Poll: Better off without religion?

Overall, would the world be better off without religion?

  • Total voters
    17
AssHatZombie said:
I have serious realistic suggestions which are quite practical. You have a desire to eliminate religion and government. You're an insane nihilist retard. You're not intelligent, or funny. And you suck at arguing.
Click to expand...

I have a desire to eliminate religion and government. The problem with your response is that you mix up insults with attempts at argument. If you're going to do that it's best to leave the insult to the end, don't throw them in like speckles on a duck's egg. You should have used the following form:

1. You (meaning me) have expressed a desire to eliminate religion and government.
2. You can hold that desire but it's not realistic (here you should explain why and not just make your claim without warrant or it makes you look like a blowhard).
3. You have adopted a nihilst position (I haven't, but if I can get you back on track and you make that claim again I'll explain why you're wrong. Unless you're using 'nihilist' as a pejorative, in which case you look like a fool anyway).
Okay that's the attempts at argument (and yours was paticularly piss weak by the way. Are you still in university or have you graduated yet? If you're still there you should ask for some remedial classes before it's too late).

NOW you can use the insults, AFTER you've attempted (badly) to put an argument.

You'll need to use insults here because you're starting to worry that a fuckwit lardhead like me with no intelligence or sense of humour (I have no sense of humour, I think the "Jackass" films are made by idiots for idiots, but I'm tolerant, I haven't called for their being banned) can continually post without being fussed by your attempts at argument, which are lame, or your insults, which are lamer.

Now, try it again. This time think about what you're writing.
 
Last edited:
Diuretic said:
I have a desire to eliminate religion and government. The problem with your response is that you mix up insults with attempts at argument.
Click to expand...
And it's clear which is which.
If you're going to do that it's best to leave the insult to the end, don't throw them in like speckles on a duck's egg. You should have used the following form:

1. You (meaning me) have expressed a desire to eliminate religion and government.
2. You can hold that desire but it's not realistic (here you should explain why and not just make your claim without warrant or it makes you look like a blowhard).
3. You have adopted a nihilst position (I haven't, but if I can get you back on track and you make that claim again I'll explain why you're wrong. Unless you're using 'nihilist' as a pejorative, in which case you look like a fool anyway).
Okay that's the attempts at argument (and yours was paticularly piss weak by the way. Are you still in university or have you graduated yet? If you're still there you should ask for some remedial classes before it's too late).

NOW you can use the insults, AFTER you've attempted (badly) to put an argument.

You'll need to use insults here because you're starting to worry that a fuckwit lardhead like me with no intelligence or sense of humour (I have no sense of humour, I think the "Jackass" films are made by idiots for idiots, but I'm tolerant, I haven't called for their being banned) can continually post without being fussed by your attempts at argument, which are lame, or your insults, which are lamer.

Now, try it again. This time think about what you're writing.
Click to expand...


Your verbose condescension aside, your desire to eliminate religion and government is quite insane.

I always think about what I'm writing.

I've whipped your pathetic ass again.
 
AssHatZombie said:
And Diuretic, instead of offering advice on presentation to others, work on the actual content of your own posts, cuz yer suckin.
Click to expand...

How about addressing what I suggested? No? Was I...........hurtful?

If you can stop making pointless personal remarks it will go a long way to making your posts interesting. I don't particularly enjoy exchanging unpleasantries but I will up to a point. When it becomes ridiculous I'll just ignore the insults. I won't put you on ignore, I'll just dig through the insults and try to find the argument and see if I can take it on.
 
Diuretic said:
How about addressing what I suggested? No? Was I...........hurtful?

If you can stop making pointless personal remarks it will go a long way to making your posts interesting. I don't particularly enjoy exchanging unpleasantries but I will up to a point. When it becomes ridiculous I'll just ignore the insults. I won't put you on ignore, I'll just dig through the insults and try to find the argument and see if I can take it on.
Click to expand...

Your suggestions are stupid.

My pointless personal remarks keep this joint hopping, Potzy. Ignore them and key in on the actual argument, which you admit is mixed in. Bottom line: you can't take the AHZ heat and are trying to whine your way out of it. You can't. You're in the death grip.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
Your suggestions are stupid.

My pointless personal remarks keep this joing hopping, Potzy. Ignore them and key in on the actual argument, which you admit is mixed in. Bottom line: you can't take the AHZ heat and are trying to whine your way out of it. You can't. You're in the death grip.
Click to expand...

Now THAT is funny!

Okay, so as long as I'm not dealing with a mulett-wearing hillbilly who somehow found out how to use a computer and hooked it up to the trailer park power supply and who is prone to gettin' in his truck an driving clear across the country looking for the town called "Australia" which is somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon line, that's fine.

Now, did you have an argument or were you too busy trying to be witty and forgot you had a point to make? :cof1:
 
Diuretic said:
Now THAT is funny!

Okay, so as long as I'm not dealing with a mulett-wearing hillbilly who somehow found out how to use a computer and hooked it up to the trailer park power supply and who is prone to gettin' in his truck an driving clear across the country looking for the town called "Australia" which is somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon line, that's fine.

Now, did you have an argument or were you too busy trying to be witty and forgot you had a point to make? :cof1:
Click to expand...


1. Eliminating government and religion is a spurious and deranged goal.
2. You're a cretin.
 
AssHatZombie said:
1. Eliminating government and religion is a spurious and deranged goal.
2. You're a cretin.
Click to expand...

1. Why?
2. I must be, I'm engaging you, but I'm patient.

Now, why is elimination of goverenment and religion a spurious goal? Can a goal actually be spurious? I mean, I do believe it's valid goal, so that means it's not spurious. But anyway, go on.
 
Diuretic said:
1. Why?
2. I must be, I'm engaging you, but I'm patient.

Now, why is elimination of goverenment and religion a spurious goal? Can a goal actually be spurious? I mean, I do believe it's valid goal, so that means it's not spurious. But anyway, go on.
Click to expand...


What do you propose BESIDES government? Rule by corporations? Are you an anarchist?

I merely want to retune the goals of our government to be in sync with the needs of all people, instead of their current agenda of herding people into debtors prison with irresponsible monetary policy to serve the unquenchable thirst for power of the world leaders, the worst people on earth.
 
AssHatZombie said:
What do you propose BESIDES government? Rule by corporations? Are you an anarchist?

I merely want to retune the goals of our government to be in sync with the needs of all people, instead of their current agenda of herding people into debtors prison with irresponsible monetary policy to serve the unquenchable thirst for power of the world leaders, the worst people on earth.
Click to expand...

No, we already have rule by corporations, I want to see that booted out of the window. No, I'm not an anarchist, I don't understand it well enough to pronounce myself a supporter of it.

I know as long as we have "government" we will have state oppression. All governments are, to some extent, oligarchical by nature (reference Michels) and oligarchies mean oppression.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Look it up, asschild.
Click to expand...

I don't have to. I'm not asking you because I don't know, I'm asking you because I want you to define "spurious" so I know whether or not you've used the word correctly.

Are you the law student? Or are you studying something else?
 
Diuretic said:
I don't have to. I'm not asking you because I don't know, I'm asking you because I want you to define "spurious" so I know whether or not you've used the word correctly.

Are you the law student? Or are you studying something else?
Click to expand...

Don't worry about my word usage. You should be more concerned about your own mental retardation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top