Has making a pass at a woman just become illegal?

Murphy said:
No, really? How did i miss that, oh that's right i didn't. :rolleyes: [..]
Click to expand...

That's the whole point of this argument. You didn't miss it because you wrote it.

You're not arguing in good faith. You're just making stuff up on an ad hoc basis, changing your position, changing the meaning of words, citing sources that don't say what you claim they say, etc. While claiming everyone else is doing that and you're not, of course, plus throwing out whatever wild accusations flitter into your head at the time.

Maybe some people find you an entertaining court jester, but I don't.
 
Dis86 said:
I just have. Are you struggling with English again Murphy?
What part of our last conversation in speakers corner is beyond you?
Click to expand...
So you're saying you're incapable of using a computer and actually quoting the relevant conversation?

Gotta love it when someone makes accusation that someone else doesn't understand the English language but then can't even backup their BS.
 
Murphy said:
So you're saying you're incapable of using a computer and actually quoting the relevant conversation?

Gotta love it when someone makes accusation that someone else doesn't understand the English language but then can't even backup their BS.
Click to expand...

I'm saying you've clearly forgotten it. Short term memory loss.
 
Angilion said:
That's the whole point of this argument. You didn't miss it because you wrote it.

You're not arguing in good faith. You're just making stuff up on an ad hoc basis, changing your position, changing the meaning of words, citing sources that don't say what you claim they say, etc. While claiming everyone else is doing that and you're not, of course, plus throwing out whatever wild accusations flitter into your head at the time.

Maybe some people find you an entertaining court jester, but I don't.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about, i literally just posted exactly what i said and now you're trying to claim i didn't say what i said and that I'm not arguing in good faith, making stuff up on an ad hoc basis, changing your position, changing the meaning of words, citing sources that don't say what you claim they say.

It's like you're reading things that aren't there and not reading the things that are actually there.
Dis86 said:
I'm saying you've clearly forgotten it. Short term memory loss.
Click to expand...
Keep proving my point because it's delicious. :p
 
It's not proving anything. See, again, English language and you're struggling. Perhaps when you should stick with little words since you don't understand the big ones.
 
Murphy said:
Perfect example of how epically you don't know what your talking about and perfect example of how your trying to twist things.
Click to expand...

Absolutely none of what you have written is true. Are you aware of that?

In order for something to be objective, it has to be verifiably the same regardless of the observer. It's not a matter of how much power a person who agrees with it has. It's not a matter of the results of a vote. Your claim that objectivity is defined by power and/or voting is simply wrong.

According to your personal redefinition of "objective", it's objectively true that (to give one example of many) the conservative party is better than the labour party in the UK because more people voted conservative than labour in the last election.
 
Dis86 said:
It's not proving anything. See, again, English language and you're struggling. Perhaps when you should stick with little words since you don't understand the big ones.
Click to expand...
Because you can't. As you're incapable of using a computer allow me, this was our last interaction in SC...
Dis86 said:
It's easier to see the smears on the windows from outside the bus.
Click to expand...
I don't seem to be the one struggling with the English language there.

For a troll you sure are a low effort one.
Angilion said:
Absolutely none of what you have written is true. Are you aware of that?
Click to expand...
You do know that just because you say something it does magically become true, right.
Angilion said:
In order for something to be objective, it has to be verifiably the same regardless of the observer. It's not a matter of how much power a person who agrees with it has. It's not a matter of the results of a vote. Your claim that objectivity is defined by power and/or voting is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep pretending that what you claimed is what i claimed? I did not say it is a matter of how much power a person who agrees with it has. I did not say it's a matter of the results of a vote, and i did not say that objectivity is defined by power and/or voting.

Like i told Dippy86 you're more than welcome to quote where i said those things, if you can't then I'll have to assume your delusional.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
Oh, so now you do remember the conversation! So were you just playing dumb or...?
Click to expand...
Super low effort...
Trollface_non-free.png
 
Are you feeling OK? Been drinking tonight or something? Because that makes about as much sense as your post about it being "easier to see the smears on the windows from outside the bus."
 
EDIT:

Written before Malt_Vinegar's post but posted after it. I'll delete it because it was a waste of time arguing with Murphy anyway.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
I did not say it is a matter of how much power a person who agrees with it has. I did not say it's a matter of the results of a vote, and i did not say that objectivity is defined by power and/or voting.
Click to expand...

I'll reply to that claim (after sanitising it from Murphy's accusations and insults and ignoring them) because it's simply not true.

The whole point of Murphy's subjective redefinition of objectivity is that it's defined by power and/or voting. Here's just a couple of examples of their argument that objectivity is defined by voting:

Murphy said:
e: If you dig a five foot deep hole and don't put safety barriers around it because you don't think anyone's going to fall into it that's a subjective judgment, if ten other people think you should because someone could fall into it that's objective [..]
Click to expand...

Murphy said:
Do you seriously not understand that what EVERYONE else thinks is objective, that while each individual within the group of EVERYONE have subjective opinions that collectivity they make up an objective judgment. That if a group of ten people each hold their own personal, subjective, opinions on something like whether the death sentence is right or wrong that collectivity we can make an objective judgment, if seven out of ten think it's wrong that's the very definition of an objective judgment.
Click to expand...

As for their argument that objectivity is defined by power, they have repeatedly referred to a legal opinion by a judge in 1856 and claimed that legal opinion defines objectivity because it was made by a judge, i.e. that objectivity is defined by power. The legal opinion they refer to doesn't say what they claim it says (it's about negligence, not objectivity), but that's how they're using it.
 
This thread has gone from the sublime to the bizarre. We now have someone posting quotes but responding as if they are replying to someone else.

Edit: I’ve clearly no idea what’s going on in here now but has it been decided if it’s good or bad to wolf whistle?! ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom