Random Politics & Religion #00

That seems to be your favorite catchphrase.

How about showing that I misuse words instead of using that catchphrase? Oh wait, that requires you to post an actual definition backed by common knowledge, not some rewrite you make to help your point and easily dismissed as bunk.

He should know the definition the best, since he uses it so often, right?

I was looking for a new catchphrase...

In order to be deflecting something I'd actually have to have not addressed the issue at hand.

See like when Rav stated that I would accuse him being defensive in order to deflect it I would have had to ignore it and do something like you guys do and just call you deflectors and shift attention off of myself and back on to you or something elese. Instead I clearly showed the both of you that Rav himself said he was being defensive, right there in black in white.

Nausi also stated that I would accuse Rav of having secret racist thoughts lol... I have never accused Rav or anyone else here of being racist or having secret racist thoughts. this is a case of someone projecting another argument on to me to try and make some kind of silly statement against me. Again I replied by telling you that I haven't, wouldn't and if you can show me where I did please show me where I called rav a racist or of having secret racist thoughts.

Though I'm sure you will just sit there and scoff at the screen with some kind of smug sense of superiority because you don't actually understand or care and just hope to push some kind of silly argument that makes no sense.

So, by your own definition, you are deflecting when you state this:


Thanks for finally admitting that you were deflecting.

Oh look, somebody scoffing at the screen with some kind of smug sense of superiority because he doesn't actually understand what he is saying

Are you sure you're not HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE or something?

And there's Flavin Deflection #774

smh...

My money is on aspurgers.

I'll take that bet, that I don't have that.

How much do you want to lose? Might as well make the check out to me.

You guys are trying so very hard. It'd be cute if it you weren't adults.

Casually posting quips on a video game forum is trying hard? That's not very bootstrap, good sir!

Take bieber and Celine back first!

Not sure about all that. I'll give you credit for Red Green, though.

I'm offensive and I find this very...very...mentally challenging !

So P and R what did you do today. I spent most of the day sitting in a corner with a smug sense of satisfaction. The satisfaction only achieved by arguing on the internet !

Your idea of what personal responsiblity is, is a joke.


People who weren't alive or were unable to vote should take their lumps and deal with bad living conditions in a city because one political party was in charge over another over the course of decades because to you -not according to law, but according to Nausi-

"Authority" (or political party) somehow absolves a person from their actions.

But if a person knowingly travels while infectious, well, that's everyone elses problem because it's in public.

you all are hilarious

Just got done a few hours ago writing a 9 page piece on how gender inequality influences feminine consumer habits and advertising tactics. APA Style.

They needed it within 24 hours hence my absence here. They paid pretty well for it too.

I marched in Baltimore...well actually that isn't true...I used a motorized wheelchair to roll on Baltimore !

God only knows how long you were digging to find all that (lol). Really, I'm honored. To the notion of personal responsibility, I'll ask again since you elected to not answer:

"Are you responsible for the fact that I don't have the antibodies to something you may have already gotten over?"

Is it part of your moral code to not get anyone else sick ever? Do you even think that it's possible to do that? Live a life in which you never pass a microbe to anyone else? The answer of course which you're too scared to say is "No, of course not, Nausi. That's pretty unreasonable."

You're a joke.

To the other point where you take a "chain of command" reference and grossly misapply it so it gives you something to freak out about. What are you saying, that because I think military officers are ultimately responsible for actions of their subordinates, it therefore means that no one in Baltimore is justified in rioting?

Biggest strawman ever. WOW! I thought Flavin couldn't be topped, but there we go. Congrats, you're my new favorite!

No one in Baltimore is justified in rioting period. The authority of the Baltimore government does not absolve it's citizens of their own actions to riot. If they are unhappy living in squalor and allegedly getting beat up by their own cops they should, you know, elect better politicians who will implement different policy, and enforce the law. But they won't do that, because they monolithicly vote democrat.

I gotta plus that. It's too good.

Google "ffxiah ebola personal responsiblity". Your honor takes one second to buy.


If you knowingly endanger others (as in travel when you know you are contaigious), that is a choice you have made to put their welfare below your travel plans.

There is a vast difference from unknowingly traveling with an illiness while you are contagious. To intentionally traveling while sick.

Maybe it is the right choice for you at the time, but it is a deliberate act on your part. Any problems associated with it is partly or directly your responsiblity. As in, you are partly or directly responsible for others distress, lossed wages, companies to exceed project deadlines, etc.

Are you one of those "diligent employees" who goes to work knowingly sick, gets everyone else sick, and helps cost your company money and time?

/soedgy.jpg

Your "chain of command" reference was not taken out of context. The entire conversation was about "authority" (specifically CDC somehow in charge of hospitals) and you chose to use a military example.

For that matter "just following orders" has not been a legally justified excuse for a long time.

Talk about strawman. I never said any of this drival. You are the one claiming the Democrat party is the one responsible for all the problems. Since you forgot what you wrote:

Somehow the problem is that cities "under democrat rule" are this way because of the political party involved.

Which directly leads to your next statement.


Where you again state that voting for a different political party will make everything better. Rather than making sure the asshat humans (who I'm 99.9% sure are both Democrats, Republicans, and somewhere inbetwen) who break the law and beat their citizens go to jail.

I'm sure states/cities that are "ruled" by Republicans have perfect law abiding politicians and police.

No, to you, the Democrats are the ones to be blamed rather than the individuals involved. Because -Ishtar forbid- you hold a cop responsible for their actions.

Never seen him say the cop should not be held responsible. Just sayin....




Maybe you should take the time and see what party has a habit of running cities into the ground, which in turn creates this type of turmoil. Ravael gave you a good list to start from.

Nobody is arguing about the correlation between the police and the leadership.

Ravael and I were arguing about the political environment of a specific city and how well they did for that city economicwise. Detroit has been run by liberals/democrats for well over 50 years, and see how well that went for the city?

He has stated on multiple occassions that he's ok with cops "getting even" with suspects, arrestees, etc.

There are plently of cities "ruled" by republicans that have bad politicians and cops. Plenty of cities abusing the bill of rights, civil rights, etc.