Re: Condi Rice pulls a Nixon

On May 10, 11:39 pm, TravIsGod <travis...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
What?

You heard me.K-E-A-N-U

Do you understand propositional logic?  I did not say A = B.

I simplified to ab\void getting the debate further bogged down, as you
are trying to do as lawson did, and for the same sad reason he did.

One is for the death penatly or one is against it....sure, one can
sepratly debate when its enfored as all cases are different, but what
is not different is the central question of whether the government may
put its citizens to death.

WTF does this irrelevant thing have to do with the matter at hand?
Are you trying to reduce this to a moral question?

What the hell else is the matter of torture? he wrote that we shouldnt
do it cause we are supposed to be better than them.How am i supposed
to take that?

If we argue each point in every debate it gets nowhere.i am tryimg to
allow kirk to see how foolish his side is by using the logic he uses
in one case and applying it to a seperate case.i wouldnt do this but
he did not say he was gainst water boarding IN THIS CASE, he said he
was against water boarding.
if you dont think then then it is within the realm of plausible
debvate for me to cross examine him on theroetical cases and whether
hed be for in in that case and expect him to answer it or to conceed
the arguement then you are a fool.and a bad lawyer.

LOL.  WTF are you gonna tell me about the law now, Moron?

That you are like other lawyers.You use as many words as you can think
of while trying to say as little as possible.

Your "cross examination" is irrelevant.  Your thesis is irrelevant.
Ignoratio elenchi, I already explained this to GDS in another fuckin
post.

You think i read that ***? I go on here to rant, and maybe spread
pearls of wisdom not read some confused *** with anger managment
issues blowahrd posts which all add up to "please think something of
me so i can use it and try and heklp with my narsistic personality i
got developed when mommy never hugged me"

Yes, you, like most idiots think that if you construct a hypothetical
that specifically directs an irrelevant conclusion that you have won a
debate.  You construct false dilemmas, use red herrings, strawmen, and
any of a number of logical fallacies.  You're not clever and you're
not a good debater.

Well then why not answer the hypothetical? youre like the guys i know
who say "i train mma fighters, i live all around the mma community,
but i wont fight cause if i did id go to crazy and get DQd.Theyre
really saying "im scared" and you and he are scared to tolerate my
supposedly irrelevant premise.Ask me *anything*, ill answer and tell
you why it doesnt apply.Just dont ask about your moms sexlife unless
you really wanna know.
Why tear apart my question when you MUST know in not answering it you
are saying more than excuses ever can.The manly thing to do if you and
he are so smart is just asnwer it, surely you then are too bright for
me and can easily negotiate your way out of my childish trap? No.You
cant.
And you know it.More to the point, so does he.Nice job letting trav do
the fighting for you here too lawson.m,aybe he'll help you out next
time the wife gets horny.

So what, if GOD HIMSELF told you to torture this guy...you have
NOTHING that is probative of ANY larger premise, you have nothing.

Then anwwer.

You're going to THEN think that you can use a slippery slope to back
your way into general justification of torture where God Himself did
NOT tell you to torture this particular individual??

If it pleases me, yes.

Like I said, spend less time jacking off and spend more time learning
logic.

I could jack off and juggle baseballs while i annhiliate any point you
make.

No, you don't.  You're an amateur in every sense of the word.

An amatuer thats jacking off while kicking your ass.

 You
CANNOT use induction to justify your main thesis by building a
peppercorn on a hypothetical constructed from false lemmas!

Sure cant, as long as you guys are too scared to try me.Pussies.

 The
metaphysical certainty of the "billions" and guilt of the person in
custody is an IMPOSSIBLE lemma.  It has no validity in the real world,

So? you cant fly either yet if i ask a question in which you have the
powers of superman you have stated no reason at all why it cant be
useful in making a point.Again, posted alot about lemma and
matephysical certainties and jacking off, but you never actually said
why i cant do these things.You are the kid saying "no fair, you
traveled" while playing backyard BBall.Im the kid ignoring you and
dunking anyways.Thgis aint a court of law, i say your moms fat ass is
admissible.We play by RMA rules not legalistic bull***.

dickhead!  You may as well start quantifying angels on pinheads and
use THAT to justify your position.

Cant if you dont allow for a hypothetical cause you guys know if you
go on record actually posting anything ill eat u alive, so in place we
get boring rants illustrating how smart you are.Suggesting "dont mess
with me, i use big legal words".WELLLL....i already AM messing with
you, now are we gonna do this or are you gonna take your ball and go
home?

 This is what I meant by the A
implies B statement before.  You are making a classic logical fallacy
and you think, like most idiots that do this, that somehow you are
witty and intellectually dextrous when you are just doing the same
stupid *** that liberals do.

They dance around the meat of the question babbling about whats right
and feelings.Im right here saying "bring it bitch".AND on top of that
im just jerking off, i dont actually have a strange mans *** in my
ass so im not very like liberals at all.

.