Being told to prove a negative is always a setup.

 

it was a parody thread and that sentence makes no sense.

"It's something you invented. It's BS."

it is BS but its not something she invented. the ideas have been proposed for a very long time, they cyclically become trendy and are co-opted by various ideologies/movements.

the thread starter is just playing out this campy contrarian ubermench character. she can keep this word salad going indefinitely.

even if she really does believe this rubbish, it is pretty pointless arguing the details with fanatics and fundamentalists of any flavour.

people who adopt ideologies without any proof/evidence/facts or any tangible properties are irrational people (sad). anyone who is going to be convinced by this thread are irrational people. it is mostly to do with identity etc. rational argument is no good on irrational people.

there is a definite subtext here but that is neither here nor there. my only interest is the claims of science, of which there is none. the mocking is because of the ridiculously campy ubermench character.

see ^^^ this is a fraud. the position is rapidly becoming untenable without a little certain something.

 

nop

 

Last edited: Sep 19, 2018

nop

 

Last edited: Sep 19, 2018

nop

 

Last edited: Sep 19, 2018

sorry about the multiple posts but my posts disappear soon after i post them. just trying to see why.

edit: problem solved: it was my multiple layers of script blockers. (now i just have to find exactly which script to not block)

edit edit: found it. it was 'shrek V' by pasolini.

 

Last edited: Sep 19, 2018

I was only messing with refix

 

I didn't mean to suggest it was a new invention. I should have been more clear. :D

Anyway, Thread's dead, man, Thread's dead! :D

 

gotcha. sorry i'm on autopilot.

ugghh... if this bloke is actually serious, the world has got a real psycho on its hands. 8(


************************************

a serious note to make here is that simple ideas have and will be used by people in power to justify horrendous acts. unfortunately that is historical fact. caveat emptor.

 

Last edited: Sep 19, 2018

Probably the one for "The Brady Bunch Movie"

 

thanks, without your suggestion i would never have thought to look under 'animated features''.

 

Still plenty of time left for you to defend your position and argue a case that humanity is the opposite of how I've said it is.
But obviously don't use that stalker, tribute thread making, sock puppet guy as an example.
His actions on AS are most definitely making the case for the prosecution.

 

the tread starter is not good at detecting people in a certain community do not appreciate science being invoked where it has no place, but the community is beneficent and realize that it is only ignorance and indoctrination that causes this.

it was the indeed the thread starter that tried to politely told me what do, this is my way of politely telling him where to go.

from what i remember the ubermench isn't suppose to be so snippy, petty, picky and hypocritical. i prefer my ubermenches to be more detached but thats just me.

this rendering is more like an uberbinch.

just a minor thing let us proceed, the thread starter has much more to teach us about the deep dark recesses of reality.

 

No, I haven't. You just can't read properly. I suspect you're too blinded by hatred to see the words, let alone comprehend them.

 

Judge Dredd was always an edgy character, but that much..?

 

Humanity needn't be the opposite of what you claim for your claim to be wrong. Your claim is just inadequate: mankind is what you say, but that isn't the full picture ie mankind is not *only* beastly. The evidence is everywhere. Accepting that, you retreat to your odd formulation of man's "default state" which seems an unfalsifiable notion - one that you have done nothing to substantiate. I don't see how you could substantiate it. So, really, you're just claiming man has a "default state" (and it happens to be "bad").

You're a Catholic? :D

 

So then I'm right on both counts as they are points I've made throughout this topic.

It's not a retreat, it's the fundamental tenet of this thread, and whether it can substantiated or not, I have cited a host of things that add weight to my argument. You, however, haven't.

Took us twelve pages, but yep, well done.

There is no such thing as gods, so that'll be a negative.

 

It hasn't been substantiated at all. You see the problem?

Nobody would argue humans are *only* bad - even you've already accepted this. The only difference between you and others then amounts to your notion that "bad" is the "default state" of humans (whatever that means). That is what has not been substantiated - your "default state". Adding more evidence of "bad" things humans do doesn't help you on this at all - it just adds evidence to a notion which nobody disputes : humans can be "bad".

 

Even I accepted this - lol - Funny, I proffered it. lol

Still you're not looking at this evenly. Even when you minimise the debate down to humans can be bad.
You say I can't substantiate my position, yet you can't make a compelling case for the opposite to be true.
I will periodically check back on this thread and see if you or anyone have made any progress with a decent rebuttal.

And looks like the sockpuppet has gone back to using the old login id

 

I have never had any intention of proving the opposite. If somebody says all humans have blue eyes, do I have to prove the opposite to show it's wrong? What would the opposite even be?

All I need do is produce one person with different colour eyes. It doesn't prove the opposite, but it makes the appropriate point. That's already been done plenty, and you ignore it. You can't ignore all that evidence and say, "I WIN!!" Well, you can say it, but........:D