Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Seeking A Serious Category And Board For...
Seeking A Serious Category And Board For...
By usa360
3 Jan 2024 8:25 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
3 Jan 2024 11:12 am
Who determines this?
Who determines this?
Who determines this?
Who determines this?
Who determines this?usa360 » 03 Jan 2024, 10:17 am » wrote: ↑ and propaganda are not apart of free speech in my opinion.
So you want to impose ORDER.usa360 » 03 Jan 2024, 10:17 am » wrote: ↑ They are forms of chaos and destruction and provide no good service to our society or mankind as a whole.
Who determines this? WHOSE "order"?
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
3 Jan 2024 11:14 am
It sure as **** sends YOUR kind scurrying, rodent.R.Suave » 03 Jan 2024, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑ Oblige your correspondent to post his/her Rules of Engagement and to stipulate to abide by them.
That will clear this room, in a heartbeat.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
3 Jan 2024 11:14 am
Point to where he said it was, fruitcake.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
3 Jan 2024 11:16 am
You have a rather unsavory choice of friends.HarveyMushman » 03 Jan 2024, 11:06 am » wrote: ↑ The last time I saw such a forum was in the days of the ARPANET, for its commercialization and morphing into the Internet destroyed the existence of electronically-based dialectics. Yesterday, I registered here hoping to find "intelligent and challenge-solving discussions," Best of luck to you, my friend.
That fruitcake yearns for a government censorship board with broad powers to shut down speech.
Just imagine trying to debate with a truncated universe of ideas and beliefs. It would be double-plus bad.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
3 Jan 2024 11:17 am
The runs the other way...
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
3 Jan 2024 11:18 am
That is why he wanted to argue it.
He doesn't have the balls to argue what people actually say.
But he's a master debater against straw men.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
3 Jan 2024 11:19 am
And "blue moons" only come around once every two to three years.R.Suave » 03 Jan 2024, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑ Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would satisfy a definition of "misinformation".
In other unrelated news, PUPPIES have once again been voted the "cutest things" by soccer moms...
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
3 Jan 2024 11:23 am
It goes PAST that. I have educated people on how to research science - only to have them spew talking head science and bureaucracy science to "refute" my actual references to science. When the informal comments of this or that association or talking head are used to "refute" my references to peer reviewed science abstracts - AFTER I have educated the the person doing this, - it is clear that incapacity is not the culprit. Dishonesty is.impartialobserver » 03 Jan 2024, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑ Good luck with trying to have constructive discussions without trolls and hecklers rocking the proverbial boat. There are a few (2 to 4) who can do so but most can't or won't. Some of it is that most simply have opinions and have no idea how to research and use primary sources or quantify their claims.
What the OP wants is a world wherein we are DISALLOWED from referencing unapproved science - that is, science coming from anywhere by the ministry of truth.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
3 Jan 2024 11:23 am
ConsRule » 03 Jan 2024, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑ Question answered...see, that wasn't so difficult.
From a legal standpoint, you could not be more incorrect. From a political standpoint, it depends on the audience. From a whiny *** liberal viewpoint, you are...in my opinion...100% correct (unless, of course, the misinformation is coming from a source liberals like...then it's just a case of them misspeaking).
No, it isn't....makes me wonder why you can't...see, that wasn't so difficult.
show me....From a legal standpoint, you could not be more incorrect
Not really....dying at enormous cost to society because you're a slack jawed rube is not a "political" stand, it's a tragic consequence of the absence of moron eating predators.From a political standpoint, it depends on the audience.
That's objectively true.
Hold of on that queefing until you're doing the answering, bitch.From a whiny *** liberal viewpoint
3 Jan 2024 11:23 am
Charming.
3 Jan 2024 11:26 am
Cannonpointer » 03 Jan 2024, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑ It goes PAST that. I have educated people on how to research science - only to have them spew talking head science and bureaucracy science to "refute" my actual references to science. When the informal comments of this or that association or talking head are used to "refute" my references to peer reviewed science abstracts - AFTER I have educated the the person doing this, - it is clear that incapacity is not the culprit. Dishonesty is.
What the OP wants is a world wherein we are DISALLOWED from referencing unapproved science - that is, science coming from anywhere by the ministry of truth.
So, in short, they are lazy. They could research a topic beyond their comfort zone but are choosing not to. I find that a lot of what folks claim to be evidence can't be proven. It is largely filling in the blanks and then blasting away and calling names because I do not buy into their filling in the blanks.
3 Jan 2024 11:43 am
Maybe, sort of.impartialobserver » 03 Jan 2024, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑ So, in short, they are lazy. They could research a topic beyond their comfort zone but are choosing not to. I find that a lot of what folks claim to be evidence can't be proven. It is largely filling in the blanks and then blasting away and calling names because I do not buy into their filling in the blanks.
The job of properly structuring the debate from the onset lies with the OP. Poorly framed topics will get lazy replies. Snarky, assuming topics will draw sarcastic replies. Esoteric topics will generally get Crickets.
3 Jan 2024 11:46 am
Skans » 03 Jan 2024, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑ Maybe, sort of.
The job of properly structuring the debate from the onset lies with the OP. Poorly framed topics will get lazy replies. Snarky, assuming topics will draw sarcastic replies. Esoteric topics will generally get Crickets.
the ones that are doomed to fail are those where you can tell that the OP is just looking for affirmation.. Examples are
1. Prove that xyz is good
2. xyz happened because of something that can't be proven
3. xyz is good and is of value to life.
3 Jan 2024 11:46 am
I don't believe a word you posted. Challenge solving is denial or solving challenges are resolutions to eternal conflicts each added generation gap repeating same arguments every generation corrupting ancestries since dawn of civilization?usa360 » 03 Jan 2024, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑ ...intelligent and challenge solving discussions without the rhetoric and the slanderous defamation. I will reply to mature statements, remarks and responses but never to juvenile or mean spirited remarks and or flaming feedback.
3 Jan 2024 11:49 am
Are you referring to usa360 as the one who "yearns for a government censorship board with broad powers to shut down speech," Cannonpointer?Cannonpointer » 03 Jan 2024, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑ You have a rather unsavory choice of friends.
That fruitcake yearns for a government censorship board with broad powers to shut down speech.
Just imagine trying to debate with a truncated universe of ideas and beliefs. It would be double-plus bad.
3 Jan 2024 11:49 am
you might be in the wrong placeusa360 » 03 Jan 2024, 10:17 am » wrote: ↑ One can hope I guess. Surely there are more than a handful of serious political thinkers on this forum. There are a lot of members according to the forum stats. It would be nice to have the administration create a specific board for serious political thinkers and ban or remove all flamers and all slanderous content from it as it appears keeping it strictly serious and non abusive. Misinformation, conspiracy theories, promotion of lies, hate speech and propaganda are not apart of free speech in my opinion. They are forms of chaos and destruction and provide no good service to our society or mankind as a whole. I will continue to believe there are good and decent people willing to create a progressive future rather than a chaotic one and I know there are some one this forum as well. Patients is paramount.
threads go to **** in quick order here
and free speech is not based on your opinion
speech doesn’t get any more free than this place
good luck
3 Jan 2024 11:53 am
You're right - they don't know how to structure a premise. Some of the better debate topics will be 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment freedom of speech or even so-called freedom of religion (establishment clause), Abortion and Capital punishment. There is enough ambiguity and plenty of nuance to be discussed and debated.impartialobserver » 03 Jan 2024, 12:46 pm » wrote: ↑ the ones that are doomed to fail are those where you can tell that the OP is just looking for affirmation.. Examples are
1. Prove that xyz is good
2. xyz happened because of something that can't be proven
3. xyz is good and is of value to life.
But, these topics have been beaten to death. The Israel-Hamas war presents lots of facts and lots of misinformation to be batted around. I wish someone could develop a premise to debate concerning physics or the structure of intelligence. Too "esoteric" I know.
3 Jan 2024 11:54 am
Child Groomer, Sexual Predatorimpartialobserver » 03 Jan 2024, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑ Good luck with trying to have constructive discussions without trolls and hecklers rocking the proverbial boat. There are a few (2 to 4) who can do so but most can't or won't. Some of it is that most simply have opinions and have no idea how to research and use primary sources or quantify their claims.
3 Jan 2024 11:55 am
3 Jan 2024 11:58 am
Know you don't wish someone could develop a premise of physical absolutes intellectual minds never accept as self evident evolving when they themselves exist as eternally separated evolving as displaced one at a time in series parallel spontaneously here, simultaneously sharing adapt or become extinct living conditions regardless which species, ancestral lineage, generation gap occupying time now.Skans » 03 Jan 2024, 12:53 pm » wrote: ↑ You're right - they don't know how to structure a premise. Some of the better debate topics will be 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment freedom of speech or even so-called freedom of religion (establishment clause), Abortion and Capital punishment. There is enough ambiguity and plenty of nuance to be discussed and debated.
But, these topics have been beaten to death. The Israel-Hamas war presents lots of facts and lots of misinformation to be batted around. I wish someone could develop a premise to debate concerning physics or the structure of intelligence. Too "esoteric" I know.
Who is online
In total there are 4386 users online :: 12 registered, 16 bots, and 4358 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, Buck Naked, Buffalo, ROG62, RebelGator, FJB, Beekeeper, jerra b, SouthernFried, nefarious101, sole
Bots: ADmantX, aiohttp, TTD-Content, Not, MicroMessenger, proximic, DuckDuckBot, CriteoBot, DuckDuckGo, YandexBot, Mediapartners-Google, Googlebot, Applebot, facebookexternalhit, curl/7, bingbot