Psychopaths

[Gawdzilla Sama]

New definition of psychopath. "Someone who posts to this thread more than once."

[Svartalf]

I iz a psycho? (seizes knife and goes to the bathroom)

[Schneibster]

[Gallstones]

I iz a psycho? (seizes knife and goes to the bathroom)

What is there to eat in there?

[Svartalf]

(plays eerie music to pretty lady in the shower)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Normal, is that you?"

[Cunt]

So Cunt got drunk.

Lie.

Cunt isn't drunk. Instead, I am just laughing about how you say that cranks don't post science articles. Not only do they do that, they also conflate correlation and causation.

[Robert_S]

New definition of psychopath. "Someone who posts to this thread more than once."

You know...

[Robert_S]

New definition of psychopath. "Someone who posts to this thread more than once."

You know...

...I'm thinking of reporting that for personal attack.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

New definition of psychopath. "Someone who posts to this thread more than once."

You know...

...I'm thinking of reporting that for personal attack.

Sorry, but the Voices aren't members here.

[Coito ergo sum]

So Cunt got drunk.

Lie.

Cunt isn't drunk. Instead, I am just laughing about how you say that cranks don't post science articles. Not only do they do that, they also conflate correlation and causation.

I'm convinced that many people are confused about the definition of the word "conflate."

[Coito ergo sum]

So, you think that is proof that the Republicans are "lying?"

I'm with the majority. And the majority do.

That's not what determines whether someone is actually lying.

The majority of Americans think Obama is doing a bad job. Is he?

"Doing a bad job" is not a question of integrity. Lying is. And in questions of integrity, we require (ultimately) the vote of twelve jurors to determine what we will call "truth." So, yes, that's indeed how we determine whether someone is actually lying, and you of all people should know it.

And as far as whether Obama's doing a bad job, I have to say that if most people think he is then he probably is. I think so.

A jury's determination of guilt or innocence, or liability or non-liability is not a determination of truth, but of probability. The jury says in a civil case what they think "probably" happened, and in a criminal case whether they thing the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt, but beyond a "reasonable" doubt. So, juries have nothing to do with a determination of truth. That's why one jury could find OJ Simpson "not guilty" of murder, and another can find him liable for wrongful death of the same people he supposedly did not murder.

Whether Obama is "probably" doing a bad job doesn't mean that he is doing a bad job. Whether a lot of people think you are lying doesn't mean that you are. You'll get it some day.

[Coito ergo sum]

How about "regulations hurt business," "government is evil," and "both parties are lying?"

Shall I continue?

How about "regulations are good for business," "government is good," and "only one party is lying?"

OK:

"regulations are good for business" Killing customers is bad for business, can we agree on that? And regulations prevent businesses from making dangerous products. With me so far?

The best you've done is come up with a fairly weak and juvenile argument for why some regulations might be good.

Here's another reason, and I got plenty more: we got rid of the regulations and the banksters stole everything and fucked the economy. Is that good for business? I'm going with "no." Need more?

"The best you've done" is a lie.

We got rid of some regulations, but added others. Is that good for business? Maybe, maybe not. That's a matter of opinion. Whether you "go with no" doesn't decide the issue. You've merely adopted your position, uneducated as it is.

[Coito ergo sum]

OK:

"regulations are good for business" Killing customers is bad for business, can we agree on that? And regulations prevent businesses from making dangerous products. With me so far?

The best you've done is come up with a fairly weak and juvenile argument for why some regulations might be good.

Here's another reason, and I got plenty more: we got rid of the regulations and the banksters stole everything and fucked the economy. Is that good for business? I'm going with "no." Need more?

"The best you've done" is a lie.

Come the fuck on, dude. Really? You don't get it?

Of course I "get it." I can see more lies being cranked out every day.

"Russia is in my front yard."
"I never diddled any little kids in the Congressional Page Program."
"HPV vaccines cause brain damage."
"Obama is a Muslim."
"Unions are evil."
"Gays are evil."
"Guns are good."

What's to get?

Who said those things? Source?

Since you need more on why regulations are good for business, how about, regulations keep businesses from selling one another defective goods. Need more?

I don't "need more" on why regulations are good for business. Some are, some aren't. The argument isn't about whether a regulation is or is not good for business. Your assertion is that "regulations are bad for business" is a lie -- in response to that, (a) nobody said exactly that, at least nobody you've identified, so apparently you just pulled it out of thin air, and (b) some regulation are, in fact, bad for business. Therefore, even if someone did say it, it's not a lie. The fact that you can point to a regulation that might be, arguably, good for business, doesn't change that. You need to unmuddle your thinking, because you make yourself look really stupid.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"something"