RIFA wrote:

dafox wrote:You said that what I wrote was stupid by saying "No one will get anything from the last couple of pages". What I largely wrote were facts about the 20th century (religious/secular) crimes/distinctions. You saying that those facts were dumb was wrong.

No. I clearly explained what I was saying with that quote. It seems you just like to completely ignore what I'm saying... How about stop being so selective and actually pay more attention to what I write? I already explained my quote... no need to do it again.

dafox wrote:If you attack one of my posts then you're insinuating an argument because unless I'm proven wrong I'll always respond critically. I sound like a broken record when I say this because I accused you of it so many times but you keep asserting that I'm wrong without explaining how in the slightest form. You already said this and my response was almost the same except that I mentioned you have poor comprehension skills I.e the last posts of our previous argument.

This was answered with the statement(s) above.

What the hell did I ignore? Where is the answer in the quote above? Being selective about history? Is that it? You just did exactly what you accused me of. I mentioned that I talked about the 20th century crimes that weren't religiously motivated in the quote you used that was accusing me of ignoring your points. Why don't you actually write coherently what I'm ignoring so that I could show you when and how I addressed them? (I really hope you do but I'm doubtful given your past). When I accuse you of ignoring me I post some of the things that you ignored and you still don't acknowledge them but then you say I ignored yours and you don't tell me what I ignored. Your constant condescending Caps and Smilies have forfeited me being polite. I respect and agree with a lot of your opinions on other topics but you are a complete imbecile when it comes to "debating" this topic. Anyone who actually reads and understands our arguments knows that all too well.

RIFA wrote:

dafox wrote:You said that what I wrote was stupid by saying "No one will get anything from the last couple of pages". What I largely wrote were facts about the 20th century (religious/secular) crimes/distinctions. You saying that those facts were dumb was wrong.

No. I clearly explained what I was saying with that quote. It seems you just like to completely ignore what I'm saying... How about stop being so selective and actually pay more attention to what I write? I already explained my quote... no need to do it again.

Let me show you what did you miss and how your whole "you said that what I wrote was stupid by saying..." bullshit statement goes straight to the toilet...

Here's what I was saying by that quote alone.

RIFA wrote:lolwut... wtf are you talking about?

Anyone who'd read the last pages will learn nothing because there wasn't any constructive debate... it's the laws of communication. when you have no constructive debates with strong opinions from both sides then the viewers/readers will learn nothing from it.

Now thank you and leave me alone. I have no desire in participating in a debate with you. I said it like 20 times already.

RIFA wrote:

RIFA wrote: No. I clearly explained what I was saying with that quote. It seems you just like to completely ignore what I'm saying... How about stop being so selective and actually pay more attention to what I write? I already explained my quote... no need to do it again.

Let me show you what did you miss and how your whole "you said that what I wrote was stupid by saying..." bullshit statement goes straight to the toilet...

Here's what I was saying by that quote alone.

RIFA wrote:lolwut... wtf are you talking about?

Anyone who'd read the last pages will learn nothing because there wasn't any constructive debate... it's the laws of communication. when you have no constructive debates with strong opinions from both sides then the viewers/readers will learn nothing from it.

Now thank you and leave me alone. I have no desire in participating in a debate with you. I said it like 20 times already.

... You continue to prove my point.. Shocker. I should install a key on my keyboard that automatically forms this sentence. "You say I'm wrong (in this context meaning "have no constructive debate") but you don't explain how I'm wrong in any way shape or form (how my facts on the 20th Century crimes against humanity secular/religious aren't relevant to defending the claim that theocracies are worse forms of government than secular ones and that there is a distinction between religious crimes against humanity and secular crimes against humanity, by definition)" Given the facts I don't know how you can possibly say that this contention isn't relevant in religious arguments..... I bet you won't actually answer any of this (for the trillionth time) but you'll still claim that you've proven me wrong "over and over" again. Your assertions mean nothing if you don't explain them (how my argument isn't a constructive debate against religion) Plus your red bolded sentence literally means nothing since its stating the obvious therefore not required to be mentioned when summarizing your ignorant statement. So you're avoiding answering how what I wrote isn't forming a constructive debate by writing an axiom in red. I don't know why you included the large black font since I quoted that..

dafox wrote:

RIFA wrote:
Let me show you what did you miss and how your whole "you said that what I wrote was stupid by saying..." bullshit statement goes straight to the toilet...

Here's what I was saying by that quote alone.



Now thank you and leave me alone. I have no desire in participating in a debate with you. I said it like 20 times already.

... You continue to prove my point.. Shocker. I should install a key on my keyboard that automatically forms this sentence. "You say I'm wrong (in this context meaning "have no constructive debate") but you don't explain how I'm wrong in any way shape or form (how my facts on the 20th Century crimes against humanity secular/religious aren't relevant to defending the claim that theocracies are worse forms of government than secular ones and that there is a distinction between religious crimes against humanity and secular crimes against humanity, by definition)" Given the facts I don't know how you can possibly say that this contention isn't relevant in religious arguments..... I bet you won't actually answer any of this (for the trillionth time) but you'll still claim that you've proven me wrong "over and over" again. Your assertions mean nothing if you don't explain them (how my argument isn't a constructive debate against religion) Plus your red bolded sentence literally means nothing since its stating the obvious therefore not required to be mentioned when summarizing your ignorant statement. So you're avoiding answering how what I wrote isn't forming a constructive debate by writing an axiom in red. I don't know why you included the large black font since I quoted that..

You have a problem of comprehension. You insinuate people say this or that even when they show you what they said. And with that I'm out of this. My final post.

RIFA wrote:

dafox wrote: ... You continue to prove my point.. Shocker. I should install a key on my keyboard that automatically forms this sentence. "You say I'm wrong (in this context meaning "have no constructive debate") but you don't explain how I'm wrong in any way shape or form (how my facts on the 20th Century crimes against humanity secular/religious aren't relevant to defending the claim that theocracies are worse forms of government than secular ones and that there is a distinction between religious crimes against humanity and secular crimes against humanity, by definition)" Given the facts I don't know how you can possibly say that this contention isn't relevant in religious arguments..... I bet you won't actually answer any of this (for the trillionth time) but you'll still claim that you've proven me wrong "over and over" again. Your assertions mean nothing if you don't explain them (how my argument isn't a constructive debate against religion) Plus your red bolded sentence literally means nothing since its stating the obvious therefore not required to be mentioned when summarizing your ignorant statement. So you're avoiding answering how what I wrote isn't forming a constructive debate by writing an axiom in red. I don't know why you included the large black font since I quoted that..

You have a problem of comprehension. You insinuate people say this or that even when they show you what they said. And with that I'm out of this. My final post.

Wow what I surprise. No explanation just an "I'm right and you're wrong" statement that doesn't acknowledge any of the points I made or facts that I mentioned. What have you said that contradicted my assertion that religious motivated crimes and secular crimes aren't interchangeable? What about the Nazis not being secular fact? I literally predicted what you were going to say in my last post and you included no defense to me picking apart your meaningless larger font retort. I guess leaving here wont be so hard considering that there are people who argue like this. Rifa isn't even one of the worst. And if you try to be funny and say that I'm one of the worst or the worst then actually contradict my two basic contentions mentioned earlier in this post.

dafox wrote:"I'm right and you're wrong" statement

There was no fucking statement like that. Quit inventing things and quit making this a conspiracy theory about yourself. I fucking told you 4 times what I was saying. You're the one who keeps on bragging about this. Just stop ignoring my fucking answer and shut up if you see I have no desire debating with you on this subject. You're pissing me off because this is annoying.

RIFA wrote:

dafox wrote:"I'm right and you're wrong" statement

There was no fucking statement like that.

You have a problem of comprehension.

I'm the one having "a problem of comprehension" ?

I fucking told you 4 times what I was saying.

You said that you've told me 4+ times but there isn't a single refute to my two basic contentions in this entire thread.

What have you said that contradicted my assertion that religious motivated crimes and secular crimes aren't interchangeable? What about the Nazis not being secular fact?

You're the one who keeps on bragging about this. Just stop ignoring my fucking answer and shut up if you see I have no desire debating with you on this subject. You're pissing me off because this is annoying.

I'm not bragging... I said that you saying my entire argument is wrong means nothing if you don't have a single explanation as to why its wrong. You don't have a single reason to give why my two points are wrong which is what I've been asking for this whole time. Your answer is that what I have said can't be considered a constructive point but what I've been asking for is how my points aren't constructive. Why would I ignore an answer that I repeatedly ask for?

As for the "conspiracy theory" about myself I admitted that I shouldn't have accused p0g of lying like that in the chat thread.

Stop arguing with RIFA. He could say that toast is made from a human spleen and he'd ramble on about it for 20 paragraphs trying to prove how he's right. You can't "win" an argument with him. No matter how fucking dumb the shit he spews is, he'll always think he's right. Just let it go Dafox. You'll only drive yourself crazy.

Crazy Eight wrote:Stop arguing with RIFA. He could say that toast is made from a human spleen and he'd ramble on about it for 20 paragraphs trying to prove how he's right. You can't "win" an argument with him. No matter how fucking dumb the shit he spews is, he'll always think he's right. Just let it go Dafox. You'll only drive yourself crazy.

Sounds good

The other side of the fine tuning argument