Venezuela - Example of How Socialism Leads to Dictatorship?

[Hermit]

This is getting altogether too boring now. I might get back to you later, provided you find your way back to earth.

[pErvinalia]

You are weak as piss. Caught out lying multiple times, can't follow what's been said, can't construct coherent sentences, and it's me who has the problem?

[Forty Two]

rEv will acknowledge that he was wrong now. He does so frequently, you know?

No no -- he NEVER said "frequently." He said "not infrequently." Stop lying. pErvin specifically acknowledge that he is "not infrequently" wrong, and he claims to have also admitted to being wrong ...also "not infrequently."

In his next post there will be no mention of non sequiturs, lacking the capacity to think logically and rationally or even reminders that he has explained all to you already. Mark my words.

He only does that "not infrequently."

[pErvinalia]

"Not infrequently" is larger than 'once or twice in living memory', which is the amount of times you've admitted you were wrong...

[pErvinalia]

Did a quick search to bring up a list of times I admitted to being wrong, and found this old post. He's been doing this shit for years.

I DID NOT MENTION PUBLIC SCHOOLS. You linked an article that stated that creationism is taught in HISTORY CLASSES in Queensland as evidence that creationism is taught in schools here. BUT I SAID SCIENCE CLASSES. Retract your lies or go fuck yourself, you dishonest cunt.

O.k., I have already addressed this.

You wrote a pile of bollocks in response, with MORE lies. You claimed that I said "public" schools. I simply did not. I've asked you to quote it before, and you haven't, because you are a lying cunt.

Dude - who cares?

Who cares? I and others care, because you are dishonest. That's why I don't debate with you. You get shown how you have been wrong repeatedly, and then all you can muster in way of contrition is "who cares that I was wrong?". Like it's ok to be willfully wrong repeatedly if it doesn't matter in YOUR opinion. You are a dishonest debater. That's why I care.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 7#p1476377

[Forty Two]

He (and you) were actually right about the logic of the image being indistinguishable between different meanings. It doesn't, however, change your strange interpretation of my post to be suggesting that it reflects the reality of what was going on when the photo was taken. It's an image. As I said, by necessity it is an "appearance". It can't be anything more.

Which, of course, means that your declaration that she "is" repulsed is not accurate. At most she appears, to you, based on your interpretation of the image, to be repulsed. And, you seem to have acknowledged that the image is amenable to different interpretations; therefore, suggesting that those who do not see something "wrong" with it are socially lacking or lacking in empathy would also be wrong.

I made a simple point that the image shows revulsion by her.

Not just that point. You also made the point that if someone does not interpret it in that way or consistently with that interpretation, that they are deficient socially, and deficient in empathy. Failing to see it your way was a personal commentary on the moral worth of the person making the judgment. They don't just view it differently - in your mind they are people who lack empathy.

Hermit apparently agrees with that, despite not knowing who said it. Whether it can show something else, or whether it is an accurate reflection of what was actually happening in real life when the photo was taken is irrelevant. This is just yet another case of 42 erecting a strawman to give himself something to argue about.

Nonsense. No straw man has been erected. You wrote what you wrote, and I've quoted you above.

[pErvinalia]

He (and you) were actually right about the logic of the image being indistinguishable between different meanings. It doesn't, however, change your strange interpretation of my post to be suggesting that it reflects the reality of what was going on when the photo was taken. It's an image. As I said, by necessity it is an "appearance". It can't be anything more.

Which, of course, means that your declaration that she "is" repulsed is not accurate.

She IS showing repulsion in the photo (under one interpretation).

At most she appears, to you, based on your interpretation of the image, to be repulsed. And, you seem to have acknowledged that the image is amenable to different interpretations; therefore, suggesting that those who do not see something "wrong" with it are socially lacking or lacking in empathy would also be wrong.

You want to attempt to logically back that up? It can be amenable to different interpretations AND someone who can't recognise the revulsion undertones can be lacking in empathy. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Therefore your assertion that it "would be wrong" is illogical.

I made a simple point that the image shows revulsion by her.

Not just that point. You also made the point that if someone does not interpret it in that way or consistently with that interpretation, that they are deficient socially, and deficient in empathy. Failing to see it your way was a personal commentary on the moral worth of the person making the judgment. They don't just view it differently - in your mind they are people who lack empathy.

Wow, you actually can read. Sometimes.

Hermit apparently agrees with that, despite not knowing who said it. Whether it can show something else, or whether it is an accurate reflection of what was actually happening in real life when the photo was taken is irrelevant. This is just yet another case of 42 erecting a strawman to give himself something to argue about.

Nonsense. No straw man has been erected. You wrote what you wrote, and I've quoted you above.

Yes, I referred to the image, not the broader reality that the image was a snapshot of. That's why your rebuttal that brought in the broader reality angle was a straw man. Dude, you get repeatedly accused by multiple people of making strawman arguments, and you are never able to admit it. Take a step back and consider the likelihood that all those people all those times are 100% wrong and you are 100% right. It's improbable. You're a genius, obviously, but you're not infallible.

[Forty Two]

Did a quick search to bring up a list of times I admitted to being wrong, and found this old post. He's been doing this shit for years.

Dude, change your name to bikeshed. Are you kidding with this nonsense? You're going back to 4 year old posts to argue about this? It's not relevant. I don't care how many times you've admitted you were wrong. I've been laughing at you for admitting that are are not infrequently wrong. Using that litote is your way of understating "frequently." Like saying "not unwelcome" for "welcome." It's funny. https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... frequently -- http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/not%20infrequently

All you've shown is you've been up to this same bullshit for years. I've explained it to you. You're dishonest. You can't read English. It's all the same shit, over and over again. You use it to destroy threads you don't like, and to try to badger people away from the forum.

[pErvinalia]

Your long history of dishonesty is very relevant to your current bout of dishonesty. It shows that it's not a simple mistake. It's a pattern of lying and misrepresentation that's been going on for years. I found 10 times (not including this thread) with a quick search where I've admitted to being wrong. I wonder how many you could find of you doing the same. I'd warrant it couldn't be more than 1 or 2. THAT'S the point. Not argument from semantics.

[pErvinalia]

It's funny. -- http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/not%20infrequently

yes, it's funny how the meanings in your own link align with how I intended to use the phrase.

eg. intermittently, at times, every now and then

I've explained it to you. You're dishonest.

Yet every time I ask you to back this sort of bullshit up with quotes/links you pike out and disappear for a few days. Strange that...

[Forty Two]

He (and you) were actually right about the logic of the image being indistinguishable between different meanings. It doesn't, however, change your strange interpretation of my post to be suggesting that it reflects the reality of what was going on when the photo was taken. It's an image. As I said, by necessity it is an "appearance". It can't be anything more.

Which, of course, means that your declaration that she "is" repulsed is not accurate.

She IS showing repulsion in the photo (under one interpretation).

LOL, you didn't say "showing" -- you said "is repulsed by him." That's different. And you went on to make it a personal issue, when you declared that those who did not agree with what you now call "one interpretation" were the conservative socially deficient people who lack empathy for others....

At most she appears, to you, based on your interpretation of the image, to be repulsed. And, you seem to have acknowledged that the image is amenable to different interpretations; therefore, suggesting that those who do not see something "wrong" with it are socially lacking or lacking in empathy would also be wrong.

You want to attempt to logically back that up? It can be amenable to different interpretations AND someone who can't recognise the revulsion undertones can be lacking in empathy. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Therefore your assertion that it "would be wrong" is illogical.

They can be, but you declared that anyone who doesn't see something "wrong" with the photo which "says it all" is, in fact, one of those empathy lacking perople....

I made a simple point that the image shows revulsion by her.

Not just that point. You also made the point that if someone does not interpret it in that way or consistently with that interpretation, that they are deficient socially, and deficient in empathy. Failing to see it your way was a personal commentary on the moral worth of the person making the judgment. They don't just view it differently - in your mind they are people who lack empathy.

Wow, you actually can read. Sometimes.

LOL.

Hermit apparently agrees with that, despite not knowing who said it. Whether it can show something else, or whether it is an accurate reflection of what was actually happening in real life when the photo was taken is irrelevant. This is just yet another case of 42 erecting a strawman to give himself something to argue about.

Nonsense. No straw man has been erected. You wrote what you wrote, and I've quoted you above.

Yes, I referred to the image, not the broader reality that the image was a snapshot of. That's why your rebuttal that brought in the broader reality angle was a straw man. Dude, you get repeatedly accused by multiple people of making strawman arguments, and you are never able to admit it. Take a step back and consider the likelihood that all those people all those times are 100% wrong and you are 100% right. It's improbable. You're a genius, obviously, but you're not infallible.

You said she was repulsed. You said the image "said it all" about Trump. You said if someone did not see what was "wrong" in that image, then they lacked empathy and were socially inept (words to that effect).

It's not a straw man, because even referring to the image and saying "the image shows she is repulsed by him" (and if you don't agree with that you lack empathy, etc.), there is plenty of room in the image to interpret it as the woman smiling at him, turned slightly to partially face him, and sitting primly/properly and appearing happy and comfortable. That's not a straw man. That's disagreement.

Anyone posting often on this forum is accused, repeatedly, of raising strawman arguments. Declaring an opponents argument a strawman is a very common accusation, and more often than not, I have found, it is used improperly. People call lots of things strawmen that aren't strawmen, and the accusation is slung casually. So, no, I won't assume that because people have accused me of strawmanning that I must be guilty of it. I don't strawman people's arguments. Like you here, somtimes people mistake a different argument as a strawman argument, or an opposing position as a strawman. I've even had people say I was strawmanning when I asked them a question, which by definition cannot be a strawman.

[Forty Two]

It's funny. -- http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/not%20infrequently

yes, it's funny how the meanings in your own link align with how I intended to use the phrase.

eg. intermittently, at times, every now and then

Read it closer -- "Not infrequently" and right below it, it says "as in frequently." Like, https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... frequently "not infrequently: frequently; often."

And you forgot "again and again, many times, often, regularly, time and again, usually, oft, oftentimes, ofttimes," lol and I like this one "as a rule." Also, "habitually," "many a time", "much" lol.

I've explained it to you. You're dishonest.

Yet every time I ask you to back this sort of bullshit up with quotes/links you pike out and disappear for a few days. Strange that...

Get the fuck out of here - I already went through your posts above, quoted, you, detailed the responses. I'm not doing it again. It's backed up.

[Forty Two]

Your long history of dishonesty is very relevant to your current bout of dishonesty. It shows that it's not a simple mistake. It's a pattern of lying and misrepresentation that's been going on for years. I found 10 times (not including this thread) with a quick search where I've admitted to being wrong. I wonder how many you could find of you doing the same. I'd warrant it couldn't be more than 1 or 2. THAT'S the point. Not argument from semantics.

My long history of dishonesty? You're out of your gourd. What you on these days? Prescription or recreational?

I don't CARE how many times you've admitted you're wrong. It doesn't matter. Why are you even on about it? Even if I didn't admit that I was wrong, which I have, it doesn't mean I'm dishonest.

Admissions of being incorrect have no relevance to any point.

You're an admitted troll, with a history of playing these games and badgering people off of threads. You have said it about yourself. This is more of the same from you.

[JimC]

It would be nice to get back to the perfidious Venezuelans, rather than an increasingly petulant 3-way kindergarten squabble...

[DaveDodo007]

So we see a photo that depicts a man who reveals his sexual desire via body language and a woman who is repulsed by him. What is morally or otherwise wrong with either?

Who's talking about morality? I just pointed out that a beautiful woman being repulsed by Trump pretty much "sums it [the whole Trump debacle] up". And then Dodo, a conservative, couldn't see the woman's revulsion. So I made the point that it's not surprising given that conservatives have an empathy deficit (and before you pick your nits, I know I didn't say that exactly, but it's what i meant).

Yes I have to agree with Ratz trailer trash upside down member. I can't read anybodies mind even vapid photos of miss 'something or other' and orange haired guy. Therefore i don't have empathy or mine is limited in some way. Maybe I should read the runes or start following Islam which you lefty/liberals love so much. Or maybe you are mentally ill and should seek help.