Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Created:
Posted in:
you can be a great debater and not that important, you also can be a terrible debater and very important.
Again are you reading what you are saying? I never debated your importance. This is also an obvious truism. Someone with a standard can be really good like blamonkey but not really have that much importance like blamonkey given his lack of debates and comments. I don't disagree and this has nothing to do with what I said.
Created:
Posted in:
The egomaniac wouldn't hide their identity
They would. Have you heard of cult-leaders just going to their local news and speaking about their Religion? Oh you haven't. They are self-absorbed as in thinking they are a gift from God so they could decide to start a cult. Please do give the definition of egomaniac or maybe that flew right over your head as well.
and I didn't ask for your thoughts on me. Instead you asked for my thoughts on you.
Did you not read what I said mainly the part where I said "if you want". You chose to stereotype me I mainly wanted to see if your ego was still the same as it was before. I found out it was true.
I can give my thoughts whenever I want to. It is not like there is a rule to stay on topic in forums or maybe there is.
The most ironic part of this is that you lived up to the stereotype that I assigned you.
Not really ironic when you assign this outside my words instead on some personal grudge you have against me so anything I could possibly do would be attributed to me being passively aggressive. Have you heard of the saying if something can explain everything it doesn't really explain anything?
My labels are clearly assigned. You don't provide evidence for your points instead would like people to just believe what you say. A conspiracy theorist which I am sure you understand what it means but you so adamantly refuse to even try to remove that label.
Your ego can be seen your projection of your ability. Nothing you have spoken of isn't likely to have an background in a well-regarded institution but you still say what you say. I guess this must be delusion but I haven't heard you talk about your educational background so you are willfully spouting out stuff without understanding your not an authority.
I'm curious what evidence there is that I am not important to the site or that I lack charisma.
Wait so you are reading what I am saying when it comes to evidence but you refuse to answer it instead push the burden to me?
If we analyse my status in the HoF and how people react to me positively and negatively, I am both important and also charismatic overall.
Quote anything you found that people found you to be charismatic in the HoF or maybe you intentionally missed that because your a conspiracy theorist. I never debated your
importance on this site. You are rank 4th in the forums and you have been in 253 debates.
The thing is that you are one of those people who genuinely finds charm to be offputting so I understand why you don't find me charismatic.
Do you have a degree in psychology? Do you have any information that isn't from your mouth? I am genuinely curious to see this relevant information that you again intentionally missed out.
You're drawn to people who are quiet and timid, which I am not.
Evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
He is the most important because of the sheer numbers but when you actually look at key stats you see he isn't consistent. 65.22% win-rate. Looking at only his 5 most recent losses you will see:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1835/it-is-impossible-to-ban-experimenting-on-of-animals (forfeit)
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1722/the-ontological-argument-is-sound (he did participate but barely)
I don't think it is rare for me to find even more forfeited debates but I guess it doesn't matter if he barely tries only if he participates the most right?
I also very much doubt his utility but all I have his ample way of not using evidence instead saying he is true without actually proving it. I guess this is what you are looking for so I don't really know what to say.
Created:
Posted in:
Here we have RM acting like the person he was and probably always will be. A conspiracy theorist who has a specific idea of someone and not conforming to current way of measuring if it is correct or not. Presenting evidence or accepting what the authorities say. Not really a shame or something enjoyable because you tend to conflate your importance in general. Given the ample of evidence on this site you are not charismatic enough to be a leader of a cult nor clever enough to be an authority about anything you speak about so the whole idea that you purposefully hide your identity to shield you is an ego.
I'm guessing this is a clear sign of me lying and being more passive aggressive right?
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
I was mainly speaking about how we view things but I guess having free will can be part of a person's viewpoint.
Can you demonstrate how a specific standard can be superior to another? If you don't want to answer that how do you answer whether or not we have free will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
1. No
(Don't really like a person being harassed will also be the person who will be carrying out if they are being harassed. Mainly you would have to trust the mods so much they are not using harassment as a form of removing people they don't like in order for the community to buy it but it is probably a good thing but I don't like it)
2. Yes1
(Conflict of interest and it is not the best to thing as a user standpoint. Existing community would know better what they would like and moderators influencing this can ruin users enjoyment on the site. Under assumption they are not stopped by other factors that stop them from picking what they like.
3. Yes2
(Seems like Yes1 is a half step. When removing votes, after the debate has ended, does change who won so why wouldn't you change the rankings to show that?)
4. Yes
(I found DDO through the polling section so that is another way you can find new people.)
5. Abstain
(I use Adblock so there is no point taking my poll for this when I don't even have adverts.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
What are you referring to?
If it was about my last comment it is referring to #32 which is referring to my original comment.
Created:
Posted in:
And what flaws do you have, Mr. Perfection?
Deflection and assuming I see myself as perfect but instead it is a projection from a person like yourself.
This conspiracy theorist has correctly spotted alt abusers,
In what way? By saying a load of stuff without any evidence? Sorta like a conspiracy theorist. I would like to be proved wrong with the evidence you have made publicly aware.
stated that Virtuoso should have taken over as chief moderator from the start,
I'm sorry isn't this an ought claim? Conspiracy theorist claims things are without supporting it with evidence. Please do read your statements before posting it. You might learn it has nothing to do with the claim the other person made.
found more glitches and made more suggestions for site inprovement than most others put together and been willing to admit when he was wrong too.
Nothing to do with you being a conspiracy theorist and I guess this would be considered gish galloping but it didn't really work.
I like this conspiracy theorist, he seems like someone who doesn't need to insult others to feel good about himself.
I see it more of a fact than an insult but to each their own.
You even edited your post and still had these glaring issues. I guess some people just can't be helped.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
We're all technically immortal since the words we write on here will last forever.
I guess the words we use are a representation of us but in order to tie our words here to find a person who said it would require something like a time machine. Sure a really really clever being with really really amazing technology can trace DA's users to the real life person but would they and isn't this stuff very fantastical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If they are innocent, they get freed and paid for the blood we took from them thinking they were guilty. I'd say $100/day in jail and $2000/pint of blood is a fair reward for the falsely accused once they are proven innocent.
I did say you wouldn't want to kill them and the money would be cool but doubtful it would go through unless there is a lot of media presence and protests over someone who is guilty.
Blood donation doesn't kill you.
I did say this but whatever.
My plan is the prisons generate the blood and sell it to whichever hospital needs the blood. If a hospital needs the blood, they contact a prison so the prison can sell them the blood. Blood can be stored for quite some time, although I forgot how long.
Sell? Would this be a private prison?
It would save a comparable amount of lives to UHC, but they would be different people's lives. Still, 60,000 lives saved per year by forcing bad felons to give blood every 2 months. If you need blood to survive in the US, your basically saved under this model.
If your 60k number is true it wouldn't even top the 7th highest cause of the death in the US which is diabetes at around 83k in 2017. Your plan would be cool but in no way provides any help to the leading causes of death like I mentioned above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The Dynamic Squid.
He is banned so I can't ask him why. Did he in the thread give reasons?
I think every politician who supports the death penalty right now, once they hear this idea, they would support this idea instead.
So no one right now.
The only life that we would be infringing upon are the lives of rapists and murderers, and it's not much either; they just give blood every 2 months in addition to life in jail.
Wait this might be a good idea, didn't realize you were getting blood by people who would never be able to be free again but lacks support unless there are politicians who have said anything about this?
I guess the problem I have with this is that what if later on we found out they were innocent but I'm sure the blood donation is not going to kill the person. Another problem I found is that giving a certain date instead of whenever people need blood limits its effectiveness. If a surgery goes bad and you put a 2 month wait on it then it would be less effective than it could be.
Can you rephrase this part since it doesn't make sense?
You've neglected to mention in your last response that this would be a sort of filling a gap in universal healthcare but it won't. Blood donation will help people with blood related issues. Your replacement to UHC will not help people with heart disease, cancer, asthma, stroke, Alzheimer, diabetes, pneumonia, influenza, kidney disease and suicide which this site claims to be the leading causes of death in the US.
If it wasn't clear the top 10 leading causes of death in the US will not be helped by gathering blood from people serving life in prison.
Scrap the value of the human life part I was talking about. I didn't know you were talking about people who were sentenced for life in prison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Not true. Someone called it genius.
Who?
Make them give blood every 2 months to save about as many people as UHC would without modifying the economy.
1) Proof?
2) How many politicians are support this?
3) I'm guessing you have no source to provide this or your saying since giving blood save lives the other lives don't matter because of utilitarianism, not to mention you are reducing the value of a human life making dependent on how many are alike that person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Like how to eliminate the debt
Hasn't literally everyone on this site disagreed with you on your way of removing the debt?
punish murderers and rapists in a utilitarian way that saves more people than UHC.
Do you have an example?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
but I try and spread ideas that I think are good.
Like what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
This dude:
Was the highest position on this site, basically what Virtuoso is now. Said something bad and left.
Link to this final post: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3014-final-post
I think this was the comment he made: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2919-when-utopia-crumbles-live-thread?page=1&post_number=16
My take was that he could've apologized plus not resigned but he did.
RM if it wasn't clear is a conspiracy theorist. His head too far up is own behind to comprehend this and other flaws he has.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Good on you for doing well academically and having pretty much a timetable.
I just checked this:
Found nothing mentioning you on this one. Maybe there is stuff about you in another thread
Created:
-->
@Singularity
Lol the ego you have.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It seems like he has completely lost his mind. Your questions won't really matter since I don't think he is going to respond nor say something that isn't wrong or cryptic.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
So you dont know what integrity is? All the more reason to award no points.
Is this to me? Define integrity.
Here is my idea of it:
Being honest.
It just so happens the conduct vote already has this in mind. Someone agrees to a debate then they don't complete it. The person who forfeited lied about being able to complete the debate so they lose the conduct vote. Someone agreeing to a debate is more than enough to imply they signed up for the entire debate since everything is clearly laid out so they can make an informed decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
I don't think spoilers refers to game mechanics and general feel.
If I spoil to you a new item that adds another way of shooting how is that not spoiling the game?
ive seen enough videos to know that a major change is adrenaline charging vs strategic juggling.
I think the feel is similar but with additions. It is possible to finish the game without the new additions but I don't think it would be fun.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
No, im saying no one wins when otherside forfeits.
He is literally clarifying his claim. I don't understand what you mean? What is it if isn't a claim?
And no, the person left standing at the debate table isnt the winner, only they are recognized for their endurance till the end. They win the integrity, not necessarily the better reasoning or proof of the debate.
What is this more of a mess than a claim? I don't understand how winning integrity but still not having winning on the basis of reasoning isn't a claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
You have played Doom 2016 so you might as well play Eternal.
There isn't too much else to be said and if someone does explain the additions to the game it would be spoilers and not something you can go blindly in experiencing it for yourself.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
1st comment
1st claim:
The integrity of the debate is to explain a view and attempt to convience others of it in a formal setting and approach.
2nd claim:
Since formality is automatically asserted in debates (unless violates rules, or said other wise) why would we accept someone "leaving" as a formal victory?
Your 1st claim is debates are used to convince other people in a formal setting so basically a truism. Your 2nd claim is since both of them agree on being formal someone being informal, as in leaving the debate unfinished, the person who did win shouldn't win?
2nd comment
Claim:
No, im saying no one wins when otherside forfeits.
"When argument is not published by the deadline, the participant automatically forfeits the round and most likely will be punished by the voters."
3rd comment
Claim:
And no, the person left standing at the debate table isnt the winner, only they are recognized for their endurance till the end. They win the integrity, not necessarily the better reasoning or proof of the debate.
They are already voting for the integrity of the non-forfeiture as in ticking the conduct box.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
I think is pretty easy to know that nurses are working a lot more but she said they are not.
Said something like 14 million people will die due to a lockdown leading to another great depression?
Both require astronomical levels of braindeath which I don't think is possible so she has to be lying or trolling.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
How about report this to the police and not make this public? Making this public doesn't support your side in anyway instead sheds doubt on your claim. Imagine an easy death threat case and all I have to do is report it to the police and I guess privately make sure the moderation team is aware of it so they can assist but instead you choose to make this public?
The Russian mafia doesn't care about you and for you to even make this unbelievable claim public shows the ego you have. You make easily debunked COVID-19 claims, mike is part of the Russian mafia? Anyone with a single screw in their head wouldn't take this seriously.
Maybe the case of the boy who cried wolf where he misinforms people all the time and just this one time he is telling the truth the worst happens to him because everyone didn't believe him this time.
I think your lying but you already knew that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
Some handguns are semi auto, but im pretty sure most have a limit to their fire speed regardless of how fast you pull the trigger. Same goes for shotguns. I could be wrong, guns are not an area of expertise.
The difference in firing speed doesn't matter towards calling it a semi-automatic.
A classification we can use instead is high capacity. Even with a fast fire rate, there is a limit to how many people a person can kill if they have to stop and reload after 6 shots.
Better for sure since conservatives can't literally talk the surface level to argue against the point but they would be parroting their idols talking points like on pretty much any other issue.
This high capacity magazine limit has already been set in nine states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
Beto: Yes, banning semi autos is a democratic position. If we ban ARs, but shotguns and handguns are still legal... are guns banned? No.
An AR can be a semi-automatic but other guns fit into that category as well.
A semi-automatic refers to when however much you hold down the trigger only a single bullet comes out. This means shotguns and handguns fit into the category.
Semi-autos account for almost all guns since fully-automatics barely exist to the public your first sentence would pretty much be an entire gun ban.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So we are morally obligated to make millions and millions continue to suffer in the current broken system instead. You are advocating sacrificing the many to help the few.
Even if this is true less suffering is better than more suffering. Biden offers that. Trump offers more suffering. By you not voting for Biden you are okay with the increase in suffering thus admitting you don't actually care about suffering.
The difference appears to be that my concern extends further than the next 4 years.
Oh wait you think Biden is lying about his climate plan and you don't actually care about people, only after 4 years of suffering and even then you don't care until they agree with you. This is selfish.
Electing Biden takes away that symptom but allows the disease to continue to ravage america.
Accepting this means you must vote for Biden. If you don't then you don't care about reducing harm. Your virtue signalling as if you do.
electing biden doesn't do that though. You just make that evil slightly less obvious. The dems and their corruption are the reason we have trump in the 1st place. He is the symptom of their decades of failed policy. Unless that policy is fixed, then electing biden is just a stall and we will get someone worse.
Biden is better on abortion, healthcare, gun control, trans rights, concentration camps, climate change, supreme court justices and more. Your selfish and you actually want people to suffer because he isn't doing enough of what you want even though it is better than Trump.
Voting for biden is the best choice for the next 4 years. After that point, the pendulum will swing back to whatever crazy person replaces trump. maybe even trump for a 2nd term
More of your predictions just like how Bernie was going to be elected but he didn't. You should really take a step back and understand you have a lot to learn but I guess virtue signalling is going be in the way of that.
Voting for biden puts off problems, it fixes nothing.
Even if this is true putting off problems is better than continuing and increasing on said problems which is what Trump is doing. Your just a bad person at this point willfully acknowledging harm Trump has done yet doing nothing about it instead telling everyone else to wait 4 more years of suffering and vote for my candidate and if they don't have another 4 years of suffering. Thankfully people like you are a minuscule part of the party and useless which has shown to be the case with Bernie's election "success".
If your next comment isn't I will vote for Biden then I will be as absent as the Bernie supporters.
Created:
-->
@Alec
If this does happen what is the worst that can happen?
You won't be allowed on Facebook and DA?
If there is more like abuse or something else that you should gather evidence. Seek legal advice.
The positives of course is well you are living free so you can exploit this by doing what you like or use that time to learn what you want to do with your life discuss with your parents on if they will release you and if they don't search up on how to do it.
I think there is a part you are not telling us and that is okay (you don't have to tell us anything since we will not be defending you nor are the best people to give advice) but I don't think it is likely that you will be conservatee under those conditions.
Best case scenario: Your parents love you, they are looking out for you. they will release you when you both agree you are ready and everything will be okay.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I would be ok with the democratic party actually trying to represent the people. At the moment they steadfastly refuse to do that. I would rather Biden lose and the democratic party actually take a look at itself and reform.
You do know you are being selfish right? Your an accelerationist which is a problem for the people in the concentration camps, trans rights being on hold, abortion, any semblance of a climate change approach plus more.
Why don't you care about the people instead virtue signal as if you do?
I guess you are too well off to actually be impacted by these issues so you are just going to sit and wait for 4 years posturing as if you did good when in fact you didn't prevent bad from occurring. Arrogance and the inability to understand this is mind-blowing for me but I am talking to a person who wouldn't vote for Biden against Trump thus cancelling a right wingers vote.
Any sound reasoning has flew right over your head. Here is what you clearly miss:
We ought to reduce the level of evil in the world
It will be a race between Biden and Trump
Trump is more evil than Biden therefore by voting for Biden you are reducing the evil around the world
Voting for Biden is the best option
Failing to do this means you don't care about reducing evil
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The Biden amendment would need to curtail the First Amendment, which guarantees Americans “the freedom of speech.” In its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court affirmed that spending money on a political campaign is a constitutionally protected exercise of that right.you quoted that, it speaks for itself along with his desire to remove the 230, how many examples do you need?
I already showed you how the 1st amendment is not threatened by Biden but you refuse to listen? This is not on me.
here's some ironyFormer Vice President Joe Biden didn't hesitate to lecture liberals over their eroding support for free speech this week.even he admits what the liberals are doing, mind you that was in 2017 and he's moved much further left since then.
So now we are talking about Biden in 2017? I guess you must be filled with examples of Biden removing rights when you have to go to 2017 about Biden lecturing liberals on free speech. Oh wait this has nothing to do with Biden removing rights.
again more eroding of rights, not just the 2a, but the 4th and the 5thlet's not forget he is going to let Beta O'Rourke run his gun policy.hardly seems pro constitution.
Isn't it on you to quote what he says is unconstitutional instead of giving me a link and expecting me to read the entire thing when only one line can be relevant? I also like how Bet O'Rourke is being added in? And we switched from free speech to guns. I guess you fail to say anything so now you are just dumping everything you have. It is not a lot and I guess you should do better but I guess you don't really know that if this is the best you got for Biden removing rights. If this isn't the best you got why give me all this when all you need is one link and a quote?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So, blow the whole idea off?
Not implied if you were paying attention. Remember I targeted the risk-free part not your idea as a whole. Please do actually attack the point instead of some strawman you made.
How does anyone control what someone else does to them?
If you don't factor that in that is on you but I did. How could you possibly leave out outside intervention? You should also know something cannot be risk-free and I gave one example on why that is the case but that flew right over your head and I'm guessing this will too.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I think is all you got and you are going to generalities now?I think his intent (and people like him) is clear, constantly erode rights (or try at the very least) and assert more government control over the citizens. In instances like this, what you don't hear is a public outcry for this type of censorship, this is all his doing, his desire.
Do you want to talk about generalities if you do please make it clear to me since I said bring me something that says Biden said he wants to remove rights but you couldn't deliver.
Now if your claim was that Biden doesn't want money in politics then I would agree but I wanted to know what rights he was going to remove or change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
100% abstinence is 100% successful in avoiding pegnancy.
Restraining yourself can only go far. What if you got raped?
RM saying 100% doesn't mean you use something unimaginable as in something being risk-free.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The Biden amendment would need to curtail the First Amendment, which guarantees Americans “the freedom of speech.” In its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court affirmed that spending money on a political campaign is a constitutionally protected exercise of that right.
Didn't say anything about the above part because you want me to clarify on his behalf when all I wanted to know the intent of Biden on removing rights.
The 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
A petition doesn't require money it can be done by protesting or you know not voting for politicians until they meet demands.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"Biden wants 230 revoked because he thinks Facebook has dangerous ideas.
Is this a right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheJackle
I am reading some debates, and it is like everyone is trying to out word each other, and piss on each other with big words.
I try to and I think I do well at not using big words.
Vaccines are safe... No word games are gonna disprove that.
But this is not true. There are people dumb enough to believe vaccines don't work. They have been convinced through words.
My point exactly. Why reference or use a word from page 150 in volume 7 when a simple better known word works just as well.A bunch geeks trying to jack off on big words. Have a simple down to earth conversation. Debates should be like sitting down and having a beer, not like an admission test for the underground geek association.Nice to see you promote your granddaughter making words up. That should suit her well here.
I like what your saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Maybe but you can't use the past as a great example. I don't think DA has reached its $35 goal ever on this site.im sure alot of us would be willing to donate money towards adding in polling or even helping you work on it
Look at the 8 comments below it and clicking on the names:
Wylted, SteveT are still donating whereas Not Telling isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
Google docs, Word or literally any other website that you can type stuff and save.Save arguments. C'mon, I can't research the longest arguments in one sitting.
Opinions/Polls should be added, but chiefly for the moderators to know how the users should do. Only people with voting privileges can create polls and opinions and any offensive/spam answers/questions shall be removed by Virtuoso or Ragnar.
Ask DebateArt.com
Voting leaderboard. All spam and offensive votes are not to count.Judges leaderboard. All span and offensive votes are not to count.
Ask the mods.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
In a December interview published Jan. 17, Biden told The New York Times that Section 230 “should be revoked because (Facebook) is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”
What right is Biden supposedly breaking?
One person is more than enough and since he is the frontrunner no point talking about the others.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
imo intent is what really matters
What does intent mean?
How are you finding out someone's intent?
Pick a Democrat's intent on taking rights away.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Are you going to vote for Biden?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The only thing close to a Bernie "brat" on this site is HistoryBuff so you should only be asking him.
Created:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Tell me a single right that the left is supposedly taking away.
Created:
Posted in:
@SupaDudz
The fact that you are defending someone who has been banned for harrassment and constantly alt-making, which is a violation of the CoC is extremely sad.
I wasn't against punishments just the way he was punished:
"Just ban him from using the forums."
Please keep lying to yourself.
You are not the victim.
How is this about me? This is about Salixes. The delusion is real.
You act like the victim, which people respond with calling you out. You haven't received an unfair, or an unjust ban.
Are you okay? I am not Salixes. Please read our names or better yet, look we have different pictures.
I have the freedom to comment wherever I want at the moment without your hateful attitude
Guess you a free to use your lack of brain cells the way you want. It doesn't mean you should but I think I am confusing you too much already.
You are the one that started targetting me. You use to fanboy over me. You were on my side: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2488/sad-day?page=1&post_number=4
I said it once and I'll say it again. You are better than Dr.Franklin. That is all I said. You okay or did you read more into it?
I called you out for spamming (which I did for DrF). After that, you seemed to hate me, despite the fact I brought you to DART by bringing you from DDO when it was in hell seeing you were active.
You shouldn't have for both spamming and bringing me here. You spammed so you are a hypocrite and DART is clearly a more functional yet riddled with the same problems. Literal yes men patting each other on the back instead of arguing. We see this in the Religion forum. Barely anyone challengers only yes men.
I have never went out of my way to pick on you. I have debates with you before the feud, but they were not me picking on you. Then you brang up this harassment thing which was entirely wrong. I responded polite-fully, which you witch hunted me, forced my ban on a neutral thread about attractive women, and targeted me. You call for my despise all the time, and have no sense of respect, humility, or compassion toward anyone.
Of course I wanted you banned but I should've known there was nothing I could do to actually have you banned instead of the weak ban Virtuoso gave you because he likes you.
The neutrality of the thread doesn't matter please read through what Virtuoso said or maybe you do know and you are lying.
I done countless hours of charity with the church and without.
Countless of hours wasted that you will never get back.
I was helping out starving refugees in the island of Chios.
And insulting refugees to make up for all the good you did.
I donated countless money charities, have volunteered in soup kitchens, and various other things. Not every conservative is some hateful, venomous person like you believe them to be. I don't boast my charity often because I don't need too. NO ONE ON THIS SITE besides Wylted has bullied you. I don't understand why how you believe that I have attacked you
What does bullying have to do with this? I call people out for things I dislike. I never knew a debating platform was so afraid of a counter argument but here we are speaking about you thinking I attacked you as if I gave actual critiques that you couldn't even manage to comprehend with whatever is in your skull. Sure I might've insulted you but that was justified because what you typed came from your skull.
You are the one who attacks me, but Nihilism vows to not care about the feelings of others and go on with life, which is extremely ironic.
Vows? It isn't some sort of cult like Christianity. It is simply there is no objective meaning in life. That is all. I am not shocked by this since you do label atheism with things that are not it by definition so it isn't surprising your a liar.
I try to be a positive force, but you seem to spread negativity on this site, which has been quoted various times. You can't take criticism, and your ironic "am I gonna be banned?" posts serve nothing but to ruin your credibility and really self contradicting. If you think something you say will get you banned, then don't say it!
A positive force from such a stupid ideology means absolutely nothing and I thought my username had nihilism attached to it. I can take criticism not dumb shit spewed by dumb people. When I say something I don't think to myself will I get banned I just say what I think. I know it must be easy to skirt the line for you but I don't care about that stuff.
So TRN, if you care to even listen. I have not harassed you. I have not bullied you. I do not have a cult where I respect only conservatives on this site. I respect liberals such as oromagi, Virtuoso, semperfortis, RationalMadman, who prevent key arguments and respect their opponents. You show no respect to staff, or anyone you disagree with. I disagree with you on many beliefs, but I respect what you have to say, even if it is derogatory and border line false. I respond to defend my belief. And if you didn't like what I have to say, don't respond and give one liners.
Who said you harassed me or bullied me? Are you losing your mind? Are you taking about past occasions that I have clearly forget about but you haven't? You should move on since I don't spend any of my time thinking about whatever that it is you are. I show respect to whoever I want.
Don't call me someone who shows no emotions.
? You have completely lost your mind. Guess you might be mixing me up with someone else because I didn't say this.
If anyone ever contacted me and wanted to talk about life, I would be open to hear. I wouldn't exclude anyone despite what they believe if they are struggling. I think everyone here would do the same thing. To call Conservatives heartless, simply isn't correct
I have called cult followers heartless? Stupid or other words towards that would be something I would say. About hearts, their heart is a very wrong place.
I would say this is very weird coming from you but I don't really know you. Hopefully you are mixing me up with someone else instead of I'm in your mind so much that you have created an elaborate image of me. You should get help if it is the second one.
Your a moron and I don't care enough about you nor I don't think I will in the future to change that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
What is this?
I still don't know.
Are you going to tell me this time?
Created: