If you post some stupid shit,it’s not incumbent upon me to spoon feed you,now is it?
I don’t have to argue anything.I think the onus is on you to educate yourself before making half baked claims.
If you had prefaced your statement by saying “My opinion is”,instead of spouting off as if it was fact,then I would probably have taken a bit more time to compose a longer post.
I gave it the length of reply it deserved.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I gave it the length of reply it deserved.
[/quote]
…and then some.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
If you post some stupid shit,it’s not incumbent upon me to spoon feed you,now is it?
I don’t have to argue anything.I think the onus is on you to educate yourself before making half baked claims.
If you had prefaced your statement by saying “My opinion is”,instead of spouting off as if it was fact,then I would probably have taken a bit more time to compose a longer post.
I gave it the length of reply it deserved.
[/quote]
And yet you take the time to write all this and you could have produced one sentence as an argument. Posting a link doesn’t prove the validity of an argument – or the lack of one in your case.
I can spout off all I want it doesn’t make what I say less true. I it is completely plausible that what I say is true and given the lack of possible evidence human reason is the only way to know it. No one can go back in time to know history. We must resort to praxeology to know it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
If you post some stupid shit,it’s not incumbent upon me to spoon feed you,now is it?
I don’t have to argue anything.I think the onus is on you to educate yourself before making half baked claims.
If you had prefaced your statement by saying “My opinion is”,instead of spouting off as if it was fact,then I would probably have taken a bit more time to compose a longer post.
I gave it the length of reply it deserved.
And yet you take the time to write all this and you could have produced one sentence as an argument. Posting a link doesn’t prove the validity of an argument – or the lack of one in your case.
I can spout off all I want it doesn’t make what I say less true. I it is completely plausible that what I say is true and given the lack of possible evidence human reason is the only way to know it. No one can go back in time to know history. We must resort to praxeology to know it.[/quote]
So you admit you are only guessing? I think everyone else knew that from your first post.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I can spout off all I want it doesn’t make what I say less true.[/quote]
It doesn’t make it less false either.
You have no proof. None. Nada. Dick. Squat.
Praxeology. You are a Mises whore. And are now trying to apply an economic “science” to dispute human history.
Thanks for playing.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I can spout off all I want it doesn’t make what I say less true.[/quote]
Only because it’s impossible for what you say to be less true.
If we define plausible to mean “certain” and “true” to mean false, then yes.
Or do as you do and use rectal fact-foraging.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I can spout off all I want it doesn’t make what I say less true.
It doesn’t make it less false either.
You have no proof. None. Nada. Dick. Squat.
Praxeology. You are a Mises whore. And are now trying to apply an economic “science” to dispute human history.
Thanks for playing. [/quote]
But neither did necromancer.
Besides it is all secondary to the original subject of this thread which none have answered.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
If you post some stupid shit,it’s not incumbent upon me to spoon feed you,now is it?
I don’t have to argue anything.I think the onus is on you to educate yourself before making half baked claims.
If you had prefaced your statement by saying “My opinion is”,instead of spouting off as if it was fact,then I would probably have taken a bit more time to compose a longer post.
I gave it the length of reply it deserved.
And yet you take the time to write all this and you could have produced one sentence as an argument. Posting a link doesn’t prove the validity of an argument – or the lack of one in your case.
I can spout off all I want it doesn’t make what I say less true. I it is completely plausible that what I say is true and given the lack of possible evidence human reason is the only way to know it. No one can go back in time to know history. We must resort to praxeology to know it.[/quote]
I see you haven’t read the link yet.
If you ever do,get back to me.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I can spout off all I want it doesn’t make what I say less true.
It doesn’t make it less false either.
You have no proof. None. Nada. Dick. Squat.
Praxeology. You are a Mises whore. And are now trying to apply an economic “science” to dispute human history.
Thanks for playing.
But neither did necromancer.
Besides it is all secondary to the original subject of this thread which none have answered.[/quote]
Oh - so get your ass in a crack after leading the tangent parade, and crawl back to the original topic to avoid admitting you are bat shit crazy? You have already tried that tactic before.
But nonetheless - I answered your original question, and you called me a fucking idiot, then redefined several logical fallacies to misapply to my posts.
Maybe this will end this goat screw of a thread.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
If you post some stupid shit,it’s not incumbent upon me to spoon feed you,now is it?
I don’t have to argue anything.I think the onus is on you to educate yourself before making half baked claims.
If you had prefaced your statement by saying “My opinion is”,instead of spouting off as if it was fact,then I would probably have taken a bit more time to compose a longer post.
I gave it the length of reply it deserved.
And yet you take the time to write all this and you could have produced one sentence as an argument. Posting a link doesn’t prove the validity of an argument – or the lack of one in your case.
I can spout off all I want it doesn’t make what I say less true. I it is completely plausible that what I say is true and given the lack of possible evidence human reason is the only way to know it. No one can go back in time to know history. We must resort to praxeology to know it.
I see you haven’t read the link yet.
If you ever do,get back to me.
[/quote]
For all I know you haven’t read it. You are posting something that doesn’t have anything to do with the subject of human cooperation.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
If you post some stupid shit,it’s not incumbent upon me to spoon feed you,now is it?
I don’t have to argue anything.I think the onus is on you to educate yourself before making half baked claims.
If you had prefaced your statement by saying “My opinion is”,instead of spouting off as if it was fact,then I would probably have taken a bit more time to compose a longer post.
I gave it the length of reply it deserved.
And yet you take the time to write all this and you could have produced one sentence as an argument. Posting a link doesn’t prove the validity of an argument – or the lack of one in your case.
I can spout off all I want it doesn’t make what I say less true. I it is completely plausible that what I say is true and given the lack of possible evidence human reason is the only way to know it. No one can go back in time to know history. We must resort to praxeology to know it.
I see you haven’t read the link yet.
If you ever do,get back to me.
For all I know you haven’t read it. You are posting something that doesn’t have anything to do with the subject of human cooperation.[/quote]
That is so fucking disingenous that it defies belief.
Is that really your best shot?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
That is so fucking disingenous that it defies belief.
Is that really your best shot?[/quote]
I am just curious how many more posts you will make without writing one sentence that has anything to so with what you posted.
You can’t even write ONE sentence to prove you read it.
Prove me wrong.
And yes. I read the first three links now and it has nothing to do with any about human cooperation which is why they died off.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
That is so fucking disingenous that it defies belief.[/quote]
Indeed.
Unfortunately, yes.
Don’t waste your time.
Is it just me, or does lift change the topic of his argument very rapidly and randomly?
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Is it just me, or does lift change the topic of his argument very rapidly and randomly?[/quote]
Lifticus has a predictable pattern:
Copy and paste drivel supporting anarchy from a website he read as an answer to a question - any question - on these threads.
Continue to posit absurd abstraction after absurd abstraction, no matter how divorced from reality, in defense of the hole he started digging.
When confronted and refuted, he starts dissembling into a babbling incoherence, changes the subject, and generally gets laughed at.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Is it just me, or does lift change the topic of his argument very rapidly and randomly?
Lifticus has a predictable pattern:
Copy and paste drivel supporting anarchy from a website he read as an answer to a question - any question - on these threads.
Continue to posit absurd abstraction after absurd abstraction, no matter how divorced from reality, in defense of the hole he started digging.
When confronted and refuted, he starts dissembling into a babbling incoherence, changes the subject, and generally gets laughed at.
[/quote]
Apart from being a very useful evolutionary tool (robbing wenches, killing other men’s offspring), interspecies violence also serves as a means to limit growth.
Even an utopian society would face the problem of overcrowding earth at some point.
But really can’t we just return to discussing why north americans are so shy and uptight when it comes to sexytime?
For instance, screwing in public was done in many cultures on a daily basis. The chinese were especially fond of this, even in modern times.
The argument about sheltering the breast makes guys more horny is complete bogus, no matter how you spin it.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Apart from being a very useful evolutionary tool (robbing wenches, killing other men’s offspring), interspecies violence also serves as a means to limit growth.
Even an utopian society would face the problem of overcrowding earth at some point.
But really can’t we just return to discussing why north americans are so shy and uptight when it comes to sexytime?
For instance, screwing in public was done in many cultures on a daily basis. The chinese were especially fond of this, even in modern times.
The argument about sheltering the breast makes guys more horny is complete bogus, no matter how you spin it.[/quote]
Well … the very use of the term “sexytime” suggests to me that you are ONE European that’s not getting much sex. Might I suggest you try the shy and uptight approach …
[quote]rainjack wrote:
4. Redefine words so that they mean what he needs them to mean at that particular moment.[/quote]
Define “redefine”.
“Redefine”-to post stupid shit.