> > > Emotions are agency, ofcourse, you total nerd idiot. By love or hate
> > > you move, love or hate is the agent that moves you, the agent which
> > > owns your decisions, and with you it is hate which moves you, is my
> > > subjective opinion, you are one hateful anti-emotion motherfucker.
> > When you decide to perform an action, *you* are the agent. Emotions
> > might influence those decisions, but they are not agents. Or are you
> > treating love and hate as independent forces which govern your actions,
> > which would be tantamount to denying that you yourself are the source of
> > your actions and that therefore would be a denial of your own freedom?
> > This sounds vaguely like the philosophy of Empedocles, who, I hate to
> > break it to you, some have described (anachronistically) as one of the
> > first evolutionists.
> > André
> See, another liar about the holocaust who makes love and hate into
> objective matters of fact.
You appear to claim that emotions (which is a word used to describe the mental abstraction of personal sensations) are an "agency", and then to accuse other people of objectifying love and hate.
> > > Emotions are agency, ofcourse, you total nerd idiot. By love or hate
> > > you move, love or hate is the agent that moves you, the agent which
> > > owns your decisions, and with you it is hate which moves you, is my
> > > subjective opinion, you are one hateful anti-emotion motherfucker.
> > When you decide to perform an action, *you* are the agent. Emotions
> > might influence those decisions, but they are not agents. Or are you
> > treating love and hate as independent forces which govern your actions,
> > which would be tantamount to denying that you yourself are the source of
> > your actions and that therefore would be a denial of your own freedom?
> > This sounds vaguely like the philosophy of Empedocles, who, I hate to
> > break it to you, some have described (anachronistically) as one of the
> > first evolutionists.
> > André
> See, another liar about the holocaust who makes love and hate into
> objective matters of fact.
You really need to learn to read posts before you respond to them. I never made any claims denying the subjective experience of emotions. I merely questioned whether they can legitimately be referred to as 'agency'.
And your strange obsession with the holocaust is getting rather tiresome. The vast majority of discussions on almost any topic make no claims regarding the holocaust whatsoever, yet you somehow find them all relevant to this particular subject.
As far as I'm concerned, this single-minded obsession of yours is simply an attempt to deny the atrocities of the Thirty Years' War committed by all those libertarians in the Catholic League and the Holy Roman Empire.
> > > > Emotions are agency, ofcourse, you total nerd idiot. By love or hate
> > > > you move, love or hate is the agent that moves you, the agent which
> > > > owns your decisions, and with you it is hate which moves you, is my
> > > > subjective opinion, you are one hateful anti-emotion motherfucker.
> > > When you decide to perform an action, *you* are the agent. Emotions
> > > might influence those decisions, but they are not agents. Or are you
> > > treating love and hate as independent forces which govern your actions,
> > > which would be tantamount to denying that you yourself are the source of
> > > your actions and that therefore would be a denial of your own freedom?
> > > This sounds vaguely like the philosophy of Empedocles, who, I hate to
> > > break it to you, some have described (anachronistically) as one of the
> > > first evolutionists.
> > > André
> > See, another liar about the holocaust who makes love and hate into
> > objective matters of fact.
> You really need to learn to read posts before you respond to them. I
> never made any claims denying the subjective experience of emotions. I
> merely questioned whether they can legitimately be referred to as
> 'agency'.
> And your strange obsession with the holocaust is getting rather
> tiresome. The vast majority of discussions on almost any topic make no
> claims regarding the holocaust whatsoever, yet you somehow find them all
> relevant to this particular subject.
> As far as I'm concerned, this single-minded obsession of yours is simply
> an attempt to deny the atrocities of the Thirty Years' War committed by
> all those libertarians in the Catholic League and the Holy Roman Empire.
What a load. You're lying about the holocaust, that is your own fault,
not mine for pointing it out, within good reason.
> > > > Emotions are agency, ofcourse, you total nerd idiot. By love or hate
> > > > you move, love or hate is the agent that moves you, the agent which
> > > > owns your decisions, and with you it is hate which moves you, is my
> > > > subjective opinion, you are one hateful anti-emotion motherfucker.
> > > When you decide to perform an action, *you* are the agent. Emotions
> > > might influence those decisions, but they are not agents. Or are you
> > > treating love and hate as independent forces which govern your actions,
> > > which would be tantamount to denying that you yourself are the source of
> > > your actions and that therefore would be a denial of your own freedom?
> > > This sounds vaguely like the philosophy of Empedocles, who, I hate to
> > > break it to you, some have described (anachronistically) as one of the
> > > first evolutionists.
> > > André
> > See, another liar about the holocaust who makes love and hate into
> > objective matters of fact.
> You appear to claim that emotions (which is a word used to describe the mental abstraction of personal sensations) are an "agency", and then to accuse other people of objectifying love and hate.
> The mote in your eye is full of alligators.
And you're also lying about the holocaust.
No single evolutionist here accepts to reach a conclusion on faith in
respect to agency, they all insist on being forced by evidence in
reaching a conclusion.
>> > > > > love and hate are emotions, not agency.
>> > > > Emotions are agency, ofcourse, you total nerd idiot. By love or hate
>> > > > you move, love or hate is the agent that moves you, the agent which
>> > > > owns your decisions, and with you it is hate which moves you, is my
>> > > > subjective opinion, you are one hateful anti-emotion motherfucker.
>> > > When you decide to perform an action, *you* are the agent. Emotions
>> > > might influence those decisions, but they are not agents. Or are you
>> > > treating love and hate as independent forces which govern your actions,
>> > > which would be tantamount to denying that you yourself are the source of
>> > > your actions and that therefore would be a denial of your own freedom?
>> > > This sounds vaguely like the philosophy of Empedocles, who, I hate to
>> > > break it to you, some have described (anachronistically) as one of the
>> > > first evolutionists.
>> > > André
>> > See, another liar about the holocaust who makes love and hate into
>> > objective matters of fact.
>> You appear to claim that emotions (which is a word used to describe the mental abstraction of personal sensations) are an "agency", and then to accuse other people of objectifying love and hate.
>> The mote in your eye is full of alligators.
>And you're also lying about the holocaust.
>No single evolutionist here accepts to reach a conclusion on faith in
>respect to agency, they all insist on being forced by evidence in
>reaching a conclusion.
I know. That's so unreasonable of them, to demand evidence of your
assertions. How rude!
> > > > > > love and hate are emotions, not agency.
> > > > > Emotions are agency, ofcourse, you total nerd idiot. By love or hate
> > > > > you move, love or hate is the agent that moves you, the agent which
> > > > > owns your decisions, and with you it is hate which moves you, is my
> > > > > subjective opinion, you are one hateful anti-emotion motherfucker.
> > > > When you decide to perform an action, *you* are the agent. Emotions
> > > > might influence those decisions, but they are not agents. Or are you
> > > > treating love and hate as independent forces which govern your actions,
> > > > which would be tantamount to denying that you yourself are the source of
> > > > your actions and that therefore would be a denial of your own freedom?
> > > > This sounds vaguely like the philosophy of Empedocles, who, I hate to
> > > > break it to you, some have described (anachronistically) as one of the
> > > > first evolutionists.
> > > > André
> > > See, another liar about the holocaust who makes love and hate into
> > > objective matters of fact.
> > You really need to learn to read posts before you respond to them. I
> > never made any claims denying the subjective experience of emotions. I
> > merely questioned whether they can legitimately be referred to as
> > 'agency'.
> > And your strange obsession with the holocaust is getting rather
> > tiresome. The vast majority of discussions on almost any topic make no
> > claims regarding the holocaust whatsoever, yet you somehow find them all
> > relevant to this particular subject.
> > As far as I'm concerned, this single-minded obsession of yours is simply
> > an attempt to deny the atrocities of the Thirty Years' War committed by
> > all those libertarians in the Catholic League and the Holy Roman Empire.
> What a load. You're lying about the holocaust, that is your own fault,
> not mine for pointing it out, within good reason.
I'm already aware you think it is 'a load', since that and your persistent holocaust references are all you seem capable of posting. If you want to actually *get* somewhere in a discussion, though, perhaps you'd like to provide some explanation as to *why* you think it's a load. One way to do that is to actually *address* the points that other people make.
Why not start by addressing the simple issue raised at the beginning of this subthread, namely why you consider love and hate to be 'agents'. As part of this you might perhaps want to explain exactly how your private language defines the terms 'agency' and 'subjective'.
And, to humour your holocaust fetish, let me point out that Tomás de Torquemada was a libertarian and a "creationist" who had never heard of Darwin, yet still managed to commit comparable atrocities (in nature if not in scale) against Jews and perceived Jews despite this fact. How do you reconcile that with your view that Darwin is responsible for all evil in the world? Or are you lying about the inquisition?
> > > > > > > love and hate are emotions, not agency.
> > > > > > Emotions are agency, ofcourse, you total nerd idiot. By love or hate
> > > > > > you move, love or hate is the agent that moves you, the agent which
> > > > > > owns your decisions, and with you it is hate which moves you, is my
> > > > > > subjective opinion, you are one hateful anti-emotion motherfucker.
> > > > > When you decide to perform an action, *you* are the agent. Emotions
> > > > > might influence those decisions, but they are not agents. Or are you
> > > > > treating love and hate as independent forces which govern your actions,
> > > > > which would be tantamount to denying that you yourself are the source of
> > > > > your actions and that therefore would be a denial of your own freedom?
> > > > > This sounds vaguely like the philosophy of Empedocles, who, I hate to
> > > > > break it to you, some have described (anachronistically) as one of the
> > > > > first evolutionists.
> > > > > André
> > > > See, another liar about the holocaust who makes love and hate into
> > > > objective matters of fact.
> > > You really need to learn to read posts before you respond to them. I
> > > never made any claims denying the subjective experience of emotions. I
> > > merely questioned whether they can legitimately be referred to as
> > > 'agency'.
> > > And your strange obsession with the holocaust is getting rather
> > > tiresome. The vast majority of discussions on almost any topic make no
> > > claims regarding the holocaust whatsoever, yet you somehow find them all
> > > relevant to this particular subject.
> > > As far as I'm concerned, this single-minded obsession of yours is simply
> > > an attempt to deny the atrocities of the Thirty Years' War committed by
> > > all those libertarians in the Catholic League and the Holy Roman Empire.
> > What a load. You're lying about the holocaust, that is your own fault,
> > not mine for pointing it out, within good reason.
> I'm already aware you think it is 'a load', since that and your
> persistent holocaust references are all you seem capable of posting. If
> you want to actually *get* somewhere in a discussion, though, perhaps
> you'd like to provide some explanation as to *why* you think it's a
> load. One way to do that is to actually *address* the points that other
> people make.
> Why not start by addressing the simple issue raised at the beginning of
> this subthread, namely why you consider love and hate to be 'agents'. As
> part of this you might perhaps want to explain exactly how your private
> language defines the terms 'agency' and 'subjective'.
> And, to humour your holocaust fetish, let me point out that Tomás de
> Torquemada was a libertarian and a "creationist" who had never heard of
> Darwin, yet still managed to commit comparable atrocities (in nature if
> not in scale) against Jews and perceived Jews despite this fact. How do
> you reconcile that with your view that Darwin is responsible for all
> evil in the world? Or are you lying about the inquisition?
The discussion has already been concluded, and the conclusion was that
you are a liar about the holocaust, because you don't accept
subjectivity in respect to agency.
On 25 apr, 10:16, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:54:19 -0700 (PDT),Syamsu
> >No single evolutionist here accepts to reach a conclusion on faith in
> >respect to agency, they all insist on being forced by evidence in
> >reaching a conclusion.
> I know. That's so unreasonable of them, to demand evidence of your
> assertions. How rude!
See Mitchell, all evolutionists lie about the holocaust. And any
evolutionist who still believes in the human spirit wisely keeps their
mouth shut in the company of other evolutionists. There could be
evolutionists here who accept the truth of the holocaust, but they
would never dare speak.
In article <nando-aef44641-cf1c-4e39-8603-173bad4a6...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>,
Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The discussion has already been concluded, and the conclusion was that
> you are a liar about the holocaust, because you don't accept
> subjectivity in respect to agency.
> > > > So you are unable to produce a quote where someone here thinks the
> > > > Holocaust was imposible to avoid." You claimed, above, "Disagreeing
> > > > with that the history of the holocaust could have turned out a
> > > > different way, and that what made the decisions turn out the way they
> > > > did is a subjective issue" makes someone a liar about the holocaust.
> > > > Putting aside the lack of logic in what you wrote, on the issue of
> > > > your factual claim, can't demonstrate your claim that any secularists
> > > > on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned out a different
> > > > way.
> > > Mitchel Coffey himself doesn't accept the fact freedom is real in the
> > > sense of alternative results from moment to moment.
> > > Evolutionists argue about the holocaust like: "if the Americans
> > > concentrated on bombing concentration camps, then the holocaust might
> > > have been less big"
> > > So what evolutionists do is they posit another cause (Americans
> > > bombing), forcing a different result (holocaust less big). But that is
> > > not freedom yet, with freedom from one and the same initial conditions
> > > there are alternative results available. But evolutionists, such as
> > > Mitchell Coffey, regard such freedom where there are alternative
> > > results from one and the same initial conditions, as random and
> > > therefore meaningless, so they don't accept it.
> > > Creationists on the other hand make subjective opinion about the
> > > agency in these choices, and that is how freedom becomes meaningful.
> > > So creationists see Hitler, and they see that he could have gone
> > > another way in the moment, or moments, and then they make a subjective
> > > opinion about the spirit in which it was decided.
> > > That's the only way the history of the holocaust is meaningful, with
> > > agency that is spiritual so that we can form a subjective opinion
> > > about it. And the subjective opinion usually turns out that the spirit
> > > in which Hitler acted was hateful or evil.
> > > But evolutionists only lie about the history of the holocaust.
> > 1. You've again shown yourself unable to give a single example where
> > an "evolutionist" on this newsgroup has lied "about the history of the
> > holocaust."
> > 2. You've again shown yourself unable to demonstrate your claim that
> > any secularists on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned
> > out a different way.
> > 3. In fact, you give evidence in your latest post that you've known
> > all along that secularists believe that the Holocaust could have
> > turned out a different way. This is significant, as it demonstates
> > that your misrepresntations were not just mistakes, but deliberate:
> > i.e., you were lying. This explains your persistant unwillingness to
> > produce a quote where a secularlist on this newsgroup denied the that
> > Holocaust could have turned out a different way.
> > 4. You are misrepresenting serious discussions regarding whether the
> > Holocaust could have turned out a different way: for instance, a
> > common topic is whether German antisemitism would have lead to the
> > Holocaust if Hitler hadn't existed.
> > By way of examples of serious discussions of whether the Holocaust
> > could have turned out a different way: a whole book exists discussing
> > theories about how Hitlter turned out the way he did and could have
> > turned out differently, and how his desision to initiate the Holocaust
> > may have gone differently, from the point of view of Hilter's morals
> > and characters.
> > See: Rosenbaum, Ron. Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of
> > His Evil. New York: Harper Perennial, 1999. ISBN 006095339X.
> > Mitchell Coffey
> All bullshit, because no single evolutionist accepts a spiritual
> domain in the sense of agency. They all argue against creationism.
> They would all ask for evidence about what forced the holocaust, and
> not form subjective opinion about the agency, as you can well see on
> the thread. Mitchell also NEVER accepted a spiritual domain in the
> sense of agency, he is also lying about the holocaust in the worst
> way. Making Hitler appear like he was forced to act the way he did,
> and then calling forced acts evil.
Quote me claiming that Hiter was forced to act the way he did; you
won't because you are once again lying.
Quote one secularist on T.O. knowingly claiming what you can show to
be a factual misrepresentation of the Holocause; you won't because you
are once again lying.
Yet again you've shown yourself unable to demonstrate your claim that
any secularists on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned
out a different way - and you are unable to respond to the fact that
you had on the contrary provided evidence that secularists believe
that the Holocaust could have turned out a different way - and that
you've known all along!
Finally, you once again were unable to respond factually and honestly
to a single point I made, and you once again were unable to quote
evidence for your claims.
> On 25 apr, 10:16, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:54:19 -0700 (PDT),Syamsu
> > >No single evolutionist here accepts to reach a conclusion on faith in
> > >respect to agency, they all insist on being forced by evidence in
> > >reaching a conclusion.
> > I know. That's so unreasonable of them, to demand evidence of your
> > assertions. How rude!
> See Mitchell, all evolutionists lie about the holocaust. And any
> evolutionist who still believes in the human spirit wisely keeps their
> mouth shut in the company of other evolutionists. There could be
> evolutionists here who accept the truth of the holocaust, but they
> would never dare speak.
And you consistently been unable to quote me lying about the
Holocaust.
> > > > > So you are unable to produce a quote where someone here thinks the
> > > > > Holocaust was imposible to avoid." You claimed, above, "Disagreeing
> > > > > with that the history of the holocaust could have turned out a
> > > > > different way, and that what made the decisions turn out the way they
> > > > > did is a subjective issue" makes someone a liar about the holocaust.
> > > > > Putting aside the lack of logic in what you wrote, on the issue of
> > > > > your factual claim, can't demonstrate your claim that any secularists
> > > > > on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned out a different
> > > > > way.
> > > > Mitchel Coffey himself doesn't accept the fact freedom is real in the
> > > > sense of alternative results from moment to moment.
> > > > Evolutionists argue about the holocaust like: "if the Americans
> > > > concentrated on bombing concentration camps, then the holocaust might
> > > > have been less big"
> > > > So what evolutionists do is they posit another cause (Americans
> > > > bombing), forcing a different result (holocaust less big). But that is
> > > > not freedom yet, with freedom from one and the same initial conditions
> > > > there are alternative results available. But evolutionists, such as
> > > > Mitchell Coffey, regard such freedom where there are alternative
> > > > results from one and the same initial conditions, as random and
> > > > therefore meaningless, so they don't accept it.
> > > > Creationists on the other hand make subjective opinion about the
> > > > agency in these choices, and that is how freedom becomes meaningful.
> > > > So creationists see Hitler, and they see that he could have gone
> > > > another way in the moment, or moments, and then they make a subjective
> > > > opinion about the spirit in which it was decided.
> > > > That's the only way the history of the holocaust is meaningful, with
> > > > agency that is spiritual so that we can form a subjective opinion
> > > > about it. And the subjective opinion usually turns out that the spirit
> > > > in which Hitler acted was hateful or evil.
> > > > But evolutionists only lie about the history of the holocaust.
> > > 1. You've again shown yourself unable to give a single example where
> > > an "evolutionist" on this newsgroup has lied "about the history of the
> > > holocaust."
> > > 2. You've again shown yourself unable to demonstrate your claim that
> > > any secularists on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned
> > > out a different way.
> > > 3. In fact, you give evidence in your latest post that you've known
> > > all along that secularists believe that the Holocaust could have
> > > turned out a different way. This is significant, as it demonstates
> > > that your misrepresntations were not just mistakes, but deliberate:
> > > i.e., you were lying. This explains your persistant unwillingness to
> > > produce a quote where a secularlist on this newsgroup denied the that
> > > Holocaust could have turned out a different way.
> > > 4. You are misrepresenting serious discussions regarding whether the
> > > Holocaust could have turned out a different way: for instance, a
> > > common topic is whether German antisemitism would have lead to the
> > > Holocaust if Hitler hadn't existed.
> > > By way of examples of serious discussions of whether the Holocaust
> > > could have turned out a different way: a whole book exists discussing
> > > theories about how Hitlter turned out the way he did and could have
> > > turned out differently, and how his desision to initiate the Holocaust
> > > may have gone differently, from the point of view of Hilter's morals
> > > and characters.
> > > See: Rosenbaum, Ron. Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of
> > > His Evil. New York: Harper Perennial, 1999. ISBN 006095339X.
> > > Mitchell Coffey
> > All bullshit, because no single evolutionist accepts a spiritual
> > domain in the sense of agency. They all argue against creationism.
> > They would all ask for evidence about what forced the holocaust, and
> > not form subjective opinion about the agency, as you can well see on
> > the thread. Mitchell also NEVER accepted a spiritual domain in the
> > sense of agency, he is also lying about the holocaust in the worst
> > way. Making Hitler appear like he was forced to act the way he did,
> > and then calling forced acts evil.
> Quote me claiming that Hiter was forced to act the way he did; you
> won't because you are once again lying.
> Quote one secularist on T.O. knowingly claiming what you can show to
> be a factual misrepresentation of the Holocause; you won't because you
> are once again lying.
> Yet again you've shown yourself unable to demonstrate your claim that
> any secularists on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned
> out a different way - and you are unable to respond to the fact that
> you had on the contrary provided evidence that secularists believe
> that the Holocaust could have turned out a different way - and that
> you've known all along!
> Finally, you once again were unable to respond factually and honestly
> to a single point I made, and you once again were unable to quote
> evidence for your claims.
I don't play along with your stupid bullshit games, that doesn't make
me a liar.
You are continuously lying about the holocaust by denying agency as a
categorical matter of subjective opinion in relation to the holocaust.
And what is worse is that you said of Heackel who treated agency of
Jesus Christ as a matter of objective fact, that it was not so bad
that Heackel wrote that. You are a repulsive liar about the holocaust.
And this kind of lying, besides the lying about agency, is also
widespread among Darwinists, that what Darwinists do in objectifying
love and hate wasn't so bad. Now Darwinists are lying that all people
are the same, so that they can again spread their lies about love and
hate being an objective matter of fact, without being accused of
racism. Heackel clearly opined that love and hate was different among
the races, but that is not the lethal load of racism. The lethal load
is to make love and hate into an objective matter of fact. And
evolution theory now is as lethal in potential as it was then, because
you all still objectify and refuse to acknowledge the legitemacy of
subjective opinion. Sure enough a few dozen million Chinese could be
killed by Darwinists if the occasion is there.
And note that denial of free will in the libertarian sense is
widespread among evolutionists, led by Daniel Dennet, and evolutionary
psychology. And so too love and hate are made into matters of
historical fact by Darwinists, instead of a matter of subjective
opinion. There is not a single evolutionist who acknowledges a
spiritual domain, the human spirit, in respect to agency of people. I
would love to be able to point out a single evolutionist who did
acknowledge it, but the fact is they ALL don't.
> > > > > > So you are unable to produce a quote where someone here thinks the
> > > > > > Holocaust was imposible to avoid." You claimed, above, "Disagreeing
> > > > > > with that the history of the holocaust could have turned out a
> > > > > > different way, and that what made the decisions turn out the way they
> > > > > > did is a subjective issue" makes someone a liar about the holocaust.
> > > > > > Putting aside the lack of logic in what you wrote, on the issue of
> > > > > > your factual claim, can't demonstrate your claim that any secularists
> > > > > > on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned out a different
> > > > > > way.
> > > > > Mitchel Coffey himself doesn't accept the fact freedom is real in the
> > > > > sense of alternative results from moment to moment.
> > > > > Evolutionists argue about the holocaust like: "if the Americans
> > > > > concentrated on bombing concentration camps, then the holocaust might
> > > > > have been less big"
> > > > > So what evolutionists do is they posit another cause (Americans
> > > > > bombing), forcing a different result (holocaust less big). But that is
> > > > > not freedom yet, with freedom from one and the same initial conditions
> > > > > there are alternative results available. But evolutionists, such as
> > > > > Mitchell Coffey, regard such freedom where there are alternative
> > > > > results from one and the same initial conditions, as random and
> > > > > therefore meaningless, so they don't accept it.
> > > > > Creationists on the other hand make subjective opinion about the
> > > > > agency in these choices, and that is how freedom becomes meaningful.
> > > > > So creationists see Hitler, and they see that he could have gone
> > > > > another way in the moment, or moments, and then they make a subjective
> > > > > opinion about the spirit in which it was decided.
> > > > > That's the only way the history of the holocaust is meaningful, with
> > > > > agency that is spiritual so that we can form a subjective opinion
> > > > > about it. And the subjective opinion usually turns out that the spirit
> > > > > in which Hitler acted was hateful or evil.
> > > > > But evolutionists only lie about the history of the holocaust.
> > > > 1. You've again shown yourself unable to give a single example where
> > > > an "evolutionist" on this newsgroup has lied "about the history of the
> > > > holocaust."
> > > > 2. You've again shown yourself unable to demonstrate your claim that
> > > > any secularists on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned
> > > > out a different way.
> > > > 3. In fact, you give evidence in your latest post that you've known
> > > > all along that secularists believe that the Holocaust could have
> > > > turned out a different way. This is significant, as it demonstates
> > > > that your misrepresntations were not just mistakes, but deliberate:
> > > > i.e., you were lying. This explains your persistant unwillingness to
> > > > produce a quote where a secularlist on this newsgroup denied the that
> > > > Holocaust could have turned out a different way.
> > > > 4. You are misrepresenting serious discussions regarding whether the
> > > > Holocaust could have turned out a different way: for instance, a
> > > > common topic is whether German antisemitism would have lead to the
> > > > Holocaust if Hitler hadn't existed.
> > > > By way of examples of serious discussions of whether the Holocaust
> > > > could have turned out a different way: a whole book exists discussing
> > > > theories about how Hitlter turned out the way he did and could have
> > > > turned out differently, and how his desision to initiate the Holocaust
> > > > may have gone differently, from the point of view of Hilter's morals
> > > > and characters.
> > > > See: Rosenbaum, Ron. Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of
> > > > His Evil. New York: Harper Perennial, 1999. ISBN 006095339X.
> > > > Mitchell Coffey
> > > All bullshit, because no single evolutionist accepts a spiritual
> > > domain in the sense of agency. They all argue against creationism.
> > > They would all ask for evidence about what forced the holocaust, and
> > > not form subjective opinion about the agency, as you can well see on
> > > the thread. Mitchell also NEVER accepted a spiritual domain in the
> > > sense of agency, he is also lying about the holocaust in the worst
> > > way. Making Hitler appear like he was forced to act the way he did,
> > > and then calling forced acts evil.
> > Quote me claiming that Hiter was forced to act the way he did; you
> > won't because you are once again lying.
> > Quote one secularist on T.O. knowingly claiming what you can show to
> > be a factual misrepresentation of the Holocause; you won't because you
> > are once again lying.
> > Yet again you've shown yourself unable to demonstrate your claim that
> > any secularists on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned
> > out a different way - and you are unable to respond to the fact that
> > you had on the contrary provided evidence that secularists believe
> > that the Holocaust could have turned out a different way - and that
> > you've known all along!
> > Finally, you once again were unable to respond factually and honestly
> > to a single point I made, and you once again were unable to quote
> > evidence for your claims.
> I don't play along with your stupid bullshit games, that doesn't make
> me a liar.
What does it make you?
> You are continuously lying about the holocaust by denying agency as a
> categorical matter of subjective opinion in relation to the holocaust.
Failure to acknowledge your insane babble as being relevant is not
lying, either.
> And what is worse is that you said of Heackel who treated agency of
> Jesus Christ as a matter of objective fact, that it was not so bad
> that Heackel wrote that. You are a repulsive liar about the holocaust.
> And this kind of lying, besides the lying about agency, is also
> widespread among Darwinists, that what Darwinists do in objectifying
> love and hate wasn't so bad. Now Darwinists are lying that all people
> are the same, so that they can again spread their lies about love and
> hate being an objective matter of fact, without being accused of
> racism. Heackel clearly opined that love and hate was different among
> the races, but that is not the lethal load of racism. The lethal load
> is to make love and hate into an objective matter of fact. And
> evolution theory now is as lethal in potential as it was then, because
> you all still objectify and refuse to acknowledge the legitemacy of
> subjective opinion. Sure enough a few dozen million Chinese could be
> killed by Darwinists if the occasion is there.
Aside your screed being a load of insane babble, the killing millions
in the name of some "god" thingy is okay, right?
> And note that denial of free will in the libertarian sense is
> widespread among evolutionists, led by Daniel Dennet, and evolutionary
> psychology. And so too love and hate are made into matters of
> historical fact by Darwinists, instead of a matter of subjective
> opinion.
One more time, pea brain: *what* is loved or hated is subjective, the
fact that those emotions exist is objective. But you are too stupid
to understand that, apparently.
> There is not a single evolutionist who acknowledges a
> spiritual domain, the human spirit, in respect to agency of people. I
> would love to be able to point out a single evolutionist who did
> acknowledge it, but the fact is they ALL don't.
All you have to dio is present some evidence that there *is* a
spiritual domain, in the religious sense (Which is the context you are
using).
But, since you can't, you go all loony-toons instead.
> > > > > > So you are unable to produce a quote where someone here thinks the
> > > > > > Holocaust was imposible to avoid." You claimed, above, "Disagreeing
> > > > > > with that the history of the holocaust could have turned out a
> > > > > > different way, and that what made the decisions turn out the way they
> > > > > > did is a subjective issue" makes someone a liar about the holocaust.
> > > > > > Putting aside the lack of logic in what you wrote, on the issue of
> > > > > > your factual claim, can't demonstrate your claim that any secularists
> > > > > > on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned out a different
> > > > > > way.
> > > > > Mitchel Coffey himself doesn't accept the fact freedom is real in the
> > > > > sense of alternative results from moment to moment.
> > > > > Evolutionists argue about the holocaust like: "if the Americans
> > > > > concentrated on bombing concentration camps, then the holocaust might
> > > > > have been less big"
> > > > > So what evolutionists do is they posit another cause (Americans
> > > > > bombing), forcing a different result (holocaust less big). But that is
> > > > > not freedom yet, with freedom from one and the same initial conditions
> > > > > there are alternative results available. But evolutionists, such as
> > > > > Mitchell Coffey, regard such freedom where there are alternative
> > > > > results from one and the same initial conditions, as random and
> > > > > therefore meaningless, so they don't accept it.
> > > > > Creationists on the other hand make subjective opinion about the
> > > > > agency in these choices, and that is how freedom becomes meaningful.
> > > > > So creationists see Hitler, and they see that he could have gone
> > > > > another way in the moment, or moments, and then they make a subjective
> > > > > opinion about the spirit in which it was decided.
> > > > > That's the only way the history of the holocaust is meaningful, with
> > > > > agency that is spiritual so that we can form a subjective opinion
> > > > > about it. And the subjective opinion usually turns out that the spirit
> > > > > in which Hitler acted was hateful or evil.
> > > > > But evolutionists only lie about the history of the holocaust.
> > > > 1. You've again shown yourself unable to give a single example where
> > > > an "evolutionist" on this newsgroup has lied "about the history of the
> > > > holocaust."
> > > > 2. You've again shown yourself unable to demonstrate your claim that
> > > > any secularists on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned
> > > > out a different way.
> > > > 3. In fact, you give evidence in your latest post that you've known
> > > > all along that secularists believe that the Holocaust could have
> > > > turned out a different way. This is significant, as it demonstates
> > > > that your misrepresntations were not just mistakes, but deliberate:
> > > > i.e., you were lying. This explains your persistant unwillingness to
> > > > produce a quote where a secularlist on this newsgroup denied the that
> > > > Holocaust could have turned out a different way.
> > > > 4. You are misrepresenting serious discussions regarding whether the
> > > > Holocaust could have turned out a different way: for instance, a
> > > > common topic is whether German antisemitism would have lead to the
> > > > Holocaust if Hitler hadn't existed.
> > > > By way of examples of serious discussions of whether the Holocaust
> > > > could have turned out a different way: a whole book exists discussing
> > > > theories about how Hitlter turned out the way he did and could have
> > > > turned out differently, and how his desision to initiate the Holocaust
> > > > may have gone differently, from the point of view of Hilter's morals
> > > > and characters.
> > > > See: Rosenbaum, Ron. Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of
> > > > His Evil. New York: Harper Perennial, 1999. ISBN 006095339X.
> > > > Mitchell Coffey
> > > All bullshit, because no single evolutionist accepts a spiritual
> > > domain in the sense of agency. They all argue against creationism.
> > > They would all ask for evidence about what forced the holocaust, and
> > > not form subjective opinion about the agency, as you can well see on
> > > the thread. Mitchell also NEVER accepted a spiritual domain in the
> > > sense of agency, he is also lying about the holocaust in the worst
> > > way. Making Hitler appear like he was forced to act the way he did,
> > > and then calling forced acts evil.
> > Quote me claiming that Hiter was forced to act the way he did; you
> > won't because you are once again lying.
> > Quote one secularist on T.O. knowingly claiming what you can show to
> > be a factual misrepresentation of the Holocause; you won't because you
> > are once again lying.
> > Yet again you've shown yourself unable to demonstrate your claim that
> > any secularists on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned
> > out a different way - and you are unable to respond to the fact that
> > you had on the contrary provided evidence that secularists believe
> > that the Holocaust could have turned out a different way - and that
> > you've known all along!
> > Finally, you once again were unable to respond factually and honestly
> > to a single point I made, and you once again were unable to quote
> > evidence for your claims.
> I don't play along with your stupid bullshit games, that doesn't make
> me a liar.
Yes it does: you keep saying things that are both issues of fact and
are untrue; in one case you even demonstrated you know it to be
untrue.
> You are continuously lying about the holocaust by denying agency as a
> categorical matter of subjective opinion in relation to the holocaust.
Which is both untrue, but if it were true, it wouldn't meet with the
definition of the word "lying," it just would mean I have an opinion
different from your. And, of course, once again you are unable post
what you claim to be a lie about the Holocaust.
> And what is worse is that you said of Heackel who treated agency of
> Jesus Christ as a matter of objective fact, that it was not so bad
> that Heackel wrote that.
Again, you're lying and I predict you will not demonstrate that you're
not lying by posting what you're claiming I wrote.
> You are a repulsive liar about the holocaust.
Again, you are lying and I predict you will not demonstrate that
you're not lying by posting what you're claiming was a lie.
> And this kind of lying, besides the lying about agency,
You keep lying about what "Darwinists" say about "ageny." And of
course, the term you're looking for is "disagree with you." You're
even lying in your use of the word "lying." And, of course, you've
been unable to quote any T.O. regular "lying" about the Holocaust.
> is also
> widespread among Darwinists, that what Darwinists do in objectifying
> love and hate wasn't so bad. Now Darwinists are lying that all people
> are the same, so that they can again spread their lies about love and
> hate being an objective matter of fact, without being accused of
> racism.
Note the historical
> Heackel clearly opined that love and hate was different among
> the races, but that is not the lethal load of racism.
Give the relevant quote from Heackel. Also, not that Heackel was just
one biologist who was not taken seriously outside of Germany at the
time him made the comments you *seem* to be referring to, and has not
been taken seriously virtually anywhere since circa 1920, and was not
generally viewed positively by the Nazi, to the extent he was
mentioned by them at all. In short, Heackel is irrelevant to the
discussion, and doesn't become relevant just because he held a titular
chairmanship over a "social-darwinist" essay contest in 1903 which was
won by an anti-racist.
And note the historical association between creationism and racism,
after non-creationist had mostly rejected racism.
> The lethal load
> is to make love and hate into an objective matter of fact.
Gee, you're the unmarried, hate monger who advocates mass-murder of
people just for disagreing with your opinions, gushes antisemetic
rants and defends Hitler by claiming he just murdered the wrong Jews
or some such. As I recall, you defended the 9/11 attacks, but I could
misremember that one.
> And
> evolution theory now is as lethal in potential as it was then, because
> you all still objectify and refuse to acknowledge the legitemacy of
> subjective opinion.
You want people killed for having subjective opinions different than
yours!
> Sure enough a few dozen million Chinese could be
> killed by Darwinists if the occasion is there.
Your "few dozen million Chinese could be killed by Darwinists if the
occasion is there" is simply a lie, which you've invented from, as I
recall, a single letter-to-the-editor to a scientific journal, by a
scientist bringing serious, but less dramatic than your lies, to the
attention of the journal's readers. Since it was a scientist that was
drawing attention to the issue, that alone showed you were lying in
your claim that all non-Chinese scentists were responsible for what
was being done by Chinese political leaders (you've lied, and claimed
without evidence that Chinese scientists were responsible for policies
initiated when scientists - indeed, all
...
> > > > > > So you are unable to produce a quote where someone here thinks the
> > > > > > Holocaust was imposible to avoid." You claimed, above, "Disagreeing
> > > > > > with that the history of the holocaust could have turned out a
> > > > > > different way, and that what made the decisions turn out the way they
> > > > > > did is a subjective issue" makes someone a liar about the holocaust.
> > > > > > Putting aside the lack of logic in what you wrote, on the issue of
> > > > > > your factual claim, can't demonstrate your claim that any secularists
> > > > > > on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned out a different
> > > > > > way.
> > > > > Mitchel Coffey himself doesn't accept the fact freedom is real in the
> > > > > sense of alternative results from moment to moment.
> > > > > Evolutionists argue about the holocaust like: "if the Americans
> > > > > concentrated on bombing concentration camps, then the holocaust might
> > > > > have been less big"
> > > > > So what evolutionists do is they posit another cause (Americans
> > > > > bombing), forcing a different result (holocaust less big). But that is
> > > > > not freedom yet, with freedom from one and the same initial conditions
> > > > > there are alternative results available. But evolutionists, such as
> > > > > Mitchell Coffey, regard such freedom where there are alternative
> > > > > results from one and the same initial conditions, as random and
> > > > > therefore meaningless, so they don't accept it.
> > > > > Creationists on the other hand make subjective opinion about the
> > > > > agency in these choices, and that is how freedom becomes meaningful.
> > > > > So creationists see Hitler, and they see that he could have gone
> > > > > another way in the moment, or moments, and then they make a subjective
> > > > > opinion about the spirit in which it was decided.
> > > > > That's the only way the history of the holocaust is meaningful, with
> > > > > agency that is spiritual so that we can form a subjective opinion
> > > > > about it. And the subjective opinion usually turns out that the spirit
> > > > > in which Hitler acted was hateful or evil.
> > > > > But evolutionists only lie about the history of the holocaust.
> > > > 1. You've again shown yourself unable to give a single example where
> > > > an "evolutionist" on this newsgroup has lied "about the history of the
> > > > holocaust."
> > > > 2. You've again shown yourself unable to demonstrate your claim that
> > > > any secularists on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned
> > > > out a different way.
> > > > 3. In fact, you give evidence in your latest post that you've known
> > > > all along that secularists believe that the Holocaust could have
> > > > turned out a different way. This is significant, as it demonstates
> > > > that your misrepresntations were not just mistakes, but deliberate:
> > > > i.e., you were lying. This explains your persistant unwillingness to
> > > > produce a quote where a secularlist on this newsgroup denied the that
> > > > Holocaust could have turned out a different way.
> > > > 4. You are misrepresenting serious discussions regarding whether the
> > > > Holocaust could have turned out a different way: for instance, a
> > > > common topic is whether German antisemitism would have lead to the
> > > > Holocaust if Hitler hadn't existed.
> > > > By way of examples of serious discussions of whether the Holocaust
> > > > could have turned out a different way: a whole book exists discussing
> > > > theories about how Hitlter turned out the way he did and could have
> > > > turned out differently, and how his desision to initiate the Holocaust
> > > > may have gone differently, from the point of view of Hilter's morals
> > > > and characters.
> > > > See: Rosenbaum, Ron. Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of
> > > > His Evil. New York: Harper Perennial, 1999. ISBN 006095339X.
> > > > Mitchell Coffey
> > > All bullshit, because no single evolutionist accepts a spiritual
> > > domain in the sense of agency. They all argue against creationism.
> > > They would all ask for evidence about what forced the holocaust, and
> > > not form subjective opinion about the agency, as you can well see on
> > > the thread. Mitchell also NEVER accepted a spiritual domain in the
> > > sense of agency, he is also lying about the holocaust in the worst
> > > way. Making Hitler appear like he was forced to act the way he did,
> > > and then calling forced acts evil.
> > Quote me claiming that Hiter was forced to act the way he did; you
> > won't because you are once again lying.
> > Quote one secularist on T.O. knowingly claiming what you can show to
> > be a factual misrepresentation of the Holocause; you won't because you
> > are once again lying.
> > Yet again you've shown yourself unable to demonstrate your claim that
> > any secularists on T.O. believe that the holocaust could have turned
> > out a different way - and you are unable to respond to the fact that
> > you had on the contrary provided evidence that secularists believe
> > that the Holocaust could have turned out a different way - and that
> > you've known all along!
> > Finally, you once again were unable to respond factually and honestly
> > to a single point I made, and you once again were unable to quote
> > evidence for your claims.
> I don't play along with your stupid bullshit games, that doesn't make
> me a liar.
Yes it does: you keep saying things that are both issues of fact and
are untrue; in one case you even demonstrated you know it to be
untrue.
> You are continuously lying about the holocaust by denying agency as a
> categorical matter of subjective opinion in relation to the holocaust.
Which is both untrue, but if it were true, it wouldn't meet with the
definition of the word "lying," it just would mean I have an opinion
different from your. And, of course, once again you are unable post
what you claim to be a lie about the Holocaust.
> And what is worse is that you said of Heackel who treated agency of
> Jesus Christ as a matter of objective fact, that it was not so bad
> that Heackel wrote that.
Again, you're lying and I predict you will not demonstrate that you're
not lying by posting what you're claiming I wrote.
> You are a repulsive liar about the holocaust.
Again, you are lying and I predict you will not demonstrate that
you're not lying by posting what you're claiming was a lie.
> And this kind of lying, besides the lying about agency,
You keep lying about what "Darwinists" say about "ageny." And of
course, the term you're looking for is "disagree with you." You're
even lying in your use of the word "lying." And, of course, you've
been unable to quote any T.O. regular "lying" about the Holocaust.
> is also
> widespread among Darwinists, that what Darwinists do in objectifying
> love and hate wasn't so bad. Now Darwinists are lying that all people
> are the same, so that they can again spread their lies about love and
> hate being an objective matter of fact, without being accused of
> racism.
Note the historical
> Heackel clearly opined that love and hate was different among
> the races, but that is not the lethal load of racism.
Give the relevant quote from Heackel. Also, not that Heackel was just
one biologist who was not taken seriously outside of Germany at the
time him made the comments you *seem* to be referring to, and has not
been taken seriously virtually anywhere since circa 1920, and was not
generally viewed positively by the Nazi, to the extent he was
mentioned by them at all. In short, Heackel is irrelevant to the
discussion, and doesn't become relevant just because he held a titular
chairmanship over a "social-darwinist" essay contest in 1903 which was
won by an anti-racist.
And note the historical association between creationism and racism,
after non-creationist had mostly rejected racism.
> The lethal load
> is to make love and hate into an objective matter of fact.
Gee, you're the unmarried, hate monger who advocates mass-murder of
people just for disagreing with your opinions, gushes antisemetic
rants and defends Hitler by claiming he just murdered the wrong Jews
or some such. As I recall, you defended the 9/11 attacks, but I could
misremember that one.
> And
> evolution theory now is as lethal in potential as it was then, because
> you all still objectify and refuse to acknowledge the legitemacy of
> subjective opinion.
You want people killed for having subjective opinions different than
yours!
> Sure enough a few dozen million Chinese could be
> killed by Darwinists if the occasion is there.
Your "few dozen million Chinese could be killed by Darwinists if the
occasion is there" is simply a lie, which you've invented from, as I
recall, a single letter-to-the-editor to a scientific journal, by a
scientist bringing serious, but less dramatic than your lies, to the
attention of the journal's readers. Since it was a scientist that was
drawing attention to the issue, that alone showed you were lying in
your claim that all non-Chinese scentists were responsible for what
was being done by Chinese political leaders (you've lied, and claimed
without evidence that Chinese scientists were responsible for policies
initiated when scientists - indeed, all
...
On Apr 25, 7:12 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> One more time, pea brain: *what* is loved or hated is subjective, the
> fact that those emotions exist is objective. But you are too stupid
> to understand that, apparently.
So clearly here again an evolutionist who openly says that love and
hate are matters of objective fact. That is the rule among
evolutionists, and there aren't any exceptions.
> All you have to dio is present some evidence that there *is* a
> spiritual domain, in the religious sense (Which is the context you are
> using).
When you require evidence to reach a conclusion it means you don't
accept the legitemacy of subjective opinion.
See now, Boikat is a real evolutionist, and he genuinely does make the
history of the holocaust meaningless.
On Apr 25, 12:32 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 7:12 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > One more time, pea brain: *what* is loved or hated is subjective, the
> > fact that those emotions exist is objective. But you are too stupid
> > to understand that, apparently.
> So clearly here again an evolutionist who openly says that love and
> hate are matters of objective fact. That is the rule among
> evolutionists, and there aren't any exceptions.
I was right. You are too stupid to understand the fact that I
acknowledged that there is a subjective componant to emotions, and an
objective componant.
> > All you have to dio is present some evidence that there *is* a
> > spiritual domain, in the religious sense (Which is the context you are
> > using).
> When you require evidence to reach a conclusion it means you don't
> accept the legitemacy of subjective opinion.
That depends on the subject. Is it something to do with a scientific
claim (fore ewxample), or a taste test of a new style of pizza. But
you are too stupid to understand the difference.
> See now, Boikat is a real evolutionist, and he genuinely does make the
> history of the holocaust meaningless.
How?
> > But, since you can't, you go all loony-toons instead.
On Apr 25, 7:35 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You're the one who rejects free will: you only
> claims to believe in free will because you claim that "free will" is
> what rocks do when they arbitrarally change direction role down hill!
> You attach "free will" to quantum events known to be truly random!
> That's not free will and you don't believe in free will!
Yes and the exactsame sort of random events can be found in the brain,
otherwise we are back to Dennet's concept of free will, as in
thermostats have free will.
It is also indeed repulsive to me that you have no acknowledgement for
1. the freedom in the inanimate universe, describing it only in terms
of being forced 2. the spirit which decides in this freedom. I much
prefer rocks over your vain selfsuperiority.
And I don't believe you acknowledge free will of people either. You
never make any statement in that regard, you whiff away any thoughts
about free will contributing to survival of organisms in fight and
flight, exactly because free will makes organisms unpredictable. That
is the point of free will, there are alternatives from moment to
moment, and it is exactly this unpredictability that you say is random
and therefore not free will.
That is your insanity that you see freedom as signifying no free will.
The solution to this insanity is that through subjectve opinion you
can add meaning to the randomness. If it is your subjective opinion
that any particular alternative quantum being realized in a rock is an
expression of a spirit of boundless love, then that is not
scientifically incorrect according to creation science. It is weird
IMO, but also wonderful if you would have such a subjective opinion,
it would make you an excellent geologist if your heart is like that.
So you are a follower of Dennet, who conceives of free will as
calculating the best result, as like a thermostat. You're are a liar
about the holocaust, what with Heackel, which you know continue to lie
about (Heackel sold many books in Germany, and he was profusely
praised by Darwin who also considered love and hate to be a matter of
fact), and with your denial of the legitemacy of subjective opinion in
respect to agency. This is already proven reasonably, and I do not
have to further engage your bullshit to provide more proof.
On Apr 25, 7:56 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 12:32 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > When you require evidence to reach a conclusion it means you don't
> > accept the legitemacy of subjective opinion.
> That depends on the subject. Is it something to do with a scientific
> claim (fore ewxample), or a taste test of a new style of pizza. But
> you are too stupid to understand the difference.
The subject is agency, who Hitler was as the owner of his choices. Not
the results of his choices, but the agency.
On Apr 25, 1:27 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 7:56 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 12:32 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > When you require evidence to reach a conclusion it means you don't
> > > accept the legitemacy of subjective opinion.
> > That depends on the subject. Is it something to do with a scientific
> > claim (fore ewxample), or a taste test of a new style of pizza. But
> > you are too stupid to understand the difference.
> The subject is agency,
No it isn't.
> who Hitler was as the owner of his choices.
Nobody denies that Hitler was responsible for his choices. The obnly
thing that seems to get your panties all tied up in a knot is that
people speculate as to *why* he made thiose choices. Doing so does
not absolve him of the results of his decisions.
> Not
> the results of his choices, but the agency.
The holocaust was one of the result of his choices, and you are lying
abut the truth of the holocaust if you disagree, and that still does
not remove Hitler as the "agency" of the holocaust. But, then again,
you've said that "agency" equaled the "soul" and therfore the
"spiritual realm", therefore, belief in the soul and the spirit realm
are the cause of the holocaust, using your "logic".
> On Apr 25, 1:27 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 7:56 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 25, 12:32 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > When you require evidence to reach a conclusion it means you don't
> > > > accept the legitemacy of subjective opinion.
> > > That depends on the subject. Is it something to do with a scientific
> > > claim (fore ewxample), or a taste test of a new style of pizza. But
> > > you are too stupid to understand the difference.
> > The subject is agency,
> No it isn't.
> > who Hitler was as the owner of his choices.
> Nobody denies that Hitler was responsible for his choices. The obnly
> thing that seems to get your panties all tied up in a knot is that
> people speculate as to *why* he made thiose choices. Doing so does
> not absolve him of the results of his decisions.
> > Not
> > the results of his choices, but the agency.
> The holocaust was one of the result of his choices, and you are lying
> abut the truth of the holocaust if you disagree, and that still does
> not remove Hitler as the "agency" of the holocaust. But, then again,
> you've said that "agency" equaled the "soul" and therfore the
> "spiritual realm", therefore, belief in the soul and the spirit realm
> are the cause of the holocaust, using your "logic".
> Happy now?
No, you're a liar about the holocaust, as proven, case closed.
> > > > On Apr 25, 12:32 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > When you require evidence to reach a conclusion it means you don't
> > > > > accept the legitemacy of subjective opinion.
> > > > That depends on the subject. Is it something to do with a scientific
> > > > claim (fore ewxample), or a taste test of a new style of pizza. But
> > > > you are too stupid to understand the difference.
> > > The subject is agency,
> > No it isn't.
> > > who Hitler was as the owner of his choices.
> > Nobody denies that Hitler was responsible for his choices. The obnly
> > thing that seems to get your panties all tied up in a knot is that
> > people speculate as to *why* he made thiose choices. Doing so does
> > not absolve him of the results of his decisions.
> > > Not
> > > the results of his choices, but the agency.
> > The holocaust was one of the result of his choices, and you are lying
> > abut the truth of the holocaust if you disagree, and that still does
> > not remove Hitler as the "agency" of the holocaust. But, then again,
> > you've said that "agency" equaled the "soul" and therfore the
> > "spiritual realm", therefore, belief in the soul and the spirit realm
> > are the cause of the holocaust, using your "logic".
> > Happy now?
> No, you're a liar about the holocaust, as proven, case closed.
You have yet to show that, therefore until you do, the only thing
"proven" so far is that you are morally, mentally and reality
challenged, to put it politely. To put it bluntly, you're an insane,
idiotic, lying piece of dog shit.
On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 9:33:32 PM UTC+1, Boikat wrote:
> You have yet to show that, therefore until you do, the only thing
> "proven" so far is that you are morally, mentally and reality
> challenged, to put it politely. To put it bluntly, you're an insane,
> idiotic, lying piece of dog shit.
Interesting question: can one be said to be a liar if one's insanity leads one to believe that what one is saying is true? I don't think there's any doubt that Nando is, and has been for a long time, mentally disturbed to some degree or other. I wonder what the verdict would be if he were charged with perjury but found to be insane. (I'm a former magistrate, I think about these things).
> Emotions are agency, ofcourse, you total nerd idiot. By love or hate
> you move, love or hate is the agent that moves you, the agent which
> owns your decisions, and with you it is hate which moves you, is my
> subjective opinion, you are one hateful anti-emotion motherfucker.
*
We all appreciate your thoughtful opinion, Nando!
On Apr 25, 3:59 pm, alycid...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 9:33:32 PM UTC+1, Boikat wrote:
> > You have yet to show that, therefore until you do, the only thing
> > "proven" so far is that you are morally, mentally and reality
> > challenged, to put it politely. To put it bluntly, you're an insane,
> > idiotic, lying piece of dog shit.
> Interesting question: can one be said to be a liar if one's insanity leads one to believe that what one is saying is true? I don't think there's any doubt that Nando is, and has been for a long time, mentally disturbed to some degree or other. I wonder what the verdict would be if he were charged with perjury but found to be insane. (I'm a former magistrate, I think about these things).
A possible verdict could be "A threat to public safety due to mental
instability" would be a fair cop, I think.
