Author Topic: DD  (Read 134 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
DD
« on: August 23, 2020, 09:06:21 AM »
Quote
All Nazi comparisons are are moronic.

Quote
DD, would you be so kind as to share the criteria you are using to support your clam that comparing Nazis to cops and ICE cops is moronic?

Quote
Illuminate The Delusions
Aside from the fact that most purveyors of suck nonsense are fuck-witted?

Quote
DD
I'm sorry. Was my question too hard for you to answer? Or was it to hard for you to understand?
amoeba pix

Quote
Illuminate The Delusions It was neither. I could elaborate for pages and pages. but it would be a waste of precious time given that many who make such claims are among the most mis-educated and enstupidated among us.

Quote
DD
You made a claim.
"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."
It is not my obligation to disprove your claim. I merely asked you: "would you be so kind as to share the criteria you are using to support your clam that comparing Nazis to cops and ICE cops is moronic?"
To which you replied:
"Aside from the fact that most purveyors of suck nonsense are fuck-witted?"
That, Sir, is a non sequitur.
And because of your illustrious (not) posting, I must assume you are clueless as to "The Nuremberg Defense". Lemme help you there:
From my website:
Nuremberg Principles
The term "Nuremberg Defense" was originally coined during the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg after World War II. Nazi war criminals who were charged with genocide, mass murder, torture and other atrocities used the defense "I was only following orders" so frequently that the argument became known generically as "The Nuremberg Defense".
Nuremberg Principle 4
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".
What is law, if not an alleged superior's orders given under alleged authority over you?
"I'm just following orders."
"I'm just doing my job."
"I didn't write the law, I only enforce it."
If you collect a government paycheck, you are paid with money extorted from the government's victims, by law. Please explain how it is that you don't have a moral choice available. This Nuremberg Principle is quite clear, you have duty to disobey orders, commands, and laws you know are wrong. So go get a real job instead of working for, with, or as extortionists.
PAY ATTENTION LEO'S:
Issuing fines disguised as traffic citations is a choice. And that choice you have made is not moral.

Quote
Illuminate The Delusions
I quit reading after your Latin lesson .
Which only validates my mis-educated statemet. But maybe meter maids are equivalent to SS officers.
LOL

Quote
DD, You quit reading...
I'm not surprised.
I get that quite often when I ask questions about beliefs. Especially when my questions highlight the bullshit in the beliefs I am asking questions about.
Thank you for allowing me to practice Socratic Method.

Quote
Illuminate The Delusions
Sorry just off-put by your supreme arrogance.

Quote
DD
There is a difference between nescience and ignorance. You are not nescient.

Quote
Illuminate The Delusions
LOL There is a difference between pretentious vocabulary and intelligence, and you are far from intelligent.

Quote
DD
And yet it is you who can't articulate the criteria you used to make you judgement that, and I quote, *All Nazi comparisons are are moronic.*
You have already admitted to:
Your short attention span;
Your dislike of people who take the time to challenge your claims;
Your dislike of having to read;
Especially if what is presented for you (and others) to read, solidly refutes your narrative.
I have not yet decided if the Dunning - Kruger effect applies to you.
You call my vocabulary "pretentious". English lesson follows. (Now the previous three words ARE pretentious.)
pretentious
adj. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
adj. Showing or betraying an attitude of superiority.
adj. Marked by an extravagant or presumptuous outward show; ostentatious: synonym: showy.
More at Wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
First case, not applicable.
Second case, not until you made the claim.
So now I am deliberately making a show of superiority from my vanity and pride:
In a desktop browser, double left click a word you don't understand, right click the highlighted word, then click the search function in the menu.
Many are nescient of that search procedure. Those who don't know what nescient means, who do not do that search procedure to learn, are ignorant of that search procedure.
Third case, only because you requested such.
ostentatious
adj. Characterized by or given to ostentation. synonym: showy.
Making public display.
Characterized by ostentation; making display or vain show from vanity or pride.
More at Wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
As far as your belief that I lack intelligence...
You don't know what you don't know about me.
Since, on that subject, you, and my your words speak for and paint a picture of me, I'm quite content to have our portraits hung side by side on the FB display wall.
My request still stands: Would you be so kind as to share the criteria you are using to support your clam that comparing Nazis to cops and ICE cops is moronic?

Quote
As I've said . my time is too precious.

Quote
Says the person posting on FB.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2020, 10:49:34 AM by Admin »
Natural Law Matters