People will never be free, and you are powerless...

[WHITE DEVIL]

So you don't post in the siccness, right after you've finished playing 22 straight hours of RPG games?

lol.

As I finish up another 60 hour work week.

You on target Stockton.

 

[2-0-NINE]

lol.

As I finish up another 60 hour work week.

You on target Stockton.

LMAO! I'm coming up, I'm going to probably work at Osh Now, HAHA/

 

[HERESY]

thanks for the W on this one heresy

:yawns: WHOOPIN? I didn't mean to hand you your ass on a platter, but due to the fact that you are acknowledging my superiority I'll go easy on you. In fact, I'll go so easy I won't even butcher the rest of your post. XMAS is coming up, think of it as a gift from myself to you.

:nah: LOL!

you still never addressed the main flaw of your original post presupposing your conclusion is true

My friend, everything was addressed in the fashion it should have been. If you do not have the mental capacity to comprehend what was typed I won't feel sorry for you. Simply put, you didn't understand what was being conveyed and now you want to back peddle and spin the bottle some more.

and if law school is your plan, then i suggest you start working on this

Question: What do you know about law? If you know nothing about it, or its application, why are you trying to give me advice? Listen, I am in a business where constructive criticism is presented every two seconds, but you my friend simply opened a can of worms--and now you want to come off as the wise sage who has advice for the student--save it. I suggest YOU start working on what YOU need to work on (and YOU know what that is.)

then i suggest you start working on this, you need to crawl before you walk, and you are in full litigation mode with all the threatrics and wit without having the basics down.

See above, sport.

since this is the GOM and i have learned a bit on here, and since you express interest in law and have several friends in law school already i offer this advice to you or anyone, you can enjoy it with salt if you like:

SEE ABOVE.

your original post was way too strong and way too general, its much easier for people to discredit strong claims than weak ones, especially since you used almost no qualifying statements for your conclusions. (ie, you could have said something like "people will never be free, unless...").

How many times do I have to say FREE WRITING?!?!? Do you know what FREE WRITING is? Obviously you don't since you often type as if you have down syndrome or a wooden hand. I had no need to say "people will never be free unless" because I was simply practicing free writing.

http://web.umr.edu/~gdoty/classes/concepts-practices/free-writing.html now shut up. :dead:

Any assertion that has the word never, all, any, always, etc, is rarely a good claim because there are usually exceptions, which is exactly why this argument failed, again all i had to do was provide examples of where your overly strong claims were not true in order to discredit and weaken your argument.

Listen, when I did go in depth, the majority of your reply was "insults and ha ha" funny guy antics. The examples you DID provide were simply trampled on (refer to the kings and fan comment). They would have continued to be trampled over and over because you didn't understand the context of the claim or how it was written.

History is not a predictor of the future

Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it...

many in higher education will tell you this, from legal scholards to your econ teacher following the stock market.

See above buddy.

you attempted to draw a conclusion that things will not change on the basis that they have not changed in the past, or have not changed to the point you like, its not a coincidnece that this is one of the most overused fallacies in logical reasoning.

They have not changed. The rich are still in power and the poor are still poor. The orders, rules and regulations of status quo are still protecting them. Things will not change because there is a repeating cycle that has NOT been broken since the dawn of time. See, your problem is you think change on the micro level is the same as change on the macro level. And what do you do to prove your wacky ideas? You compare two completely different societies and make it seem as if the people today have it better, yet you forget the people who lived in poverty under the same kings you mentioned--which proved nothing HAS changed--the rich are in power, the poor are not.

Evidence. You need evidence, and since you conclusions were so strong, almost no evidence could be used as proper premises for them unless you actually had evidence that in the future, things had not changed. But since you do not, i presume, have ready access to time machines, you were doomed from the start.

All the evidence was plainly layed out for you. All you needed to do was read what was typed, soak it for a bit and come back. Again, refer to everything I posted. You implied things are better for blacks. I gave evidence proving things were WORSE. You made it seem as if the kings of old had it worse than the people of today, but I have shown that the caste system, slavery, ascribed status etc are still implemented today--which means no change.

The game does NOT change, only the FACES, and if you had understood the context of it all, instead of acting like the dried sperm of Maddox, I wouldn't be here wasting my time with you.

It definitely seems like you have the passion for this type of work, but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to construct you arguments much more carefully. Now you can talk all the shit about my posts that you want and try to play condescending like you know everything but, what happened in this thread?:

Again, free writing my friend.The arguments have been presented to the point where you can't even say anything about the information posted. What happened in this thread? Hmmmmm...let us see...every point you made was refuted. You tried to come back but got smashed again--that sums it up.

1)you made very strong conclusions based on certain historical references and assumptions

I made strong conclusions based on what has happened in the past, and what has happened in th present. I made strong conclusions based on how societies are born, grow and crumble.

2)i showed where your conclusions were not necessarily true in all cases and why your assumptions were fallacious, i asked you to address these fallacies

And in each case I showed you how change was for the WORSE. I showed you did not understand the context of what was being prsented (refer to stratifaction and religion for more proof.)

3) you responded to the main fallacy of your argument by simply typing the word "no" and still pretending that your original argument was strong.

I actually addressed what you believe to be a fallacy. If you understand the
context of what was presented, and read the post in totallity, you will see that you WERE actually addressed. Take everything that was presented, look at it all, and you will see that you WERE answered. Critical thinking and reading, bud. If you utilize more often and I maybe you'll get something done in life.

4) i accept your non-reply to my main contention as a concession.

SEE ABOVE.

No doubt you beleive in what you wrote in and all that, and you feel your opinion is right. You argument may very well turn out to be true that things will never change, but what could be true is not the same as what is true, unless you get that time machine, and thats another lengthy debate.

What is true? The rich are still getting rich while the poor remain poor, the educated can manipulate the uneducated and laws are implemented to perserve the power of the elite and not so much as to govern morality.

But do you want to know what gets me? How your tone is waaaaaaaaay different from your last post and the one before it.