Arsenal v Manchester United, 16:30 GMT (22/01, Sky Sports Main Event)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

That's a non-sensical statement, or an apology. "Progress" is the enhancement of the human condition and circumstance, from our perspective at least. It's VERY easy to spot the difference between good and evil and if you can't even manage that much then never claim to be moral. Morality is the thought behind the action that's the reaction to evil. Evil is not in the eye of the beholder. It is the harm caused to life and private property. It's so simple that it amazes me when sentient human beings dare to debate it. Are you alive? Yes or no. You will say yes without a thought. So exists good and evil. It doesn't need to be analysed because the former has beneficiaries and the latter has victims. Simple.

---

Ok this requires only a yes or no. Is your assertion that a female football pundit is a step towards legalised Paedophilia an objective fact or a subjective opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

:gp:

It is an irony that "bigot" now means "not subscribing to the proscribed way of thinking". Anything deviating from that is now bigotry or hate speech. It's pretty tiresome and prevents any sensible debates about complex issues like trans rights.

---

Good God, do you have no shame whatsoever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn

Ok this requires only a yes or no. Is your assertion that a female football pundit is a step towards legalised Paedophilia an objective fact or a subjective opinion?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn

Ok this requires only a yes or no. Is your assertion that a female football pundit is a step towards legalised Paedophilia an objective fact or a subjective opinion?

---

But the way you framed the question obviously removed all context.

So I guess you can now take the husk of the argument and build a freebie social counter. But we still didn't achieve anything, did we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

But the way you framed the question obviously removed all context.

So I guess you can now take the husk of the argument and build a freebie social counter. But we still didn't achieve anything, did we?

---

The more obvious point was that I didn’t frame it in a way that made a yes or no response apposite. Long day

But no I’m less interested in a debating society over this matter. If your yes answer was to affirm that for you it’s objective truth…it’s quite revealing. I’m sure you’d show your workings out, but I’d honestly have no more interest in reading it than you have in my original Long form response which you’ll have to take my word for it actually engages with your assertion without just dismissing it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn

The more obvious point was that I didn’t frame it in a way that made a yes or no response apposite. Long day

But no I’m less interested in a debating society over this matter. If your yes answer was to affirm that for you it’s objective truth…it’s quite revealing. I’m sure you’d show your workings out, but I’d honestly have no more interest in reading it than you have in my original Long form response which you’ll have to take my word for it actually engages with your assertion without just dismissing it

---

No, I genuinely didn't read it. I'm so far past trying to argue with anyone who can't see what's right in front of his face. I'm glad you used the word "objective" which tells me you are operating beyond the usual direct download. But still with the stupid questions. It's like you get bitten once, twice, thrice, again, again, again, and over again and at each step the majority scratches its collective head and asks, is there maybe something up here? The very people they should be questioning say no. And the majority sighs in relief.

So here you are, still asking me if the ruling class is evil. And so I said, "yes". Not sure I need to embellish the obvious. I mean, do you want evidence? That would just be a history lesson, right? Boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

No, I genuinely didn't read it. I'm so far past trying to argue with anyone who can't see what's right in front of his face. I'm glad you used the word "objective" which tells me you are operating beyond the usual direct download. But still with the stupid questions. It's like you get bitten once, twice, thrice, again, again, again, and over again and at each step the majority scratches its collective head and asks, is there maybe something up here? The very people they should be questioning say no. And the majority sighs in relief.

So here you are, still asking me if the ruling class is evil. And so I said, "yes". Not sure I need to embellish the obvious. I mean, do you want evidence? That would just be a history lesson, right? Boring.

---

At the risk of becoming metaphysical, The problem is that you and I most likely don’t even share a common conception of Evil, we might believe many of the same things are Evil…but not a common understanding of where that framework came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn

At the risk of becoming metaphysical, The problem is that you and I most likely don’t even share a common conception of Evil, we might believe many of the same things are Evil…but not a common understanding of where that framework came from.

---

Again, I'm wondering what you can possibly mean. How can there be any argument about the definition of evil? Well okay then, explain. Can't wait to hear this one.

Better yet, define "good'. Then we can derive its antithesis and the argument disappears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Better yet, define "good'. Then we can derive its antithesis and the argument disappears.

---

Note that i said concept not definition