Sw1tch don't call me kkk ok?It's offensive ya know.Now go pick on someone your own size.XS.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Bash Fuji Thread
- Thread starter havingfun
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Sw1tch don't call me kkk ok?It's offensive ya know.Now go pick on someone your own size.XS.
Sw1tch don't call me kkk ok?It's offensive ya know.Now go pick on someone your own size.XS.
and also.Bite me.Softly.
It's hard to fault blackrock for having you on ignore. Especially because your style of debating is really just prosletyzing, while the only point you ever consider is your own. Out of all this, some will be annoyed with me, but I would take being annoying any day over your status of being repugnant.
say that ten times fast.
Especially because your style of debating is really just prosletyzing, while the only point you ever consider is your own. Out of all this, some will be annoyed with me, but I would take being annoying any day over your status of being repugnant.
You're talking about yourself here. I've corrected you several times on several points, pointed out directly to you the ways you misrepresent, and instead of restating your argument, or correcting your misrepresentation, you mindlessly plow ahead repeating the same tripe.
Who said anything about longgggggggggg posts?Fuj doesn't bother me because i don't read what he says.Simple answer.
Works for me. Fair enough.
Oh, so you had your turn, therefore that's it for everyone! LOL! You keep talking about winning but for a guy blathering about being on a darkside website, one would think the fun would be in the shit fight itself and watching your opponent dance on the head of a pin? Besides, its fuji, a self-professed lying hypocrit who delights in deception, so only an idiot would hang for admission of error! Don't get so downhearted Simon!
nope feel free have at it, continue this thread for 50 pages if you like. i am not trying to tell you not to do it, you can go on and on forever if you like. i enjoy watching people get shit talked and me and my boys at the darkside do it better than just about everyone. all i was trying to get across to you without me sounding like a dick is that after 27 pages he is in your head and leading you along like a puppet.
so forge on with your ignorance oh great respondo puppet, i applaud you and your effort to make someone that doesn't care about what you or what you think change his ways.
No, all you've ever done is repeat your ideology over and over again without realizing that you've proven nothing.
We can go on...
O'Boy
It looks like I will need to correct once again
1. You talk about my ideology, as if it is a negative.
Lets look at yours
I lost count of the number of Pro-China statements you have made.
Yeah, no ideology there
However, I guess we can not blame you for the brain washing you received from the mother-ship.
2. Here are a couple of examples of the Brain -dead examples you have defended and without any compromise
a) China has the right to exponentially increase its pollution until it is on a equal per-capita basis as the USA
Despite my mathematical proof that such a path will suffocate each and everyone of us before per-capita equality is reached , you steadfastly asserted it is Chinas right.
No ideology there ?
Dr. Goebbels would have been so proud of your stealth-like propaganda methods
b) This was a good one, you proved yourself arrogant as well as ignorant at the same time. (Neat trick reserved for fools)
You wanted to tax the Canadian Oil Industry, despite not having any in-depth understanding of the industry.
You just picked a taxation level out of the air. (I believe it was 20%)
I proved to you that amount was equal to the entire industries profit margin
Unfortunately you ignored the devastation such a move would cause in Western Canada.
A half million jobs and 1,000 companies in bankruptcy mean nothing if it a barrier to Fuji's all knowing policy statements.
c) You also wanted government sponsored accommodations and living allowances for unwed mothers, in order to boost our population
That one was so messed up I can not recall the specifics of the counter-argument, other than it was just plain a bad idea
In each case you stuck to your ideology (I am not so sure it is even yours?)
As well for each of the statements you made, free trade, debt, free market regulation, govt subsidies, and minimum wage you have stated what your ideology dictates.
For each there is a counter argument and a famous professor paper to quote.
So who has the ideology issues?
We could go on and on....
However I would much prefer if you did not as I will have to respond again and I fear you are unwilling to learn
Originally Posted by Sw1tch
Especially because your style of debating is really just prosletyzing, while the only point you ever consider is your own. Out of all this, some will be annoyed with me, but I would take being annoying any day over your status of being repugnant.
You're talking about yourself here. I've corrected you several times on several points, pointed out directly to you the ways you misrepresent, and instead of restating your argument, or correcting your misrepresentation, you mindlessly plow ahead repeating the same tripe.
This is too funny
Fuji said the same thing about me
He pointed out that he corrected me several times
Pointed out the ways I misrepresent and mindless plow ahead repeating the same tripe.
So lets see
Who has been corrected many times?
Who misrepresents and instead of restating his argument, or correcting his misrepresentation mindlessly plows ahead repeating the same tripe ?
Why it is, Fuji the Fool.
Fuji, I would tell you need to look at your self in a mirror, however you would just kiss it
Fuji said the same thing about me
No, I didn't. You fail in quite a different way. You don't misrepresent my arguments as a general rule, you may have once or twice, but not usually. You also don't pander the way sw1tch does. What you do is state your ideological assumptions as if they were facts. Then when your assumptions are challenged you become frustrated, because to you someone is challenging a truism--you're blinkered that way. But you are very unlike sw1tch, you don't misrepresent my points, and you probably honestly believe that your assumptions are truisms.
No, I didn't. You fail in quite a different way. You don't misrepresent my arguments as a general rule, you may have once or twice, but not usually. You also don't pander the way sw1tch does. What you do is state your ideological assumptions as if they were facts. Then when your assumptions are challenged you become frustrated, because to you someone is challenging a truism--you're blinkered that way. But you are very unlike sw1tch, you don't misrepresent my points, and you probably honestly believe that your assumptions are truisms.
Too much !
Deny, lie, deny, lie some more and counter accuse.
Perhaps you may consider pausing for a second and consider what has been written
Opps, what am I thinking, that might involve an honest, truthful or humble approach.
Its too much to ask from a man who is devoid of those qualities
You directed the same argument to me as you did to Sw1ch
You repeat the same thing over and over again , yet you highlight that as a failing of others.
I believe denial is a symptom common to narcissistic pathological (bed wetting) lairs
If Fuji says it, therefor must be so ?
I do not think so
Most of us make arguments in order to prove a point.
However you argue for the sake of arguing and to inflate you ego.
Sorry but you have once again failed to make a valid point and instead have stated your strange opinion as if it were fact.
Go sit in the corner and put your dunce cap on. Again
Out of curiosity were you dropped on your head as an infant ?
You do not appear to be learning a thing here
Is this officially the longest winded thread yet??? A lot of huff and puff going on to power enough windmills to power all of China.
The Fairbanks thread is at page 146, we've lots of work to do yet here.
With that in mind, lets add this beauty of a Fuji quote to the fire:
A classy man gives the woman an excuse to move on, so that she can do so with her self respect intact.
(from the lounge - Half of men would ditch fat women thread)
Its not only life affirming to cheat on your wife, its classy too!!!!!!
You directed the same argument to me as you did to Sw1ch
No. I correctly accused Sw1tch of being dishonest, misrepresenting my statements, and making straw man arguments.
You did none of those things.
On the other hand I correctly accused you of erroneously taking your own assumptions to be "self evident", which is quite different.
Its not only life affirming to cheat on your wife, its classy too!!!!!!
Absolutely. High class men throughout history have engaged in adultery, but unlike lower class boors, we do it with proper discretion.
Absolutely. High class men throughout history have engaged in adultery, but unlike lower class boors, we do it with proper discretion.
Well then, we are honoured to have you amongst us.
SARCASM ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
I apologize for not responding directly to anyone who replied to my post as well as those who agreed with my view as well as those who didn't.
First off I understand what you all are doing. It's kind of like what owners of hyper, over energetic dogs do to their dogs, you get the dog all excited and raring to go then you fool him into chasing his own tail and have a good laugh wondering how long till he catches it or realizes that it's his own tail and stops. But you watch and laugh hard for an hour or so until that dog actually bites his own tail and whimpers, then you almost pee yourself with laughter at the sheer and utter stupidity that you witneSsed. The issue I have is this gets old fast. I mean wow over 30 pages and how long has he been going? Don't you get tired of it? Bored? The funniest is he sees this as a good thing and not as an arena where he is the fool performing for this court
First off I understand what you all are doing. It's kind of like what owners of hyper, over energetic dogs do to their dogs, you get the dog all excited and raring to go then you fool him into chasing his own tail and have a good laugh wondering how long till he catches it or realizes that it's his own tail and stops. But you watch and laugh hard for an hour or so until that dog actually bites his own tail and whimpers, then you almost pee yourself with laughter at the sheer and utter stupidity that you witneSsed. The issue I have is this gets old fast. I mean wow over 30 pages and how long has he been going? Don't you get tired of it? Bored? The funniest is he sees this as a good thing and not as an arena where he is the fool performing for this court
No-one here has seriously taken issue with the following points, not in a credible way:
1. People desire multiple sex partners (whether they act on it or not)
2. People desire that their partners remain faithful
Whatever debate we may have over the origin of these desires it's futile to deny them, and it remains the case that actualizing BOTH of those desires is inherently hypocritical, and yet fulfilling. Suppressing EITHER of those desires is some form of self-denial. Thus both monogamy and open relationships are self denial. A monogamous relationship denies the desire for multiple sex partners. An open one denies the desire that partners remain faithful.
Only a relationship in which you have multiple sex partners, and your partners remain faithful, is truly fulfilling.
1. People desire multiple sex partners (whether they act on it or not)
2. People desire that their partners remain faithful
Whatever debate we may have over the origin of these desires it's futile to deny them, and it remains the case that actualizing BOTH of those desires is inherently hypocritical, and yet fulfilling. Suppressing EITHER of those desires is some form of self-denial. Thus both monogamy and open relationships are self denial. A monogamous relationship denies the desire for multiple sex partners. An open one denies the desire that partners remain faithful.
Only a relationship in which you have multiple sex partners, and your partners remain faithful, is truly fulfilling.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
