by Patrick ➕follow (61) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 138 Next » Last » Search these comments
Liberalism is NOT a self-identifying term. If you don't believe in liberalism, you are not a liberal.
Christianity is NOT a self-identifying term. If you do not know Christ as your savior, you are not a Christian.
Matthew Chapter 7
True and False Disciples
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
The Wise and Foolish Builders
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.â€
28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.
Natural laws have no explanatory power on the origin of the universe.
Yes, they do. Nothingness is unstable
“Nothing is unstable,†Frank Wilczek, a physicist and Nobel laureate from MIT, finally said to a general murmur of agreement of his colleagues on stage, John Barrow of Cambridge University in England, Paul Davies of Arizona State and George Ellis of the University of Cape Town in South Africa.
Given a chance, nature will make nothingness boil with activity.
Bullshit, some guys with letters behind their names make a false statement and you call it gospel. You are exactly what you accuse Christians of being.
Your own words are evidence of your true condition.
Once again, Dan failed to do anything except make baseless assertions that are easily disproved. I don't have to censor him. His arguments are nonsense.
Christianity is NOT a self-identifying term. If you do not know Christ as your savior, you are not a Christian.
Yes, a Christian is, by definition, someone who believes in the divinity of Christ. Many such persons were pure evil, including Hitler.
Christians can and do commit genocide, rape, slavery, torture, etc.
Bullshit, some guys with letters behind their names make a false statement and you call it gospel.
Those statement have plenty of empirical evidence. Quarks tend to align themselves with peaks in quantum fluctuation. Virtual particles have been observed.
I believe in statements for which there is evidence. You believe in nonsense despite evidence to the contrary. This is why your opinions on things don't matter and why your ignorance is dangerous. Some things, like climate change, are damn important and belief in them should not be based on fairy tales.
Once again, Dan failed to do anything except make baseless assertions that are easily disproved. I don't have to censor him. His arguments are nonsense.
I did not say that. You are simply lying. Typical Christian.
I don't have to lie to further my position because the truth is on my side. If it weren't, I'd switch positions to whatever was true.
says the illiberal guy who justifies his own conservatism: suppressing opposing speech by censoring who can post on "his" threads
Once more you are caught in a lie. There is no way that any person on PatNet can censor another person. All users are free to open their own threads and say whatever they want.
Stop it Dan, no one censors more than you. I am the true guy who never censors. I have never ever put anyone on ignore or given an ad hominem. I have never given a "dislike" either.
Stop it Dan, no one censors more than you.
As I've stated, banning trolls from one's own threads prevents them from disrupting conversations and turning otherwise productive conversations into turd flinging flame wars, but it does not in any way censor them.
Case in point, I've banned you. How exactly have I prevented you from saying anything you want to? Unless you can give a good answer to that, you are lying.
Stop it Dan, no one censors more than you.
As I've stated, banning trolls from one's own threads prevents them from disrupting conversations and turning otherwise productive conversations into turd flinging flame wars, but it does not in any way censor them.
Case in point, I've banned you. How exactly have I prevented you from saying anything you want to? Unless you can give a good answer to that, you are lying.
By preventing me from saying anything I want, anywhere. Duh!
By preventing me from saying anything I want, anywhere. Duh!
That is not censorship. You clearly have deep problems with basic English words.
You never could say anything anywhere. You cannot say anything inside the Pentagon because you won't be allowed in there.
Furthermore, PatNet isn't a where and you can still say virtually anything on PatNet. You aren't losing audience members by being banned from a person's threads.
You seem to believe that freedom of speech is the freedom to disrupt other people's speech. It is not. Freedom of speech is the ability to communicate with anyone who wants to communicate with you about any subject you and the other person wish to discuss. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with preventing other people from having productive conversations or being invited to spread misinformation, or having equal access to a conversation or symposium held by a reputable organization.
Put simply, your freedom of speech isn't being violated simply because the generals in the Pentagon aren't inviting you into the war room to discuss your ideas about how to fight a war. You are being ridiculous.
People that are involved in a thread do not necessarily scan other threads to see relevant input.
So potential posters to a thread are losing audience members in the thread due to the fact that they are banned.
So what you have written below is basically an outright fucking lie.
Live with it deal with it.
Liar.
Dan8267 says
You aren't losing audience members by being banned from a person's threads.
This is what is known as a false equivalency Pat net.com is not the Pentagon.
What this really is is a barrage of words to smokescreen the fact that your answers are all fucked up.
Dan8267 says
Put simply, your freedom of speech isn't being violated simply because the generals in the Pentagon aren't inviting you into the war room to discuss your ideas about how to fight a war. You are being ridiculous.
You seem to believe that you know what others believe which you do not.
How arrogant.
Dan8267 says
You seem to believe that freedom of speech is the freedom to disrupt other people's speech.
Not even close.
Freedom of speech does not have anything to do with anyone who wants to communicate with you about any subject.
Freedom of speech has everything to do with one's right to voice their opinions as long as no physical harm comes of it to other people.
Dan8267 says
Freedom of speech is the ability to communicate with anyone who wants to communicate with you about any subject you and the other person wish to discuss.
This depends on one's definition of where.
A physical where is where your body is currently located. A mental where is where your mind is at which definitely can be patnet.com.
So your definition below is meaningless since you decided not to sub categorize the Where You Are referring to.
Dan8267 says
Furthermore, PatNet isn't a where
Correct.
Strategist says
By preventing me from saying anything I want, anywhere. Duh!
People that are involved in a thread do not necessarily scan other threads to see relevant input.
Irrelevant. The newspaper and television stations not giving you free publicity is not an infringement on your free speech. Your free speech isn't being oppressed because Nightline does not solicit your opinion on air.
Your complaint is also hypocritical as you present misinformation, blatant lies, and cherry picked data.
So what you have written below is basically an outright fucking lie.
Live with it deal with it.
Liar.
Clearly not as I have explained about. And for you to call anyone a liar is utter hypocrisy.
This is what is known as a false equivalency Pat net.com is not the Pentagon.
No, it's not. You just suck at logic. I'm not saying the Pentagon and PatNet are the same thing. Hell, no two forums are the same thing. However, your argument is flawed because it would apply to both.
The statement "your car cannot be made out of metal because nothing is made out of metal" is an incorrect statement and can be proven by showing that submarines are made out of metal. The fact that cars and submarines are not the same thing is irrelevant to disproving the premise "nothing is made out of metal".
I could give you thousands of examples where you are not invited to speak. According to the original premise, all these examples and any others would violate your free speech rights. So clearly, that premise is bullshit. Not being invited into a conversation when you have started flame wars over and over again is not a violation of your free speech rights, nor is it censorship. You are just wrong.
And if you actually wanted to have a constructive debate with someone, you wouldn't be starting flame wars and trolling in the first place.
A physical where is where your body is currently located. A mental where is where your mind is at which definitely can be patnet.com.
So your definition below is meaningless since you decided not to sub categorize the Where You Are referring to.
Dan8267 saysFurthermore, PatNet isn't a where
Then again, you can't say things anywhere. You can't say things on the White House press releases. You can't say things in the fiscal reports of corporations. You can't say whatever you want at a random high school graduation ceremony.
Just because not every person gives the microphone to every other person in every venue on the planet does not mean you are being censored. You are not entitled to me helping you get your message and lies across.
Freedom of speech has everything to do with one's right to voice their opinions as long as no physical harm comes of it to other people.
Banning people does not stop you from voicing your opinion. Your posts on this thread proves that.
My posts in this thread prove i have freedom of speech here specifically because i am not banned on this thread.
Hey thanks for making my point..
Dan8267 says
Freedom of speech has everything to do with one's right to voice their opinions as long as no physical harm comes of it to other people.
Banning people does not stop you from voicing your opinion. Your posts on this thread proves that.
Nightline is a tv show comprised of current newsworthy segments.
Patnet is an internet free speech forum
Apples and oranges
False equivilancy again.
This appears to be your speciality. ..
Dan8267 says
Your free speech isn't being oppressed because Nightline does not solicit your opinion on air.
I'll make it easy.
Give me 100...
Dan8267 says
I could give you thousands of examples where you are not invited to speak.
Patnet.com is not the newspapers or television.
Another false equivilancy. Yawn...
Dan8267 says
People that are involved in a thread do not necessarily scan other threads to see relevant input.
Irrelevant. The newspaper and television stations not giving you free publicity is not an infringement on your free speech.
The comparison is anonymous internet forums, not people with microphones sharing on a global basis.
Another false equivilancy. ...yawn
Dan8267 says
Just because not every person gives the microphone to every other person in every venue on the planet does not mean you are being censored.
False Yawn equivilancy
Dan8267 says
You can't say things on the White House press releases.
Oh is Patrick.net an S or C corp?
Public or private?
Dan8267 says
You can't say things in the fiscal reports of corporations
My posts in this thread prove i have freedom of speech here specifically because i am not banned on this thread.
Hey thanks for making my point..
I didn't. You're just not that smart.
I would have to have the power and exercise the power to ban you from all threads for your point to have been made.
You can shout all you want on PatNet. I'm not under any obligation, ethical or otherwise, to invite you into my broadcast and hand you my microphone. That's where your analogy fails.
Apples and oranges
False equivilancy again.
No two apples are the same. So I guess you are saying that you cannot compare apples to apples.
Patnet.com is not the newspapers or television.
Another false equivilancy. Yawn..
PatNet is electronic communication just like television and modern newspapers.
PatNet isn't Use.net or Reddit. So unless censorship applies specifically to PatNet, then you are saying it's impossible for anything on PatNet to be censorship. After all censorship is what government does, and PatNet is not government. False equivalency.
Works both ways.
The comparison is anonymous internet forums, not people with microphones sharing on a global basis.
Censorship has nothing intrinsically or uniquely to do with Internet forums. Plus PatNet isn't any other Internet forum. It's not Usenet or Reddit. So apples and oranges again.
You have utterly failed to show anyway that my banning trolls like you from my threads in any way censors you or violates your freedom of speech. And quite frankly, you could get unbanned simply by growing up and no longer starting flame wars. You simply lack the maturity to do that.
Oh is Patrick.net an S or C corp?
As usual, you demonstrate too little intelligence to get the point that is obvious to everyone else.
The validictorian can.
The rest of the class is banned.
Oh are we talking about your year end kindergarden graduation? You must have been the chief heehaw.
Splains a lot bout how you turned out..
Dan8267 says
You can't say whatever you want at a random high school graduation ceremony.
You did. You're just too stupid to realize it.
Dan8267 says
Hey thanks for making my point..
I didn't. You're just not that smart.
The validictorian can.
Actually no. But anyway everyone else's freedom of speech would be violated according to the arguments you are making. To continue the analogy, the high school administration is the thread host and the valedictorian is invited to speak, but the class clown is not. You are the class clown. You were not invited to speak because you are an embarrassment to the school, have nothing worth listening to, and would just take a giant dump on the podium if given the chance.
You did. You're just too stupid to realize it.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Fortunately the evidence is abundant in your previous posts..
Dan8267 says
You did. You're just too stupid to realize it.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Actually, yes.
Tell me who screened and approved the validictorian speech for Cal Berkeley 2017?
Dan8267 says
The validictorian can.
Actually no.
I'll make it easy.
I guess you've noticed Dan loves spending his time writing long posts.
Ok so i was wrong about you being the kindergarten king.
You still have not shown the validictorian's speech is reviewed and censured.
Just another outright lie hidden behind a dan produced tidalwave of meaningless words...
Dan8267 says
To continue the analogy, the high school administration is the thread host and the valedictorian is invited to speak, but the class clown is not
Yeah his speciality is hiding his bullshit in a tidalwave of words that most people won't take the time to parse and expose the leaks.
I love his use of the word "everyone" when that means 2% of the unbanned patnet population.
I'll make it easy.
I guess you've noticed Dan loves spending his time writing long posts.
as witnessed by your banning of 98% of users?
The half of content produced on PatNet that isn't flame wars and debunked propoganda is generate by users that I have not banned, even though we debate many issues, and those users call you a despicable troll.
Fortunately the evidence is abundant in your previous posts..
Fortunately the evidence is abundant in your previous posts..
You spent several days flinging poo in a thread opened for the sole purpose of attacking me. The evidence of your pettiness, vindictiveness, and disruptiveness is clear and indisputable.
Why the fuck should I allow a troll like you in my threads when it is obvious you will start flame wars in them?
I guess you've noticed Dan loves spending his time writing long posts.
I like writing good, insightful posts. This necessitates length because such posts require evidence and detailed analysis. You only think they are long because your attention span is so damn short. Try reading any peer reviewed paper. They are far longer than my posts. Try reading a novel. No comparison.
You simply have the attention span of a toddler. This is your failing, not a failing in the lengths of my posts.
I get where you are coming from now.
That's a lot of childhood memories you just dumped on 10000 members.
But if it helps you to ease the pain, please continue. ( I'm assuming you can't afford a shrink )
You are the class clown. You were not invited to speak because you are an embarrassment to the school, have nothing worth listening to, and would just take a giant dump on the podium if given the chance.
Triggered.
Ad hominum
Uncivil.
You lose
Dan8267 says
I love his use of the word "everyone" when that means 2% of the unbanned patnet population.
Like your mom's dildo, this statistic was pulled from your ass.
Irrelevant.
Off topic.
The proof is in your posts above, enshrined forever in countless digital backups.
Dan8267 says
You spent several days flinging poo in a thread opened for the sole purpose of attacking me. The evidence of your pettiness, vindictiveness, and disruptiveness is clear and indisputable
An anonomous multitopic current events blog is not designed for "peer reviewed papers" . Irrelevent example.. .
Dan8267 says
You only think they are long because your attention span is so damn short. Try reading any peer reviewed paper.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 138 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,249,792 comments by 14,904 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, Onvacation online now