anything.
Oh, wait, that's this question!
Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (51 days and counting)
From Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
From Collins Dictionary:
intr (computing, slang) to post deliberately inflammatory articles on an internet discussion board
From Urban Dictionary:
1. One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
2. One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
How many Google pages did you have to go through to find the one obscure definition that you could use (wrongly) to malign NMN?
Using your own definition NMN's questions would have to EXAGGERATE something. His questions DO NOT DO THAT.
Under the EASILY available definitions I have provided NMN is posting questions that are ON TOPIC, NOT INFLAMMATORY (except to you because they place your arguments in a bind), HAVE SUBSTANCE AND RELEVANCE.
Actually, under these definitions you seem to be the troll.
You don't like the questions. I get that. You don't like them because they force you to either defend the indefensible or contradict your previous arguments and positions. Tough choice for you.
Of course instead you ignore and deflect instead of defending your arguments and positions. That is a very intellectually shallow tactic. But if that's all you've got.....
As I have stated previously, the reason why I won't answer your questions (and I have actually answered some of them but you ignored what I wrote and continued with your psychosis) is because you're an asshole. You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff so you act like a 12 year old and frame the questions in a very childishly dishonest way. Everything is geared towards a "win" via semantics and traps. But that's what you conservatives are all about these days because you don't have anything to stand behind of your own. It's all about commentary or dissent...dysentery, if you will:)
You refuse to elaborate on your own questions and continue to answer my questions with more questions. That's why cowardly dickheads do, NMN. Usually, I don't go in for such personal and pointed statements directed at one person but it really does seem to matter to you what I think and write so now you and all the imaginary people that you think read the comments section (and are hoping to sway into the bubble) know where I am at.
Take the Constitution question, for example.
Logic 101: The Law of Excluded Middle
Either it is law, or it isn't. There is no middle ground.
In your explanation of why you refuse to answer the question, you admitted why you don't want to admit the truth (that the Constitution is law): because doing so would undermine what you want Democrats doing.
Here's the thing, Mark. By refusing the answer the question, you're not fooling anybody. Taking a calcified, unjustifiable ideological position like that is obviously irrational. Everyone knows that it is law. But you want to keep arguing for the things (like gun control) that violate that law; or otherwise treat the Constitution as something other than law. Therefore, you try to run away from the question.
(Mark obviously shares this position with someone else. That attitude hasn't changed over time.)
By staking out an irrational position, all of the arguments you base on that position are likewise irrational. (An irrational justification cannot lead to a rational conclusion.) The only person you are fooling is yourself and those willing to be equally irrational.
Actually, under these definitions you seem to be the troll.
Under his own definition too:
Domination Trolls: This is where the trollers' strategy extends to the creation and running of apparently bona-fide mailing lists.
Or blogs.
I thought that the first time I read that. But I wasn't really willing to go there because that would have the appearance of the tu quoque fallacy, even though that wouldn't actually be the case. I am pretty tired of his projection.
You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff
I am trying to convince you to change your mind. That is why it is necessary to stay after you on simple, easily observed FACTS, some of which you have literally been running away from for years.
This particular topic (homosexuality) is based one of those "avoiding for years" issues:
What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? (125 days and counting — actually more than a year, but I'm limiting the count to this specific wording.)
In fact, you precisely demonstrated your Standard Response #10 with this post.
The "Brave Sir Robin" response. When the monsters get too close, he disappears for a few days, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.
Look at that again. "He disappears for a few days…" You disappeared from here.
In fact, there's another question there about one of the justifications you tried to use to replace the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality with your own preferences:
So you're claiming that the Jeremiah 31:33-34 prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yahweh as his/her God, even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly? (4 days and counting)
Then comes step 2 of SR #10: "…only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters." That is this post.
And now you have the temerity to claim that attempting to continue the same conversation on a new post is "trolling"? "Honesty" isn't a word you understand, is it?
Hmm...I think I need to revise my NMN response a little...
Here's my issue with your questions. Take a look again at the definition of troll.
Online it originally meant the act of posting a message in a newsgroup (and later on a blog) that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
That's all of your questions in a nutshell. You begin with your hubris (as most right wing douches do) by assuming that all liberals are naive idiots. That's why you asked the questions the way you did. Take the Constitution question, for example. If I answer "yes," you can then proceed on to the next phase of your trollness and "show me" how all the laws that liberals have passed violate the Constitution (gun laws, health care etc). By answering "no" (and one can, given how you worded the question), you can then accuse me of being a traitor or some other bit of psychotic nonsense. Of course, what's interesting here is how someone who believes so strongly in state's rights is taking such an absolutist position on federal power. What happened? But I really don't think you've thought it through that much. Nor have you likely thought about how things like a photo ID law or laws against gay marriage (two laws you do support) are in violation of the document that is absolute law, given the nature of those laws. So, your contention that the Constitution is absolute law rings completely hollow considering your previously stated ideology. That's why answering this question leads to more madness.
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements), the tyranny question (any answer allows you to continue your trollness, recently proven when I gave you a percentage of the chances that tyranny would happen here), the false-truth question (again, I recently heard a 10 year old ask this question), the God telling humans to write question (framing, baiting, sophomoric and already answered), the militia question (dishonest and out of context as you left out the part about the federal government training militias), the parent-child question (again, dishonest with gotcha elements), the faith question (obvious and you are just being obnoxious here), the registration question (dishonest, half truths, panic mongering) and the ER question (I answer that we have to treat everyone, you say it's really the government's fault, then, I ask you if you would let people die, you ignore that and then spout latin or some dime store logic and the madness continues). Sadly, I have no doubt that even this engagement will perpetuate the psychosis.
Of course, the main reason why I won't answer your questions is because you're an asshole. You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff so you act like a 12 year old and frame the questions in a very childishly dishonest way. Everything is geared towards a "win" via semantics and traps. But that's what you conservatives are all about these days because you don't have anything to stand behind of your own. It's all about commentary or dissent...dysentery, if you will:)
You refuse to elaborate on your own questions and continue to answer my questions with more questions. That's why cowardly dickheads do, NMN. Usually, I don't go in for such personal and pointed statements directed at one person but it really does seem to matter to you what I think and write so now you and all the imaginary people that you think read the comments section (and are hoping to sway into the bubble) know where I am at.
All of this could change, however, if you do, NMN. No Boaz's 14 points.No answering questions with more questions. No more obsession with yours truly.
There, much better.
Let's take a look at your definition, GD.
someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog,
This post was about gay marriage and gay rights. Only one or maybe two of his questions are related to that. Now, my rules for comments are that anyone can post anything they want, off topic or not, but, by YOUR definition of trolls, NMN now fits the bill.
I am pretty tired of his projection.
Right, so now I'm the troll? I'm rubber you're glue...perhaps calling you adolescent is to mature:)
re: Boaz's 14 points:
You clearly never get tired of your own hypocrisy.
Here is where you stopped the last time we addressed this topic (copied in its entirety):
The words of Jesus are written in red. There isn't a single word about homosexuals in any of His words.
Here's what he did say:
And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
— Mark 10:5–9
Notice two things here:
1) His definition of marriage is one man, one woman. Or are you saying that "man" doesn't mean, well, "man"? And that "woman" means "gendermorph of uncertain sexuality"? Get real, Mark!
Sin, by definition, is "any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature." (From Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem.) Why does Jesus have to list every possible deviation from God's law when all He has to do is simply state the law?
2) In this passage He is not loosening the restrictions of the Mosaic Law, He's TIGHTENING them! Moses allowed for divorce because people are willful idiots. But Jesus says that not how He designed things; divorce is not supposed to be an option. But YOU magically claim that He did the opposite of this:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
— Matthew 5:17–18
He also said this:
And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
— Mark 7:20–23
So tell me, what is Jesus' definition of "sexual immorality" and "sensuality" given that he made a distinction from adultery and He said He did not come to overturn the Old Testament?
The other thing to consider is how their culture viewed homosexuality and how ours does today.
Aaaaaaaand here we go. Once again, we come around to this idea you have that the God who could create the universe with a word, can keep track of every single star by name without missing one, knows all that will ever happen before it does, who can defeat death even when He has died—this mighty and powerful God is totally unable to do what any mere human can do: have someone write what HE wants written. Your argument can ONLY work if God has all the power of a toadstool.
Gee, look. That's one of the questions you refuse to answer:
What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? (125 days and counting — actually more than a year, but I'm limiting the count to this specific wording.)
This post was about gay marriage and gay rights. Only one or maybe two of his questions are related to that.
Hah!
MNM has made a signature line of points YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS repeatedly.
Over and over again you REFUSE TO ADDRESS points in DIRECT RESPONSE to YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.
YOU cut and run when the questions get too tough for you. In other words - the brave sir robin routine.
Then you show up and repeat the same tired spiel at a later date, acting like the previous conversation and questions never happened.
NMN is providing a consistency and continuance to the argument. His signature lines shows your intellectual dishonesty. I understand that you don't like that. But that in no way whatsoever means it is off topic. You've cut and run repeatedly from the argument that you have started over again in this very post. NMN's signature line shows that. If you don't like it - QUIT THE BRAVE SIR ROBIN ROUTINE.
YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS repeatedly.
Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem similar to NMN's rcp...
You begin with your hubris (as most right wing douches do) by assuming that all liberals are naive idiots. That's why you asked the questions the way you did. Take the Constitution question, for example. If I answer "yes," you can then proceed on to the next phase of your trollness and "show me" how all the laws that liberals have passed violate the Constitution (gun laws, health care etc). By answering "no" (and one can, given how you worded the question), you can then accuse me of being a traitor or some other bit of psychotic nonsense. Of course, what's interesting here is how someone who believes so strongly in state's rights is taking such an absolutist position on federal power. What happened? But I really don't think you've thought it through that much. Nor have you likely thought about how things like a photo ID law or laws against gay marriage (two laws you do support) are in violation of the document that is absolute law, given the nature of those laws. So, your contention that the Constitution is absolute law rings completely hollow considering your previously stated ideology. That's why answering this question leads to more madness.
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements), the tyranny question (any answer allows you to continue your trollness, recently proven when I gave you a percentage of the chances that tyranny would happen here), the false-truth question (again, I recently heard a 10 year old ask this question), the God telling humans to write question (framing, baiting, sophomoric and already answered), the militia question (dishonest and out of context as you left out the part about the federal government training militias), the parent-child question (again, dishonest with gotcha elements), the faith question (obvious and you are just being obnoxious here), the registration question (dishonest, half truths, panic mongering) and the ER question (I answer that we have to treat everyone, you say it's really the government's fault, then, I ask you if you would let people die, you ignore that and then spout latin or some dime store logic and the madness continues). Sadly, I have no doubt that even this engagement will perpetuate the psychosis.
Of course, the main reason why I won't answer your questions is because you're an asshole. You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff so you act like a 12 year old and frame the questions in a very childishly dishonest way. Everything is geared towards a "win" via semantics and traps. But that's what you conservatives are all about these days because you don't have anything to stand behind of your own. It's all about commentary or dissent...dysentery, if you will:)
You refuse to elaborate on your own questions and continue to answer my questions with more questions. That's why cowardly dickheads do, NMN. Usually, I don't go in for such personal and pointed statements directed at one person but it really does seem to matter to you what I think and write so now you and all the imaginary people that you think read the comments section (and are hoping to sway into the bubble) know where I am at.
All of this could change, however, if you do, NMN. No Boaz's 14 points.No answering questions with more questions. No more obsession with yours truly.
Mark, that pony must really be blocking your view of the topic.
Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. The Pony is blocking the view. It just couldn't be that Mark is doing a Brave Sir Robin and running away from the topic by talking about something else, is it? He just can't see it because The Pony is in the way.
The words of Jesus are written in red…
Wow Mark these people are nuts!
But Bubba, it's US, not them. We're the problem:)
Post a Comment