jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (210 posts)

The Hypochristian and the Bully

  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago

    The Urban Dictionary defines the "Hypochristian" ...

    "Contraction of the words 'hypocrite' and 'Christian'. Any Christian who claims to follow the teaching of Christ but whose belief structure, values and/or actions directly contradict such a claim. Typically, hypochristians support things such as the Death Penalty, engage in heavily in proselytizing and judgement of others whose beliefs differ from theirs. Additionally, they often oppose things that go against their beliefs such as gay marriage, evolution, and other scientific law amidst wide amounts of ethical, scientific, moral, and logical arguments (even within their own supposed claim of beliefs) that would prove otherwise. Hypochristians are best categorized as individuals so stubbornly and fanatically devoted to their beliefs that they border on sheer stupidity."

    Yesterday, Stephen Colbert did a scathing report on the Michigan Senate Republicans amendments to an anti-bullying bill (SB 137) in which the bill under subsection 8 does not prohibit statements of religious belief or moral conviction. The language is claimed to advocate a "license to bully" which Republicans deny.

    Douglas Laylock, University of Virginia Law School Professor said...

    “Taking it for what they probably meant, instead of what they said, how should we understand this First Amendment caveat? It is not reasonably interpreted to mean that one student can bully another as long as the bullier has a sincere religious motivation. Rather, it should be taken to mean that a statement of religious belief or moral conviction, made within the bounds of civility, is not bullying – even if the recipient of the statement claims to have foreseeably suffered great emotional distress by being subjected to this disagreeable opinion,” he said. “Can the bullier repeat the statement over and over even after the target makes clear that he does not want to continue this conversation? Generally no, in the law of workplace harassment, and I would think not in the bullying context either. Students have a right to express their views and to try to persuade people who disagree with them; the initial approach or the first statement cannot be labeled as bullying. That’s what section 8 ineptly tries to say. When a speaker persists after it becomes clear that the conversation is unwelcome, and persists to the point that he violates the bill’s vague definition of bullying (or a better drafted definition in school policies implementing this bill), then he is bullying despite his religious motivation.”

    1. Dave Mathews profile image59
      Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Is that Hypo or Hyper there is a huge difference which is applied.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you look closely, you'll notice the very first line in the explanation...


        "Contraction of the words 'hypocrite' and 'Christian'."

    2. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This forum is over two months old, so they do not want me to reply. So I will not reply.
      What ATM laid here is spot on. Who cares about the conclusion or even the definition. What is important to notice is the insanity of our world. If this world is all somebody's got, they should just give up.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If that were the case, you would be forced to live in a cave and eat nuts and berries.

        1. Ericdierker profile image81
          Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Bull, ATM I would make more money than any God and be a hedonist. I would simply give up being good.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            lol So, anyone who doesn't follow your god is bad. Hilarious lie. And, you claim to spread good news. See how your faith accomplishes little else than conflict?

            1. Ericdierker profile image81
              Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I am just saying that if there ain't one there is no reason to be good. Humanity and moralism is trumped by happy and pleasure. Get my stuff now and he who dies with the most toys wins. I was trying to fit in with the hypocrite concept, backwards. If you do not believe in soul or a god, you are a hypocrite to be good.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That has to be the most childish, immature and irresponsible comment today. Well done. It is very sad that grown adults are unable to think for themselves and understand something as simple as being good.

                1. Ericdierker profile image81
                  Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well that is a said state of affairs. Like ol'e Buddha said to the priest. One should be good just to be good. But to buy into that you have to believe in the wisdom of Buddha.
                  Someone who does not believe in anything unseen or empirical that does good is a hypocrite for their is no intrinsic value in doing good. Plato to Ghandi to Descarte to Wittgenstein all tried to say it otherwise but concluded there is no good reason to be good. I think even Einstein dabbled in the subject.

                  1. autumn18 profile image67
                    autumn18posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I think it depends on ones definition of "being good". It's pretty subjective. Someone might think that a person is only good if they never curse, have casual sex, drink, fight, etc. To others it might be more about how we treat each other and the planet that determines goodness.

                  2. 0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No intrinsic  value in being good? According to Aristotle the key to happiness is doing good. So, there is no hypocrisy in good being done by the non believer. Your post shows the hypocrisy possible with belief. If you perform for nothing more than the reward, how are you better than a trained dog?

                  3. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The Hypocrisy of not understanding why someone can be a good person and do good things without believing in god indicates just the kind of person one is. I'm glad you have your beliefs for the sake of the rest of us.

                    Perhaps sometimes religion stunts moral and ethical maturity.

    3. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      sad
      (sigh)  and lol
      The "Urban Dictionary"

      ............Here's what Wikipedia says about it, in part------------

      "Urban Dictionary is a Web-based dictionary that contains more than seven million definitions as of 2 March 2013.[2] Submissions are regulated by volunteer editors and rated by site visitors. Time's Anita Hamilton included it on her 50 best websites of 2008 list.[3][4]
      Contents

          1 History
          2 Content
          3 Quality control
          4 Traffic and users
          5 See also
          6 Books
          7 References
          8 External links

      History

      The site was founded in 1999 by Aaron Peckham while he was a freshman computer science major at California Polytechnic State University. One of the first definitions on the site was "the man", defined as "the faces of 'the establishment' put in place to 'bring us down'".[5]

      The website was referenced in a 2011 District Court complaint by ATF agents to document the meaning of the vulgarism "murk" as used in a criminal threat. It also consists of names and slang.[6]
      Content
      :      {end of quote}



      Before you use the "Urban Dictionary" to try to create a legitimate discussion, please go to a legit source (if indeed there are any legit sources left) and provide actual legitimate words and definitions instead of riding the coattails of a group of people whose ignorance and rebelliousness causes them to coin insulting words that actually would fit themselves better than their intended targets.

      1. JMcFarland profile image91
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        this coming from the person who doesn't think that actual science is a legitimate source?  This post is so funny I almost dropped the computer.

        1. Ericdierker profile image81
          Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          JM who the hell are you speaking of? Man learn how to comment! Say you you are responding to or is that beneath your brain.

          1. JMcFarland profile image91
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            what the hell are you talking about?  I responded to the person that I was replying to, and it's right in line with the comment I made a response to.  This coming from a christian who is all about love and acceptance, cursing at the atheist?  Great example.  I can feel the love.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You think someone was up late drinking?

              1. JMcFarland profile image91
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I think someone was exemplifying the OP brilliantly.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not "liking" the definition does not preclude it's relevance, poignant in it's delivery. If anything, your post made it legitimate. lol

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, it didn't make it legitimate at all.
          You could talk about a myriad of falsified or misleading subjects, but just because someone replies to it doesn't legitimatize that subject or that action, nor the accusations included in it and surrounding it.

  2. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    Your title is misleading. I thought this thread was going to be a joke about an evangelical and an atheist.

    I think it's the duty of legislators to word things as confusingly as possible. It leaves ample room for money to be made by lawyers arguing what they meant.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Can't judge a book by it's cover, can you? smile

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Right has been charged with specifically putting in the language that allows them the freedom to bully anyone anytime, as long as it can be justified as a religious belief or even a moral conviction, very much like we see from Christians here.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you mean it's unfortunate the Right has been charged for something they didn't do?  Or the Right has been charged for some unfortunate thing they did do?

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, that's not quite how I wanted it to come out. I've changed it now. Thanks for pointing that out. smile

      2. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't mean to argue. You could be right. But, I took the statement you included by Douglas Laylock to mean that they simply poorly worded the law. That what was actually meant was that religious pestering would be considered bullying if it continued. Did I misunderstand?

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh yes, Laylock does say the language is poorly worded, which is why it needs changing, much to the chagrin and dissatisfaction of the Right, who are very pleased with it's current state.

  3. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Who was it that said "Ya cain't fix stupid"  I think it was Lary the   Cable Guy, and he was right.
       Ya can't legislate it away either.

       Cockroaches and stupidity has survived everything that the earth has thrown at it sense the beginning of time.

       There are some things that we just have to accept as being there.
       Don't gotta agree with it;

       Stupidity is kinda like cow patys out in the pastor. We can step in them when they are still wet, or walk around them.  Or .. we can wait till the sun dries them out, turn them over and find fish bait.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Are you actually suggesting we should accept the Right's language?

      1. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Is that what I said?

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I thought you were suggesting we turn the Right into fish bait.

          1. Jerami profile image79
            Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know which? the rights or the lefts,
            I just want to go fishing.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              As long as it's only politicians we're using to make the bait; I guess it doesn't matter what party they come from.

              1. Jerami profile image79
                Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well  I went back and read what I said.

                   I thought that I said, "that which they are sitting on (standing for) is what the fish bait feeds off of.  Ho Ho


                   Edit ...   just stoped by the house for a bite to eat  gotta go and renew tags on a PU truck.    back in a bit

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Believe it or not,  I did actually get that. I was just joking around with the fish bait comment. smile

    2. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Man, whatever happened to English?

      1. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know?  I was just playing with it;  didn't mean to break it.   or lose it.   
           I guess that if I did break it, I owe you another one.

        1. Jerami profile image79
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sometimes when I'm being funny ...    NO Body thinks so.

    3. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well really, I feel sorry for the pastor. I hate to think though how you might have stepped on a cow paddy in him.

  4. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    He might be attempting to say that if we do not have love or do not believe in Love then how "good" can it really be?    Can we have LOVE and not believe in love? If we do love or believe in love we can not say that we do not believe in "anything". 
       If I were to say that you have to believe in "something" ...  many people would think that I am implying that you have to believe a creator of some kind,  when I am not.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Insightful Jerami, but we all know what's going on.

      1. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        sorry for butting in.    Sometimes I'm a little slower than most people.   With not geeting on here consistently.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No no no. you are certainly no slower than anyone. I know you saw something I didn't and are trying to let me know. I always read every comment you make wether I agree are not, you've got my respect.

          1. Jerami profile image79
            Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Back atcha  ...

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks Jerami, that means a lot to me coming from you.

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The thing called love becomes obvious when we look at the way the human thinks. We have a conscious and a subconscious mind. The conscious mind is the deliberation side. It takes new information and dissects it, processes it, categorizes it, and files it away. The person who does martial arts knows that one uses the conscious mind to learn the art, but the art must become automatic to you if you want o be able to use it.

      Same with riding a bike. Thinking about it is important when you are learning, but thinking and deliberating are too slow when you need to react. The better you become at riding the more automatic it gets.

      The same can be said for any job we do well. The musician who has to think about the next note almost invariably misses a beat.

      So in effect, the consciousness is used to educate the subconscious instinctive side of our minds so that actions can be quick and automatic when needed. That’s how we have survived. We have been able to educate our instinct. We can make information so much a part of us that based on it we can change our automatic responses.

      We actually, as the above sentence implies, make things part of ourselves. We acquire new skills and new information and they become part of who we are.

      In fact the human has two aspects: One aspect tries to make things part of itself, the other rejects things. If you hate math it will never be part of your life. If you hate another human being you are saying very literally most of the time that you do not want them to be part of your life.

      This is, of course, the dynamic behind the us vs them attitude humans so often adopt. An attitude that spawns terror and horror and atrocities.

      Love is something felt by human and other life forms. It is relational. You love your wife, your children, your relatives, your friends. All these forms of love are different because they allow different aspects of those relationships to become a literal part of you.

      Yes, love is spawned by an attraction. You like the way someone smiles, you find them interesting, easy to get along with. All those attributes contribute to creating love between two people. But the part that is love and results in the desire for commitment, is the desire to make the other person part of who you are. Part of yourself.

      1. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with everything you said .. except that "I Think" you left out one itty bitty part.
        The subconcious part of the brain can be stronger than the concious part of the mind.
        You can love a person even when you logically forbid yourself to do so.  I am not comparing the two as being the same when I say this.  You loving the person that you are with is not totaly a decision that you analiticaly chose to do.   
          I think that we do not truly find peace of mind unless the subconcious and the concious minds by whatever means avaliable come together as one which is to say ... becoming one with self.  That being said, unless you are one with self it is imposible to truly become one with another.
        If I am truly at peace with myself, how can I declare upon another?   I don't think I could unless I logically determined they are in the process of destroying my oneness of mind. 

        OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I like it and you are right.

          I read a while ago about a split brain patient who both loved and hated her husband. One arm would try to stop the other arm from hitting him. One side is conscious and the other is not. For most of us this is internal conflict, but for her it was a battle of two brains.

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well what is obvious about this is that the subconscious is where we live most of the time. We do most things on automatic while using the conscious mind to think about other things and occasionally do some error control.

          The two are not separate to begin with. It is just easier to talk about the mind that way. The subconscious is pure instinct. But again, instinct educated by our environment, helped along by the conscious, as well as predisposed by our genetics.

          But you are right. Relationships where in one person does not like themselves are usually destructive as much as anything else. There are of course many variables in the dynamic between any two people. But the pattern I outlined is the same any way you slice it.

          Being one with yourself is simply solving the majority of your inner issues and being able to feel good in your own skin. That can be hard to accomplish for some. The younger you are the worse it is by and large, but some people never come to terms with themselves and are never at peace with themselves.

          The point is that the reason for love is the same as the reason you learn new skills  The pattern and mechanism are the same. There really is no such thing as a selfless act because all acts are of and by the self, for the self. Even love is exceptionally selfish.

          That is to say what could be more selfish than wanting someone to be part of who you are? It is by no means a bad thing. I'm just pointing out the means by which love comes about.

          And yes of course you can fall in love subconsciously because the feeling of love as all emotions, come from the subconscious as a precursor to conscious thought.. They initiate it most of the time.

          They tell us that something is being seen as positive or negative by the subconscious. They most often represent needs, real and imagined.

          Loving your work and making it part of your life, making any interests part of you, making other people part of you, it is all the same thing in different form, so to speak. .

  5. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    Sometimes I go nuts while agreeing with "some" of what most everyone posts here in these forums   
    I understand why you say and believe the things you do.  I agree with more of them than you think.
    But at the same time, I agree (a little) with what the other guy is saying too.
    Everybody is a little right and a little wrong at the same time.
    Everybody needs a little tweeking. always will  ,  ...  cause we keep untweeking ourselves.

  6. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    This is kind of a funny subject to argue over. So one thinks it takes a belief to be kind, one doesn't... who cares, maybe just be kind, right? It seems like there is nothing we wont debate.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You incredibly correct Beth. But what do you do when someone says you can't be good without a belief and if you are good you have a belief, but wont admit it?

      You try to do the right and good thing and help the poor soul for he is lacking in understanding.

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        lol... let it go?

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It isn't even a debate. It is pure nonsense to believe goodness has anything to do with religions, quite the contrary.

    3. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I guess ATM just proved you right. smile

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think I felt the ground shake.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How so, Emile? Is that based on the delusion that everyone operates on a belief system?

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I wonder if that's just going to needle at you until she answers. lol

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It was rhetorical. lol.

        2. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No. She said something to the effect that we just like to debate.

  7. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago

    Yes, slap the kids around to keep them in line, just like God would do. Because, he's a loving God.

    1. 0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There's this Simpson episode where these twin girls are making fun of Lisa.
      They call her a tree hugger and tell her if she loves vegetable so much she should marry a carrot.
      Lisa, losing all hope of reasoning with them, finally agrees that yes, indeed she is going to marry a carrot.
      The twins squeal with delight that Lisa has admitted that she is going to marry a carrot.

      This is pretty much how it goes when I make jokes around you. So enjoyable.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So, you actually believe your jokes are that clever that we don't obviously know they are incredibly lame jokes? lol

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I'm going to marry a carrot.

          1. JMcFarland profile image91
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That would be redefining marriage and destroy its sanctity.  We've all heard that's wrong, wrong, wrong.

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But a good way to get your beta carotene.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My lips are sealed.

                1. 0
                  Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't deserve to talk with you fine folk.

                  1. Will Apse profile image90
                    Will Apseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You do play a little rough.

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh no your fine, I just had to prevent myself from saying something un-atheist like.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oh come now... who are we to judge.

  8. DoubleScorpion profile image86
    DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago

    I haven't posted on the forums for a good while...But reading through this thread brings to mind something...

    Morals and ethics are determined by society in a given area. Deep down we are nothing more than domesticated animals...If we took away all of our societal influences there are those of us who would behave quite the contrary to what we consider normal human behavior.

    Just my thoughts...

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And it is a good thought. Hopefully it makes sense to others. It's basically what I've been attempting to get across. Without much success.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure you are entirely on the mark here. Not long ago we were taught slavery was just. But some thought it was not, mostly the slaves of course, but even some who were not slaves understood it was wrong even though they were taught it was just.

      Even a shorter time ago women and black could not vote, they were taught they could not vote, but they understood it was wrong.

      I have a friend who grew up in South Africa's apartheid. He was labels coloured so he was able to work along side whites, but was not permitted to go to office parties. He was taught it was write, but knew it was wrong.

      I could go on an on, but I think you should be able to get the point.

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
        DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        True...But it took someone to change the thinking process of society for these types of things to no longer be considered as something "moral" or "ethical"...

        The same can be said and done with anything that one person feels is "right" or "wrong"...

        Looks at the LGBT community...Society is slowly changing its stance on that as well...

  9. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago

    we: Pronoun

    - Used to refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category

    I: Pronoun

    Used to refer to oneself.

    Does that help?

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why, when you know someone was right and you were in the wrong, do you continue to attempt to sidestep? You are saying what was obvious in the first place, and what you denied; until too manypeople pointed out for you to continue to pretend you were in the right.

      Why do you do this?

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, many people are not pointing anything out, it is YOU, the one who has some of the worst reading comprehension skills here.

    2. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And which dictionary did you get that from?

      From Dictionary.com:

      we  [wee]  Show IPA
      plural pronoun, possessive our or ours, objective us.
      1.
      nominative plural of I.
      2.
      (used to denote oneself and another or others): We have two children. In this block we all own our own houses.
      3.
      (used to denote people in general): the marvels of science that we take for granted.
      4.
      (used to indicate a particular profession, nationality, political party, etc., that includes the speaker or writer): We in the medical profession have moral responsibilities.



      From merriam-webster.com:

      we pronoun, plural in construction \ˈwē\

      Definition of WE

      1
      : I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you —used as pronoun of the first person plural — compare i, our, ours, us



      Each definition speaks to plural.. meaning more than just one which is a plural pronoun of I..

      Does this help you??

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's what I said, now you can direct your post to Emile, who does not understand.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Really, ATM. You are making a fool of yourself here. I'd move on, and put it behind me; if I were you. We've all posted prematurely, from time to time. Own up.

  10. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    It can be contributed to poor reading comprencion when we read what we ourselves wrote and do no understand that which we have written.

    And yes ... everyone knows that this was a self inclusive remark.  And I don't use spellcheck.

    1. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But "we" did not include ATM, remember?

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I get a kick out of ATM. Sometimes, I think it's a game to see if he  can argue someone into believing the opposite of what makes sense. That's when I'm being charitable.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No Emile, it is your extremely poor reading comprehension skills, which continue to plague these forums time and again.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            lol lol lol lol

            If you think anyone is fooled by this ridiculous argument you are presenting then, again; lol lol lol lol

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        By definition, "we" includes me, but "we" is not solely me. Do you understand yet?

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Everyone understands that. Your reading skills need honing. If you don't know what you means, this explains your problem at this point.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this



            Except you.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That is your delusion ATM. Anyone else reading through this exchange would not be so deluded.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Others here don't have the same reading comprehension problems as you.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Funny, because everyone who has chimed in sees you are wrong. I guess, only those who agree with you can be right. You are never, ever wrong. Your ego is blinding you to reason ATM. I'm laughing.

                  1. 0
                    riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "Funny, because everyone who has chimed in sees you are wrong."
                    When we had a debate and when everyone chimed in saw you as wrong, I never saw you retracting your words and admitting you wrong, but you left the forum with your "obstinance". I guess you are never wrong either.

        2. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am aware that "we" is not solely you and so is Emile. What we are getting at is that you used the term "we" when discussing logic and rationale, but when Emile and I called you out on how arrogant you sounded, you then moonwalked to say that it didn't mean You specifically in an effort to disassociate yourself from your statement.

  11. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    Hush, both of you go to your rooms.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I can't. He's killing me with his obstinance. I fell out of my chair laughing earlier.

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You fell out of your chair? That isn't safe... maybe he should be called A Dangerous Man instead.

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        His use of one word is not worth the discussion. I think we all know what was meant.

        1. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Don't!! Now Beth37 will call you ATM!

        2. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            one shows up and the other disappears.... now he will need a smart phone and a comp. to post at the same time... this is how the best trolls do it.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well,  I think it is their idea of fun. We should all have fun. Don't you think?

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We are having fun... look at us post at the same time... I mean, look at *me post at the same time. I knew there was a reason we thought alike. Emile and I are one and the same. (sigh) Im awfully bored, it's time for lunch and I desperately don't want to go to work today.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You would know.

        3. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hey. I deleted a post. If you saw it, I apologize profusely. I thought I was responding to riddle666.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No I didn't and I'm glad I didn't, I've very sensitive and thanks for the apology. It must have been a zinger.

        4. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps, it's the only argument they believe might muster a win.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            roll

            Petulance does not become you ATM.

 
working