Venezuela - Example of How Socialism Leads to Dictatorship?

[pErvinalia]

There shouldn't be anything more to argue about. I've repeated the same clarification about 37 times now. If you don't accept that that was my initial meaning, then too bad. I'll await your apologies for the incontestable lies you've both told recently.

[Forty Two]

There shouldn't be anything more to argue about. I've repeated the same clarification about 37 times now. If you don't accept that that was my initial meaning, then too bad. I'll await your apologies for the incontestable lies you've both told recently.

I never have a problem with clarifications. You did clarify. And, with your clarification, it shows the utter ridiculousness of your position that people who did not see that picture your way lacked empathy or social skills (words to that effect). You've yet to apologize for that.

If, indeed, the picture admits to different interpretations, including ones not involving her being repulsed, then it stands to reason that failing to see the picture in the manner you first described is not indicative of a person lacking empathy. There is nothing "wrong" with not seeing what is "wrong" with that picture, right?

If you say "no, there is something wrong with not seeing what is wrong with that picture..." then you have not actually clarified your position, you've muddled it.

I'm not apologizing to you for anything, because I haven't lied. You owe apologies for your group attacks here, and for your attacks on Dodo and Hermit, among others. This is on you, pErvin, no matter how much you try to weasel out of it.

[pErvinalia]

There shouldn't be anything more to argue about. I've repeated the same clarification about 37 times now. If you don't accept that that was my initial meaning, then too bad. I'll await your apologies for the incontestable lies you've both told recently.

I never have a problem with clarifications. You did clarify. And, with your clarification, it shows the utter ridiculousness of your position that people who did not see that picture your way lacked empathy or social skills (words to that effect). You've yet to apologize for that.

Then as usual, you haven't understood the clarification.

If, indeed, the picture admits to different interpretations, including ones not involving her being repulsed, then it stands to reason that failing to see the picture in the manner you first described is not indicative of a person lacking empathy.

I explained this to you in a few posts ago. That it can be interpreted in multiple ways doesn't mean that it can be interpreted in only one of multiple ways by each person. The very fact that someone can't see the underlying revulsion makes my point for me. It may be a bit of a stretch of a point (that conservatives can't see the revulsion because they lack empathy), but it was never meant to be a rigorous debating point. It was said to take the piss out of DD, for fucks sake.

There is nothing "wrong" with not seeing what is "wrong" with that picture, right?

Well, it's debatable. Conservatives have been shown to be lacking in empathy. People who lack in empathy have been shown to not recognise facial emotions as well as those who don't lack in empathy. It's a possible explanation for why Dave Dodo and you can't see it.

I'm not apologizing to you for anything, because I haven't lied.

Dude, you are now up to 4 times in a row where you've refused to address my posts showing how you are lying when you keep referring back to my statement (that I don't always read all of a post from you) and saying it means one thing when it demonstrably doesn't and can't mean any such thing. What's even more ridiculous about your statement that you haven't lied, is that you lied just the other day by stating that you haven't ignored my posts calling you out on this. As I said, the count is now up to 4 times in a row that you have ignored my post. And it's clear why you have, as you know you were bullshitting when you first made the claim.

And not only that, look at the last line in my signature. You demonstrably lied there. You just can't help yourself.

You owe apologies for your group attacks here, and for your attacks on Dodo and Hermit, among others. This is on you, pErvin, no matter how much you try to weasel out of it.

I'm not apologising to wilfully dishonest people. And my attack on Dodo followed an attack by him on me. So he lucks out as well...

[pErvinalia]

Oh and here, I did a handy graphic to show how your (one or both of you, can't remember which) disingenuous attempts to paint my statement - "She is repulsed by him" - as meaning I was talking objectively about reality outside the image, are disingenuous.

[Forty Two]

There shouldn't be anything more to argue about. I've repeated the same clarification about 37 times now. If you don't accept that that was my initial meaning, then too bad. I'll await your apologies for the incontestable lies you've both told recently.

I never have a problem with clarifications. You did clarify. And, with your clarification, it shows the utter ridiculousness of your position that people who did not see that picture your way lacked empathy or social skills (words to that effect). You've yet to apologize for that.

Then as usual, you haven't understood the clarification.

What an ironic strawman.

If, indeed, the picture admits to different interpretations, including ones not involving her being repulsed, then it stands to reason that failing to see the picture in the manner you first described is not indicative of a person lacking empathy.

I explained this to you in a few posts ago. That it can be interpreted in multiple ways doesn't mean that it can be interpreted in only one of multiple ways by each person.

So what? There are plenty of ways to interpret it which are not involving repulsion or anything being wrong with the picture. Therefore, doing so is not indicative of a lack of empathy.

The very fact that someone can't see the underlying revulsion makes my point for me.

This is just like you always do. You think your allegation makes your point. If someone doesn't see underlying revulsion doesn't mean they can't see revulsion. They don't see it in that picture. And the fact that you say you see it doesn't mean there is something wrong with having a different opinion of it, and not seeing what you claim to see.

It may be a bit of a stretch of a point (that conservatives can't see the revulsion because they lack empathy), but it was never meant to be a rigorous debating point. It was said to take the piss out of DD, for fucks sake.

It's another of your personal attacks, yes. Your near constant sniping, and as Hermit put it, ankle-biting, is tiresome.

There is nothing "wrong" with not seeing what is "wrong" with that picture, right?

Well, it's debatable.

Good...so when you said "I can't even...." and you posted otherwise that there is something wrong with not seeing what was "wrong" with the picture, you were saying that, even though it's "debatable" what the picture shows? So, when you say the picture "says it all" -- well, it's debatable whether it "says it all." And, it's "debatable" that she's repulsed. And, therefore to say that not seeing what's wrong with it is some sort of a problem is just as debatable, right? In fact, not seeing what's wrong, when what's wrong is debatable, is not really a problem or an issue, much less a personality defect, yes?

Conservatives have been shown to be lacking in empathy.

LOL "shown?"

People who lack in empathy have been shown to not recognise facial emotions as well as those who don't lack in empathy. It's a possible explanation for why Dave Dodo and you can't see it.

Or, it's possible that you see something that isn't really there, because of your prejudgments.

These things that you claim have been shown have not, actually, been shown. The same social science papers "show" that liberals are not as hard working as conservatives. This empathy bit is not something that has been established, and just because you repeat the assertion does not mean you have established it.

I'm not apologizing to you for anything, because I haven't lied.

Dude, you are now up to 4 times in a row where you've refused to address my posts showing how you are lying

You haven't shown that i'm lying, because I'm not lying. I've addressed your posts.

when you keep referring back to my statement (that I don't always read all of a post from you) and saying it means one thing when it demonstrably doesn't and can't mean any such thing. What's even more ridiculous about your statement that you haven't lied, is that you lied just the other day by stating that you haven't ignored my posts calling you out on this. As I said, the count is now up to 4 times in a row that you have ignored my post. And it's clear why you have, as you know you were bullshitting when you first made the claim.

I haven't "ignored" your posts. I certainly don't respond to each and every one of them. Why would I? there are sometimes days at a time, and stretches of days where I don't post on the forum at all. I'm not "ignoring" the posts. This all just made-up bullshit on your part.

And not only that, look at the last line in my signature. You demonstrably lied there. You just can't help yourself.

Taken completely out of context. I'm not rehashing more diversions from you.

You owe apologies for your group attacks here, and for your attacks on Dodo and Hermit, among others. This is on you, pErvin, no matter how much you try to weasel out of it.

I'm not apologising to wilfully dishonest people. And my attack on Dodo followed an attack by him on me. So he lucks out as well...

Well, you're wilfully dishonest. So, good luck with all that.

[Forty Two]

Oh and here, I did a handy graphic to show how your (one or both of you, can't remember which) disingenuous attempts to paint my statement - "She is repulsed by him" - as meaning I was talking objectively about reality outside the image, are disingenuous.

FireShot Screen Capture #023 - 'rationalia_com • View topic - Venezuela - Example of How Socialism Leads to Dictatorship_' - rationalia_com_forum_view.jpg

Indeed, you wrote what you wrote - we've quoted you, including that post, above. It doesn't help you.

How does the photo "say it all" if it doesn't depict reality? Again, if it is one interpretation of various interpretations, some of which do not involve her being repulsed, and all are "debatable" - what does that say about the people who don't agree with your view that it is showing that she is "repulsed?" Answer: Nothing. This bullshit about the picture was just your way of casting aspersions at people here.

Now you're trying to weasel out of it, saying that you didn't mean that she was repulsed when you said she was repulsed, you only meant that one of several debatable interpretations about the photo is that she was repulsed. And, obviously, if you don't see that she was repulsed, even though it's debatable, you lack empathy and especially conservatives won't see it, because they lack the social skills and empathy to find something "wrong" with a picture that is open to several "debatable" interpretations....

[pErvinalia]

If, indeed, the picture admits to different interpretations, including ones not involving her being repulsed, then it stands to reason that failing to see the picture in the manner you first described is not indicative of a person lacking empathy.

I explained this to you in a few posts ago. That it can be interpreted in multiple ways doesn't mean that it can be interpreted in only one of multiple ways by each person.

So what? There are plenty of ways to interpret it which are not involving repulsion or anything being wrong with the picture. Therefore, doing so is not indicative of a lack of empathy.

Except that not seeing it is perfectly explained by the point I am making.

The very fact that someone can't see the underlying revulsion makes my point for me.

This is just like you always do. You think your allegation makes your point.

By definition it does. If the point is that conservatives can't see revulsion because they lack empathy, then not seeing revulsion is evidence for lack of empathy. This is now going to turn into another one of those debates where you massacre English, isn't it?

It may be a bit of a stretch of a point (that conservatives can't see the revulsion because they lack empathy), but it was never meant to be a rigorous debating point. It was said to take the piss out of DD, for fucks sake.

It's another of your personal attacks, yes. Your near constant sniping, and as Hermit put it, ankle-biting, is tiresome.

Oh yes, and Dave Dodo is a saint. Other than an ideological liberal, who really gives a fuck whether an abusive poster gets some abuse back? The abuse tally for Dave vs The Rest of The World is well in Dave's favour.

There is nothing "wrong" with not seeing what is "wrong" with that picture, right?

Well, it's debatable.

Good...so when you said "I can't even...." and you posted otherwise that there is something wrong with not seeing what was "wrong" with the picture, you were saying that, even though it's "debatable" what the picture shows? So, when you say the picture "says it all" -- well, it's debatable whether it "says it all." And, it's "debatable" that she's repulsed. And, therefore to say that not seeing what's wrong with it is some sort of a problem is just as debatable, right? In fact, not seeing what's wrong, when what's wrong is debatable, is not really a problem or an issue, much less a personality defect, yes?

You are moving the goalposts again. You are asking if it is "wrong" now to not see what is wrong in that picture. That was not the qualification, to the best of my knowledge, when I made those earlier statements of mine that you just quoted. And I'm not going back to read what was said in an effort to sort out your fallacious argument.

Conservatives have been shown to be lacking in empathy.

LOL "shown?"

Yes. You've been present in threads where links have been supplied.

People who lack in empathy have been shown to not recognise facial emotions as well as those who don't lack in empathy. It's a possible explanation for why Dave Dodo and you can't see it.

Or, it's possible that you see something that isn't really there, because of your prejudgments.

Well Hermit, Ani and I saw it. So maybe we are suffering from mass hallucination.

The same social science papers "show" that liberals are not as hard working as conservatives.

What in the fuck does that have to do with conservatives lacking empathy?!? You just can't help committing a never ending string of logical fallacies, can you?!

I'm not apologizing to you for anything, because I haven't lied.

Dude, you are now up to 4 times in a row where you've refused to address my posts showing how you are lying

You haven't shown that i'm lying, because I'm not lying. I've addressed your posts.

Holy fuck. Can science even explain what is going wrong at your end of the internet?!! You LITERALLY haven't addressed them, as I showed the last time (yesterday, I believe) we had this conversation. And you didn't even address that assertion yesterday! You are utterly shameless in lying!

when you keep referring back to my statement (that I don't always read all of a post from you) and saying it means one thing when it demonstrably doesn't and can't mean any such thing. What's even more ridiculous about your statement that you haven't lied, is that you lied just the other day by stating that you haven't ignored my posts calling you out on this. As I said, the count is now up to 4 times in a row that you have ignored my post. And it's clear why you have, as you know you were bullshitting when you first made the claim.

I haven't "ignored" your posts. I certainly don't respond to each and every one of them. Why would I?

Because they clearly show how you are lying, and that you are pathologically afraid of admitting that you can be wrong.

And just above you said that you did address them. So which is it?!?

And not only that, look at the last line in my signature. You demonstrably lied there. You just can't help yourself.

Taken completely out of context. I'm not rehashing more diversions from you.

Fucking liar busted in bald faced lie, and he still can't admit he was caught out. There is no context other than your clear statement that we were lying by claiming that we had repeatedly criticised Obama. When shown a whole thread of criticism of Obama (where it hilariously showed you doing the exact same dishonest shit back then as Coito), YOU STILL COULDN'T ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONG.

[pErvinalia]

Oh and here, I did a handy graphic to show how your (one or both of you, can't remember which) disingenuous attempts to paint my statement - "She is repulsed by him" - as meaning I was talking objectively about reality outside the image, are disingenuous.

FireShot Screen Capture #023 - 'rationalia_com • View topic - Venezuela - Example of How Socialism Leads to Dictatorship_' - rationalia_com_forum_view.jpg

Indeed, you wrote what you wrote - we've quoted you, including that post, above. It doesn't help you.

How does the photo "say it all" if it doesn't depict reality?

The photo says it all, as the image showing her being repulsed (among other interpretations, for the nitpickers) by Trump aligns with the broader view of Trump as a disgusting sexist pig. This is basic fucking English. In the interpretation that the non-conservatives see, the reality being depicted is formed from that interpretation.

I mean, I don't even get your argument here. Can a cartoon drawing not depict reality? It's not reality itself, but it can depict it in varying ways. The same way an image can be not reality itself but depict it. Would you say that a cartoon drawing of say Trump squeezing the Queen's arse is depicting a real scene? Obviously not. But we can reference that to the reality where it is asserted that Trump is a sexist pig. Are you saying that we can't make a link between that cartoon and reality without the cartoon necessarily representing reality??

Again, if it is one interpretation of various interpretations, some of which do not involve her being repulsed, and all are "debatable" - what does that say about the people who don't agree with your view that it is showing that she is "repulsed?"

Again, it suggests that they possibly can't see it because they lack social awareness/empathy.

Now you're trying to weasel out of it, saying that you didn't mean that she was repulsed when you said she was repulsed, you only meant that one of several debatable interpretations about the photo is that she was repulsed. And, obviously, if you don't see that she was repulsed, even though it's debatable, you lack empathy and especially conservatives won't see it, because they lack the social skills and empathy to find something "wrong" with a picture that is open to several "debatable" interpretations....

This is why it is pointless clarifying stuff for you. Clarifying morphs into alleged "weasel[ling]". If I keep trying to explain the clarification to you it will eventually morph into "lying". Not interested in arguing with you whether black is white. As I said, I've clarified it enough times now. If you don't accept that that was my initial meaning, then that is your issue. Repeatedly clarifying things for you is a fast track to madness.

[pErvinalia]

Seriously I'm fucking done with this retarded thread. I bid you adieu!

17523065_1801275553524252_690269657012184194_n.jpg (85.49 KiB) Viewed 2270 times

[Brian Peacock]

THREAD LOCKED

We very rarely take this action, but I think it might be of benefit to give everyone a bit of break while we review this and that etc.

B.