30
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

 
 
Krumple
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 08:58 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
I felt my rebuttal was satisfactory as it was.

Your rebuttal was virtually nonexistent.

Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
I said that your argument was stupid and pointless with more rhetorical flair. Who gives a rats ass what would have happened 2000 years ago? It's pointless to the conversation.

If what happened 2,000 years was Krumple's insane sterilization plan (which you never bothered to divorce yourself from until now), it would have been quite relevant to the conversation. This is because Krumple's plan would have led to the human race's extinction long before now, so this conversation would not be taking place. One would think that a plan, if adopted many generations ago, would have led to the end of the species would constitute a good reason to reject it now, but you fail to see that. Somehow.




Looks like you forgot to post your stupid graph to make your point. Funny how you are such an extremist. Watch out the sky might fall.
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 09:00 pm
@McGentrix,
And now for a special glimpse of your ignorance.
Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
Please demonstrate how you know that 2,000 years ago people were just as smart as they are now.

Really, McGentrix? We started out in Africa with spears, some use of fire and not much else, and yet ancient Homo Sapiens survived, flourished, and brought us to the civilized age. You think they could be inferior to us intellectually and accomplish this?

However, for actual evidence that they were at least equal in intelligence to ourselves, I offer the following:

Cavemen Trump Modern Artists at Drawing Animals
Cavemen Were Better at Depicting Quadruped Walking than Modern Artists:

Paleolithic people living more than 10,000 years ago had a better artistic eye than modern painters and sculptures — at least when it came to watching how horses and other four-legged animals move.

A new analysis of 1,000 pieces of prehistoric and modern artwork finds that "cavemen," or people living during the upper Paleolithic period between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago, were more accurate in their depictions of four-legged animals walking than artists are today. While modern artists portray these animals walking incorrectly 57.9 percent of the time, prehistoric cave painters only made mistakes 46.2 percent of the time.

Modern artists are also worse at capturing the gait of horses and other quadrupeds than taxidermists, anatomy textbook writers and toy figurine designers, the researchers report today (Dec. 5) in the open-access journal PLOS ONE.

http://www.livescience.com/25269-cavemen-better-modern-artists-animal-walks.html

Really McGentrix, you should devote some of your A2K time to researching the past. What our ancestors accomplished in the last 195,000 years is astonishing.





0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 09:06 pm
@Krumple,
Quote Krumple:
Quote:
Looks like you forgot to post your stupid graph to make your point. Funny how you are such an extremist. Watch out the sky might fall.

You are the one advocating massive breaches of basic human rights to stave off what the evidence indicates isn't going to happen.
Krumple
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 09:21 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Quote Krumple:
Quote:
Looks like you forgot to post your stupid graph to make your point. Funny how you are such an extremist. Watch out the sky might fall.

You are the one advocating massive breaches of basic human rights to stave off what the evidence indicates isn't going to happen.


I can take what you said here forbatum and change the topic to the housing bubble before it burst there were a tiny few who were warning about it bursting and people like you said it would never happen, then mocked and ridiculed them for suggesting it could happen.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 09:27 pm
@Krumple,
The point of the graph was, that even in the ages before the concept of human rights were invented, when kings took awful retribution against the inhabitants of the lands they conquered, the concept of sterilizing everyone until they passed some kind of income test was considered entirely monstrous. Even though the whole philosophy of human rights was millenia in the future.

To compare what you are proposing to some temporary economic slowdown simply shows that you have no sense of proportion.
Krumple
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 09:37 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

The point of the graph was, that even in the ages before the concept of human rights were invented, when kings took awful retribution against the inhabitants of the lands they conquered, the concept of sterilizing everyone until they passed some kind of income test was considered entirely monstrous. Even though the whole philosophy of human rights was millenia in the future.

To compare what you are proposing to some temporary economic slowdown simply shows that you have no sense of proportion.


You keep repeating this as if it was an economic issue. No. How many times do I need to say the arguement isnt about just money? Are you dense? Have a learning disability? Or just to stubborn to see it's more than economics. Maybe there is nothing else to you.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 10:03 pm
@Krumple,
Your entire argument is economic in nature. It has nothing else to it except economics. Even the insane proposal itself-sterilize everyone until they can show proof to the state they can support a baby-is economic. There is no way to divorce economics from your entire proposal.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 10:10 pm
@Blickers,
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 10:11 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Your entire argument is economic in nature. It has nothing else to it except economics. Even the insane proposal itself-sterilize everyone until they can show proof to the state they can support a baby-is economic. There is no way to divorce economics from your entire proposal.


Which is why you fail to understand.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 10:20 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Blickers wrote:

Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
I felt my rebuttal was satisfactory as it was.

Your rebuttal was virtually nonexistent.

Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
I said that your argument was stupid and pointless with more rhetorical flair. Who gives a rats ass what would have happened 2000 years ago? It's pointless to the conversation.

If what happened 2,000 years was Krumple's insane sterilization plan (which you never bothered to divorce yourself from until now), it would have been quite relevant to the conversation. This is because Krumple's plan would have led to the human race's extinction long before now, so this conversation would not be taking place. One would think that a plan, if adopted many generations ago, would have led to the end of the species would constitute a good reason to reject it now, but you fail to see that. Somehow.


Jesus, you're still on this crap? Is there a single person on A2K that agrees with, or understands what Blickers is trying to say with the 2000 year thing? Does it make sense to anyone?
Krumple
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 10:32 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Blickers wrote:

Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
I felt my rebuttal was satisfactory as it was.

Your rebuttal was virtually nonexistent.

Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
I said that your argument was stupid and pointless with more rhetorical flair. Who gives a rats ass what would have happened 2000 years ago? It's pointless to the conversation.

If what happened 2,000 years was Krumple's insane sterilization plan (which you never bothered to divorce yourself from until now), it would have been quite relevant to the conversation. This is because Krumple's plan would have led to the human race's extinction long before now, so this conversation would not be taking place. One would think that a plan, if adopted many generations ago, would have led to the end of the species would constitute a good reason to reject it now, but you fail to see that. Somehow.


Jesus, you're still on this crap? Is there a single person on A2K that agrees with, or understands what Blickers is trying to say with the 2000 year thing? Does it make sense to anyone?


2000 years from now he will still be trying to find a way to sneak that graph into any discussion.
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 10:40 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
Jesus, you're still on this crap?

You were still on this crap until a few hours ago. Actually, you're still on this crap. You can't complain that somebody is still on the same crap when you're on the same crap at the same time.

Quote:
Is there a single person on A2K that agrees with, or understands what Blickers is trying to say with the 2000 year thing?

I think most people understand the concept that if 2,000 years ago, when the per capita GDP was under $500 annually we instituted a policy of sterilization with no possiblility of reproducing unless proof of sufficient income to support a baby was introduced, the human race would have gone extinct long ago. If prior extinction of the entire species does not affect Krumple's proposal, I don't know what would.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 10:43 pm
@Krumple,
Quote Krumple:
Quote:
2000 years from now he will still be trying to find a way to sneak that graph into any discussion.

That one graph is one more piece of evidence than you introduced to support your mad scheme of mass sterilization. Which, incidentally, if it was introduced 2,000 years ago would have led to the extinction of the whole human race by now.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 11:12 pm
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 11:47 pm
Can anyone explain forbatim for me?
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 01:06 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Oh my gosh! I misspelled a word!


No, you misspelled a shitload, that's just the one you were told about.

It's about par for the course for Trump supporters.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 04:35 am
Just thinking, if Bernie Sanders could have kicked the Don clean out of the ball park, and his policies were basically the same as Jill Stein is pushing for, then how come Bernie's supporters aren't switching camp to Stein?
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 05:38 am
@Builder,
Many are. The media doesn't report it on Hillary's behalf. I'm voting for Stein.

We're a fascist nation these days. You shouldn't use our nationally-controlled media as an indicator of anything.

http://listverse.com/2016/07/09/10-attributes-of-fascism-in-the-united-states/
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 05:51 am
@Builder,
Because Stein is almost as bad as Trump
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 06:41 am
@Blickers,
Do you think Mrs Hawkeye even had a glimmer of understanding that?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 03:01:15