You got it. It wasn’t worth the time or energy to even address this thread in an intelligent manner.
Also, pointing out the fact nobody is responding with more detailed answers, (when at least they have given one) but not really responding to the OP’s questions at all looks a little hypocritical. (this is not directed at Roybot)[/quote]
Yep, there is definitely a hefty dose of irony in criticizing the quality of answers before considering the purpose behind the question.
Nominal Prospect’s - oops! I mean Ted Bundy’s question, is the equivalent of giving someone a multiple choice questionnaire, and telling them they can only tick the ‘b’ answers. Not exactly a great basis for a serious debate - but then, that wasn’t the intention.
He has hijacked a proposition written by someone else (which was created to prove the exact opposite of what he is trying to argue) and is dictating to everybody how they can and can’t answer. That is somehow supposed to pass as some kind of dastardly logic trap… I think he is giving himself far too much credit (as usual).
How can anybody be expected to take his question seriously?
Besides, I don’t think that many serial killers sat around on their asses debating the ethics of incest and pedophilia on the internet. Kind of cuts into valuable murdering time, I would have though.
You got it. It wasn’t worth the time or energy to even address this thread in an intelligent manner.
Also, pointing out the fact nobody is responding with more detailed answers, (when at least they have given one) but not really responding to the OP’s questions at all looks a little hypocritical. (this is not directed at Roybot)
Yep, there is definitely a hefty dose of irony in critcizing the quality of answers before considering the purpose behind the question.
Nominal Prospect’s - oops! I mean Ted Bundy’s question, is the equivalent of giving someone a multiple choice questionnaire, and telling them they can only tick the ‘b’ answers. Not exactly a great basis for a serious debate - but then, that wasn’t the intention.
He has ripped off an analogy written by someone else (which was created to prove the exact opposite of what he is trying to argue) and is dictating to everybody how they can and can’t answer. That is somehow supposed to pass as some kind of dastardly logic trap… I think he is giving himself far too much credit (as usual).
How can anybody be expected to take his question seriously?
Besides, I don’t think that many serial killers sat around on their asses debating the ethics of incest and pedophilia on the internet. Kind of cuts into murdering time, I would have though.
Serial killer = fail
Internet genius = fail
[/quote]
I agree with you 100%. He’s just playing stupid games. Imhungry, your right too, it’s not even worth trying to give an inteligent response. Now continue with the funny pictures.