Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SowiesoGroyp" data-source="post: 18709" data-attributes="member: 6">&gt;(it's silly and its internal logic is wrong)how soi think resistance to hypotheticals is kinda cringe. all hypotheticals are supposed to do is clarify your principles (in this case ethical values) by removing ambiguity and confounding factors that would otherwise allow you to waffle and weasel away from answering. if you entirely reject a hypothetical, you should clearly explain why its premises are invalid or unrelated to the subject of discussion.&gt;the whole real situation is obviously essentialessential for what?this is how you get raped and humiliated in a debate with Destiny <img src="/forum/data/assets/smilies/icon_lol.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="lol&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> &quot;i reject your hypothetical because it's... uhhh... silly&quot; always comes across as cope for &quot;i am incapable of abstract thought.&quot; how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning faggot&gt;If you could presuppose that God was real, everyone was otherwise equal, and such a community existed, then the question would answer itself.no, it wouldn't, actually. i would not voluntarily live with niggers even if they were more intelligent and less criminal AND more Christian. wow it's almost like we have different values and this hypothetical has been useful in revealing this to be the case. you just don't like biting bullets because you're a spineless pussy. mad?note: if you respond to this post with a wall of text, i may or may not actually continue the discussion because i am very busy this week. keep it short if you're actually interested in knowing something i think as opposed to feeling compelled to defend yourself from each sentence of my polemic</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SowiesoGroyp, post: 18709, member: 6"] >(it's silly and its internal logic is wrong) how so i think resistance to hypotheticals is kinda cringe. all hypotheticals are supposed to do is clarify your principles (in this case ethical values) by removing ambiguity and confounding factors that would otherwise allow you to waffle and weasel away from answering. if you entirely reject a hypothetical, you should clearly explain why its premises are invalid or unrelated to the subject of discussion. >the whole real situation is obviously essential essential for what? this is how you get raped and humiliated in a debate with Destiny :lol: "i reject your hypothetical because it's... uhhh... silly" always comes across as cope for "i am incapable of abstract thought." how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning faggot >If you could presuppose that God was real, everyone was otherwise equal, and such a community existed, then the question would answer itself. no, it wouldn't, actually. i would not voluntarily live with niggers even if they were more intelligent and less criminal AND more Christian. wow it's almost like we have different values and this hypothetical has been useful in revealing this to be the case. you just don't like biting bullets because you're a spineless pussy. mad? note: if you respond to this post with a wall of text, i may or may not actually continue the discussion because i am very busy this week. keep it short if you're actually interested in knowing something i think as opposed to feeling compelled to defend yourself from each sentence of my polemic [/QUOTE]

Verification