The betting tactic

[Obamot]

ABC2019 must be part of a cult, it uses not one but TACTICS known to $ cientologists (in particular)

I say $ cientologists because they are particularly OBSTINUED and interested in money. !

When he is cornered he systematically returns your argument to you.

It's nerd but we've already known this thing for a long time

To turn as quickly as possible.

AND That's Freud on top of that! and who else?

This narcissistic egocentric is a mix of DSK and Pine rattle ... He should put a phallus as an avatar

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

AND That's Freud on top of that! and who else?

For puns à la can, see Lacon.

[Exnihiloest]

exthing

This could not be more true. And the violence of the reactions we are talking about is against people, not, or incidentally, against the message they are sending.

when the two are inseparable, it is difficult to do otherwise. There is no bullshit without a con to say it and at this level it is good for the Olympics bullshit ... with you ad hominem obviously!

It is exactly this kind of talk that we measure imbecility.

First, of course there is bullshit without a jerk. Even the smartest Nobel's will say that sooner or later. Everyone says it at one point or another. Believing the opposite, especially for oneself, is a sign of imbecility because apart from a few patients who claim it, the imbecile is not aware of the imbecility he tells.

Then, a person does not boil down to what they say, even if it is bullshit. Reducing it is one of the signs of aggressive imbecility. The height being reached, for example, by the Islamists, who reduce themselves to their religion, so criticism of their religion would become a lack of respect for Muslims.

Finally, talking about people is always out of date with respect to the topic of the discussion thread. If we can deviate from it from time to time, it does not eat bread, on the other hand when it is recurring to attack a person, it is obviously a sign of imbecility: not knowing how to discuss a subject because the words of the one opposite go beyond you intellectually. For the gorilla, all that remains is the insult.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

As if your speeches were independent of the education that you received, of the values ​​that you were instilled, of your convictions, of the choices that you made, of what you think you are, of what constitutes you and of What you think. What you say is what you are. To attack a stupid speech is also to attack the con who produces it.
Ps: I prefer any gorilla to the puffy, pretentious, stinking contempt person that you are.

[Janic]

Then, a person does not boil down to what they say, even if it is bullshit. Reducing it is one of the signs of aggressive imbecility. The height being reached, for example, by the Islamists, who reduce themselves to their religion, so criticism of their religion would become a lack of respect for Muslims.

typical example of a stupid speech then!
An Islamist is (on theological level) automatically a Muslim. A good or a bad is another aspect. If you got out of your bubble, you too would try to meet Muslim intellectuals who condemn the violence of terrorists (because not in harmony with their Koran) and who use a few decontextualized passages to recommend something that condemns them. Violence is only allowed to save his life or that of his relatives as in all "spiritual" cultures.

[Exnihiloest]

As if your speeches were independent of the education that you received, of the values ​​that you were instilled, of your convictions, of the choices that you made, of what you think you are, of what constitutes you and of What you think. What you say is what you are. To attack a stupid speech is also to attack the con who produces it.
Ps: I prefer any gorilla to the puffy, pretentious, stinking contempt person that you are.

Obviously we are, among other things, the product of our education.
The fool is the one who believes that "the education he has received", "the values ​​that have been instilled in him", his "convictions", "his choices", "what he thinks he is "would allow him to call others a jerk. This is exactly what you just did. "Do what I say not what I do". You are constantly aggressive and insulting. So don't be surprised at any contempt in return, it's the least we can do. Service!

[Exnihiloest]

...
An Islamist is (on theological level) automatically a Muslim.

This truism shows that the debate is beyond you.
The problem is identifying with your religion. Can't a Muslim be a mathematician, Moroccan, traveler, philosopher? ...

When we come to think that because his religion is caricatured, then it is your person that we would be disrespecting, it is because we have understood absolutely nothing not only freedom of expression, of course, but also to this evidence that no one is reduced to a group of belonging.

To treat someone systematically as a "con" is to reduce her to a group, it is to deny her personality, it is abject. You and the other practicing the recurring insult do you believe yourself above everyone with your peremptory judgments on the people here and your behavior of agitated and aggressive macaques ?! We don't know if it's from a tree or a pedestal, but you should come back down, Mrs the insulters who take you for untouchables endowed with all the virtues and the others with none.

[Janic]

by Exnihiloest »02/04/21, 20:53 PM

what beautiful prose! but also what confusion!
Janic wrote: ...
An Islamist is (on theological level) automatically a Muslim.

This truism shows that the debate is beyond you.

But not you obviously! A little narcissism behind that?

The problem is identifying with your religion. Can't a Muslim be a mathematician, Moroccan, traveler, philosopher? ...

A Muslim is an individual like any other and Islam at its origins, and again, has been at the forefront of science and philosophy and a great traveler, so there is effectively no incompatibility in identifying with one's religion and even mostly!

When we come to think that because his religion is caricatured, then it is your person that we would be disrespecting, it is because we have understood absolutely nothing not only freedom of expression, of course, but also to this evidence that no one is reduced to a group of belonging.

Always just roughly!

To treat someone systematically as a "con" is to reduce her to a group, it is to deny her personality, it is abject.

There is complete disagreement. On the one hand this word has a popular meaning widely used in many circumstances: it's stupid, you're stupid, stop bullshit, fucking stupid, etc ...
https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/con
we must therefore first define to what or to whom this expression relates.

You and the other practicing the recurring insult do you believe yourself above everyone with your peremptory judgments on the people here and your behavior of agitated and aggressive macaques ?!

value judgment too! This, for example, is bullshit that you adhere to enough to express yourself in this way and therefore mixes culture, intellectual conditioning and personal sensitivity, for example on the use of the word abject.
adjective
Who deserves contempt, inspires a moral disgust.
An abject being.

We don't know if it's from a tree or a pedestal, but you should come back down, Mrs the insulters who take you for untouchables endowed with all the virtues and the others with none.

Re belotte there again and if you fully adhere to it, it is because you identify your personality with your group beliefs (education, culture, various beliefs)

To treat someone systematically as a "con" is to reduce her to a group, it is to deny her personality, it is abject.

On the other hand, there, it is more delicate. If we compliment someone for a particular action, for any work, is it reduced to a group or to a personal perception of the individual and his or her work or act? Someone who performs a courageous act, we say that he is courageous by his act, not by his group culture because he can very well be afraid of spiders, moreover. A con calls himself that way ONLY on bullshit THAT HE JUST EXPRESSED, not on the rest. It is therefore punctual!