Darla wanna debate something so we can have red names ?

OrnotBitwise said:
All you had to do was to try and change from one definition of "discrimination" to another. Which I knew perfectly well you'd try to do: your kind always do. That's why I explicitly specified which definition of the word I was concerned with at the outset.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. I'm using the same definition you use when you accuse white managers of discrimination against blacks. Your nose is growing, Pinnochio.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No I didn't. I'm using the same definition you use when you accuse white managers of discrimination against blacks. Your nose is growing, Pinnochio.
Click to expand...

Stop being such a child. Even if he were wrong on this subject, that wouldn't make him a liar, because he believes he's telling the truth. The main requirement for lying is unknowingly telling something false. Otherwise someone is just misinformed. Children like you often confuse the things and call other people "liars", because it's an ad hominem attack and you have little else.

And Ornot's not unkowingly saying something false. If you had even the meagerest grasp of the English language and how it is used you'd understand what he is saying. And that's the thing, you don't understand much.
 
Watermark said:
Stop being such a child. Even if he were wrong on this subject, that wouldn't make him a liar, because he believes he's telling the truth. The main requirement for lying is unknowingly telling something false. Otherwise someone is just misinformed. Children like you often confuse the things and call other people "liars", because it's an ad hominem attack and you have little else.

And Ornot's not unkowingly saying something false. If you had even the meagerest grasp of the English language and how it is used you'd understand what he is saying. And that's the thing, you don't understand much.
Click to expand...


He knows when he's falsely accusing people of using different definitions. I'm obviously using the same defintion. This is just his pathetic charade. But at least you recognize his position is so weak he needs help. It's touching the way mediocrity pulls together in the face of superiority.:cool:
 
Watermark said:
... Even if he were wrong on this subject, that wouldn't make him a liar, because he believes he's telling the truth. The main requirement for lying is unknowingly telling something false.
Click to expand...

And peestain, this sounds amazingly like the argument the bushbots use to defend McChimp re: wmd in iraq.
 
You have to know you're telling something false to be lying. If I were just wrong on a subject I wouldn't be lying. It would be ridiculous to say that Ornotbitwise KNOW'S that he's wrong and still advocating it where there would be absolutely no personal gain for himself to do so, although that concept is probably beyond Asshat. He's still in the Kindergarten logic realm.
 
AssHatZombie said:
And peestain, this sounds amazingly like the argument the bushbots use to defend McChimp re: wmd in iraq.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether or not you try to relate the argument to another argument. That's completely irrelevant to the subject. You're being a stupid little child and it's annoying.
 
Watermark said:
You have to know you're telling something false to be lying. If I were just wrong on a subject I wouldn't be lying. It would be ridiculous to say that Ornotbitwise KNOW'S that he's wrong and still advocating it where there would be absolutely no personal gain for himself to do so, although that concept is probably beyond Asshat. He's still in the Kindergarten logic realm.
Click to expand...

I'm certain he knows I'm using the same definition he is. he's invented this strawman argument in a desperate, pathetic, and yes, dishonest, fashion.

i've informed him many times I'm using the same definition. But he persists with his idiocy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top