What is the real issue on H.L.? ( A Discussion Thread)

[Dr. Sebi Jr.]

Bless you

Thank you.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Or maybe posters like you and the OP are just logically-handicapped morons who cowardly hide behind this canard of people trying to stifle your opinions, when really your arguments just melt under factual scrutiny like ants under a magnifying class.

Everybody who makes shytty arguments chock-full of gaping logical craters and a tenuous grasp of facts whines about how the garbage they spew is being stifled, dismissed, or somehow not respected, whether it's in news media, academia, or a message board subforum. But nobody is being stifled, you're free to say what you want, and arguments do not deserve respect by their mere existence; they are judged on their merits by observers. If you don't like the judgment your arguments get, suck it up and stop whining or

Pretty much every semi-tenable argument on the usual topics has been addressed and put through the scrutinizing wringer multiple times, so this victim role you and some others try to play with this accusation of stifling an intellectual environment is quite disingenuous. Some people don't feel like going through the same motions over and over and over again, so they might just give a flippant or sarcastic remark and k.i.m. For instance, somebody asks how homosexuality is different from bestiality, incest, or pedophilia like every week.

And some arguments are so absurdly ridiculous, many believe they don't warrant a serious, clinically-detached response. I mean you once made a thread asking why isn't it okay for strangers to touch babies. Do you really expect people to be like, "Well sir, I don't think it's ethical to touch random babies because..."? On a hip-hop, sports, and comedy message board?

Wait...this is too well thought out and sensible...is this really gundam zeta?

 

[CASHAPP]

delete

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Wait...this is too well thought out and sensible...is this really gundam zeta?

I got some black p*ssy. It made me re-evaluate a lot of things.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

I got some black p*ssy. It made me re-evaluate a lot of things.

EDIT: fukkin VVD

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Perhaps we should have a penalty system for people who just completely make things up and refuse to acknowledge they're factually wrong despite undeniable empirical evidence. Only in the clear, unambiguous cases though. They should get an HL timeout or some shyt...like a 2 week ban. A longer one for a second offense so forth. It would save a lot of useless back and forth, and disincentivize people from being loose with facts.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I see stuff like this all the time.

Conservatives did not stay home for Romney, what are you talking about? Every conservative Republican in the country voted for Romney in order to try and prevent Obama from becoming President. He got more votes than McCain did.

romney got almost 3 million less votes than mccain, the bulk of which were white conservatives. if you think that trend is going to reverse itself should christie be the nominee....

Jesus Christ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election
McCain-59,948,323 votes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012
Romney-60,933,500.
Romney got 3 million less votes than McCain huh?
Log off bruh.

@ using wikipedia.
nikka, you're embarrassing yourself.

Wow...you're a fukking idiot. I guess I imagined that link next to the numbers on the Wikipedia page that led me to the Federal Elections Commissions raw data. Never mind that. Romney got 3 million less votes than McCain because Kermit da hustla said so.

LMAO @ probability saying he'll be the nominee, when recent trends prove otherwise. romney got 3 million less votes than mccain. that's a fact.

Too crazy an idea, or worth considering?

 

[kermit da hustla]

Perhaps we should have a penalty system for people who just completely make up bullshyt and refuse to acknowledge they're factually wrong despite undeniable empirical evidence. Only in the clear, unambiguous cases though. They should get an HL timeout or some shyt...like a 2 week ban. A longer one for a second offense so forth. It would save a lot of useless back and forth.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I see stuff like this all the time.







Too crazy an idea, or worth considering?

please, shut the fukk up. you're the one arguing christie has a clear shot to the republican nomination, and you actually think i'm the one arguing against empirical evidence? calm down.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Perhaps we should have a penalty system for people who just completely make things up and refuse to acknowledge they're factually wrong despite undeniable empirical evidence. Only in the clear, unambiguous cases though. They should get an HL timeout or some shyt...like a 2 week ban. A longer one for a second offense so forth. It would save a lot of useless back and forth, and disincentivize people from being loose with facts.

Too crazy an idea, or worth considering?

..........so many pages of utter and complete nonsense. Dude would be banned until 2016 were that rule in-effect.........

http://www.thecoli.com/threads/so-m...t-her-school-gives-her-fluoride-pills.141528/
​

 

[ill]

please, shut the fukk up. you're the one arguing christie has a clear shot to the republican nomination, and you actually think i'm the one arguing against empirical evidence? calm down.

Christie has a very strong shot at the Republican nomination. He used to be a hardcore guy but in the past few years he's been seen crossing the aisle and working with the Dems. Thats exactly the type of person that gets nominated for a position that requires working with both sides.

 

[kermit da hustla]

Christie has a very strong shot at the Republican nomination. He used to be a hardcore guy but in the past few years he's been seen crossing the aisle and working with the Dems. Thats exactly the type of person that gets nominated for a position that requires working with both sides.

no, he doesn't. conservatives are doubling down. they are moving further to the right. neither chris christie nor jeb bush stand a chance of escaping the primaries and becoming nominated. ted cruz will probably be the nominee, though rand paul has a good chance, too. republicans will not nominate another republican-lite candidate in 2016. they are going full retard. just read the most popular republican blogs and tell me that christie stands a chance. he doesn't.

 

[ill]

no, he doesn't. conservatives are doubling down. they are moving further to the right. neither chris christie nor jeb bush stand a chance of escaping the primaries and becoming nominated. ted cruz will probably be the nominee, though rand paul has a good chance, too. republicans will not nominate another republican-lite candidate in 2016. they are going full retard. just read the most popular republican blogs and tell me that christie stands a chance. he doesn't.

They said the same shyt the past 2 elections when they were 2 years out. Repubs aren't as dumb as you think they are. Best chance of winning is a person close to the middle of the aisle. They would have lost the 08 regardless because McCain is just nuts but in '12 they could have won if Obama didn't still have the support and momentum going from his first term. If Obama did what he's done in his 2nd term during his 1st, Romney would've taken '12.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

no, he doesn't. conservatives are doubling down. they are moving further to the right. neither chris christie nor jeb bush stand a chance of escaping the primaries and becoming nominated. ted cruz will probably be the nominee, though rand paul has a good chance, too. republicans will not nominate another republican-lite candidate in 2016. they are going full retard. just read the most popular republican blogs and tell me that christie stands a chance. he doesn't.

Lol...the funny thing is you're so dumb you actually believe this nonsense.

@Ted Cruz being the nominee. Please learn how a state-by-state primary works... right after you learn that 60 million minus 59 million doesn't equal negative 3 million.

 

[kermit da hustla]

Lol...the funny thing is you're so dumb you actually believe this nonsense.

@Ted Cruz being the nominee. Please learn how a state-by-state primary works... right after you learn that 60 million minus 59 million doesn't equal negative 3 million.

you're on my ignore. take a hike, kid. you must be 15 or something. bye.

 

[DEAD7]

Ted Cruz isnt going to a serious contender, stop it.

hes a vp at best.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

Perhaps we should have a penalty system for people who just completely make things up and refuse to acknowledge they're factually wrong despite undeniable empirical evidence. Only in the clear, unambiguous cases though. They should get an HL timeout or some shyt...like a 2 week ban. A longer one for a second offense so forth. It would save a lot of useless back and forth, and disincentivize people from being loose with facts.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I see stuff like this all the time.







Too crazy an idea, or worth considering?

fukking losers always looking for an excuse to ban people you disagree with.