:rofl: Matt Dillahunty says he has more problems trying to set atheists straight, who use poor arguments and bad logic than he does with theists. I dont think Matt would think much of Nickerless Gasbag but perhaps he would plague both our houses! — universeness

So the dude who brought statistical probabilities in unfalsfiable claims and justified war crimes....thinks he can criticize me or Dillahunty....lol ok

Why should I care if people dont want to eat what I offer? I'm happy with it, and if others dont want or arent able to eat it, who cares? It could be maybe that my brain is fried by certain substances. — Hillary

It's just that the fringes can be a tough place to occupy. Most people who choose to place themselves there, do so because their minority viewpoint is ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL to who they are and what they represent. They feel so strongly about their position that they are willing to stand against a large majority. many of whom will ridicule their viewpoint with equal fervour and will label them very harshly.

What's a Pony trek? And just outof interest, what's your birthday?

Maybe Im the Christ of the new age (my wife thinks Im a nutter...). — Hillary

Well, I take it she does so in jest as she married you!
A pony trek is a slow journey on small horses, normally for the pleasure of the natural surroundings involved in the trek. The ponies normally follow the lead pony so the lead pony dictates the direction of the trek. I used the analogy to exemplify my opinion that you were the lead pony in our trek through your polytheistic dalliances.
At least, this exchange has given me further insight into your reasoning.
I have not moved much from my earlier opinions on your proclaimed polytheism.

.thinks he can criticize me or Dillahunty — Nickolasgaspar

Matt Dillahunty is a skilled debater. You are not. Now you type like a pathetic diva!

.thinks he can criticize me or Dillahunty
— Nickolasgaspar

Matt Dillahunty is a skilled debater. You are not. Now you type like a pathetic diva! — universeness

Where the fuck did you criticize MD? Nickerless might be a "high class" logician, but his reading skills are indeed that of a pathetic diva! :lol: (pathetic diva's are funny though).

Well, I take it she does so in jest as she married you! — universeness

Yeah, for sure. And she's right!

So "trek" just means journey, like in Star Trek? Trek is a Dutch word too. "Vogel trek" means the great journey of the birds to warmer regions. Oddly it can also mean lust to eat.
Strange that I never saw Satan in Santa! There are many of these word "coincidences", like evil and devil.

Where the fuck did you criticize MD? — Hillary

:rofl: I know, I actually praised Matt but that does not suit the agenda of the fool on the hill, trying to drown out the opposition. Gasbag wants to fire every toy he has in his cradle towards me because he is wound so tight and has no idea how to feel significant in his own skin.
Most divas are insecure people. Mr Minutia is just desperate to be recognised as a significant intellect but he is too full of nasties to become such. Who knows if he will ever be able to defeat his nasties.

So "trek" just means journey, like in Star Trek? Trek is a Dutch word too. "Vogel trek" means the great journey of the birds to warmer regions. Oddly it can also mean lust to eat — Hillary

Being a Geek, I just looked up the etymology of 'trek' on google and got:

1849 (n.) "a stage of a journey by ox wagon;" 1850 (v.), "to travel or migrate by ox wagon," from Afrikaans trek, from Dutch trekken "to march, journey," originally "to draw, pull," from Middle Dutch trecken (cognate with Middle Low German trecken, Old High German trechan "to draw"). Especially in reference to the Groot Trek (1835 and after) of more than 10,000 Boers, who, discontented with the English colonial authorities, left Cape Colony and went north and north-east. In general use as a noun by 1941. Related: Trekked; trekking.

Seems like its origins do indeed involve Dutch. I love learning new stuff I never knew before!

Strange that I never saw Satan in Santa! There are many of these word "coincidences", like evil and devil — Hillary

A few years ago, an atheist told me that 'evil' and 'devil' don't merit the level of fear they can invoke in many humans because 'evil' just means 'one who follows or supports the biblical Eve.
'Devil,' or D'evil just indicates a person who 'acts like the biblical eve,' and disobeys the dictates of the god of the old testament who he said the Christian hierarchy secretly believe, was 'overthrown,' by the god of the new testament. This all seemed very plausible to me at the time so I eagerly researched this for evidential support. Unfortunately, I found very little evidential support for these claims.
So some atheists employ pure hearsay as well. Exaggeration is not just a theistic tendency, so I try to be careful of that particular pit.

You're the best! :smile: (it almost brings a tear to my eye!)
And way above the "evanhellicals" we both have an aversion of!

Yes, trek means journey, pull, or appetite. Three meanings of one word! You know more words with three such diverse meanings? Or are pull and journey related (pulling of a horse during a trek by chart).

and how would you know! After all you are the one assigning percentages on things with zero verified samples and you suppor the use of atomic bombs on civilians as a way to say soldier's lives.....lol

Yes, trek means journey, pull, or appetite. Three meanings of one word! You know more words with three such diverse meanings? Or are pull and journey related (pulling of a horse during a trek by chart). — Hillary

I like English examples like 'tear.'
I like the fact that it can mean 'the quanta involved in crying' or 'to rip a material such as paper.'
Both are spelled the exact same way. 'Tier' sounds exactly the same but can mean 'a sectional level of cake,' 'A societal or political strata,' ect. Then there is tear and tare, two different spellings which can refer to the same action of ripping a material. Tare can also mean crazy or mad.

In fact (contrary to what I thought first), you can apply probabilities with zero verified samples. I'm 99.9% sure you are a terrible PITA lacking the basics of intelligence. I haven't seen one verified example of the contrary! :lol:

and how would you know! After all you are the one assigning percentages on things with zero verified samples and you suppor the use of atomic bombs on civilians as a way to say soldier's lives — Nickolasgaspar

Lets me help you, it's not 'suppor' its 'support'. It's not 'say soldier's lives,' it's 'save soldiers lives.'
Also, you need to keep reading my posts to try to understand what I actually typed.
Please offer your detailed evidence of the communications between the Allies and the Japanese during WW2 which explain exactly why Truman made the decision he made.

Here is a small begining for you:

The ensuing war was costly. Years of fighting brought the US armed forces closer and closer to Japan as they “hopped” from one island to another. The Japanese were vicious fighters, however, and every victory cost more time, material, and, sadly, lives. The last major battle, the fight for Okinawa, lasted almost three months and took more than 100,000 Japanese and American lives.

After President Roosevelt died on April 12th, 1945, it became Harry Truman’s job to decide how to end the war. The thought of invading Japan gave Truman and his advisors pause. The war had shown that the Japanese were fighting for the Emperor who convinced them that it was better to die than surrender. Women and children had been taught how to kill with basic weapons. Japanese kamikaze pilots could turn planes into guided missiles. The cost of invasion, they knew, would be high.

Upon becoming president, Harry Truman learned of the Manhattan Project, a secret scientific effort to create an atomic bomb. After a successful test of the weapon, Truman issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding the unconditional surrender of the Japanese government, warning of “prompt and utter destruction.” Eleven days later, on August 6, 1945, having received no reply,

Language is fun! When the Berliner meets the Hamburger, the battle of the tastes takes off!

Lets me help you, it's not 'suppor' its 'support'. It's not 'say soldier's lives,' it's 'save soldiers lives.' — universeness

Wanted to write exactly the same! Heigh vife, broother Uni!

Wanted to write exactly the same! Heigh vife, broother Uni! — Hillary

I think he must be a masochist. He could turn this off anytime he chose to but he wants to continue his tantrum. Go figure?

Lets me help you, it's not 'suppor' its 'support'. It's not 'say soldier's lives,' it's 'save soldiers lives.' — universeness

lol.....that's better, stick to "teaching" language. It doesn't demand Logic..... where you under-perform.

Please offer your detailed evidence of the communications between the Allies and the Japanese during WW2 which explain exactly why Truman made the decision he made. — universeness

Irrelevant!!!! Why is this so difficult for you sir?....again your excuse is on trial not the claimed reasons behind the act.
You made it clear that it is more preferable to bomb civilians than losing soldiers.
Better just keep correcting my writings than proving your inability to understand a point and reason.

that's better, stick to "teaching" language. It doesn't demand Logic..... where you under-perform — Nickolasgaspar

Teaching others is always a positive, as long as you have honorable intentions towards your students and you are a capable teacher. So if I am helping you with your English, then I hope you are grateful.
The idea that language does not demand logic is yet another under-performance from you.
Nouns, pronouns, verbs, sentences, paragraphs etc no logic in any of them whatsoever.
Do you live in the land of the brainless where the single brain cell you have makes you king?

again your excuse is on trial — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl: and you gasbag have elected yourself accuser, judge and jury! when you cant even climb out your pram! Your musings on logic are hilarious BEPO :rofl:

You made it clear that it is more preferable to bomb civilians than losing soldiers — Nickolasgaspar

Let me help you further with some of that brain fog you suffer from.
It's better to end a war as quickly as it can be ended. The ways open to you to achieve this are often very complicated and there are no 'good ways,' available. Extreme horrific terrible circumstances may only offer evil, extreme, horrific, terrible alternatives and the only choice you have is between horror and what you and your advisors have judged the 'lesser evil.'
Some soldiers are not volunteers they are conscripts, they did not choose to be soldiers, they are civilians in a uniform holding a gun. I wouldn't like to have you as the father of a soldier and a civilian.
Would you mourn your civilian dead son more than your conscripted soldier dead son?
Is that your logic?

Grammar and Syntax is your call....just stay there. Logic is not your thing.

-"and you gasbag have elected yourself accuser, "
-I am just exposing your strawman.
You made an immoral and silly statement which also happens to be a war crime.
The reasons behind Truman's order are irrelevant to this discussion...its your excuse you gave to justify a criminal act of killing civilians with a weapon of mass destruction.
Pls start tap dancing on irrelevant topics and prove to everyone your dishonesty, immorality and irrationality....go!

-I am just exposing your strawman — Nickolasgaspar

No, you are exposing your idiotic thinking.

You made an immoral and silly statement which also happens to be a war crime. — Nickolasgaspar

Based on what? Your dimwitted judgment.
You are very entertaining BEPO :rofl:

-"It's better to end a war as quickly as it can be ended."
-not by committing a war crime and killing people who do not participate actively.
You keep making the same immoral claim....and you are unable to realize it lol

-"Some soldiers are not volunteers..."
-I don't care about this irrelevant stupid argument.....I am interested in your immoral act to justify the use a weapon of mass destruction on civilians(women, kids, infants, old people, special needs etc).
Are seriously going to stand behind this position....do you want to change it like you did with your first slip on statistics?????

Based on what? — universeness

Based on the criteria we define the Laws of War and humanism. Two states might have differences and they might be irrational enough to engage, but to justify the mass killing of the population which is not taking part in the war you are just proving that you are not just irrational but an immoral thug too.

You just can't address the point in question. You are just incapable to have an honest conversation.
The point in question isn't whether ending a war is less preferable than war casualties.
We are exposing your immoral preference to end a war at all costs...even if it means to use weapons of mass destruction on civilians. Do you really stay behind your initial statement??????? (simple yes or no question).
Now...the dance floor is all yours......

not by committing a war crime and killing people who do not participate actively.
You keep making the same immoral claim....and you are unable to realize it lol

-"Some soldiers are not volunteers..."
-I don't care about this irrelevant stupid argument.....I am interested in your immoral act to justify the use a weapon of mass destruction on civilians(women, kids, infants, old people, special needs etc).
Are seriously going to stand behind this position....do you want to change it like you did with your first slip on statistics????? — Nickolasgaspar

Nothing I have typed is in support of war crimes you complete fool!
You just conflate and obfuscate because you are a dishonest person who holds up big shiny's to distract others

but to justify the mass killing of the population which is not taking part in the war you are just proving that you are not just irrational but an immoral thug too. — Nickolasgaspar

It's merely your skewed projections that conclude I am doing what you suggest when in fact its just your own dishonesty and imbecilic interpretations which are surfacing. Your approach to logical interpretation is as sinister as the likes of Donald Trump and his rag tag bag of fake news peddlers.

You just can't address the point in question. You are just incapable to have an honest conversation.
The point in question isn't whether ending a war is less preferable than war casualties.
We are exposing your immoral preference to end a war at all costs...even if it means to use weapons of mass destruction on civilians. Do you really stay behind your initial statement??????? (simple yes or no question) — Nickolasgaspar

Yes dimwit! When the choice is between the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and the death of millions of innocent civilians and hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides. Which is what would have happened if the allies had to end the war with Japan through the invasion of its mainland. In that horrific reality, the choice would be as terrible as a numbers game.
In such a horrific circumstance would you vote for more civilian deaths than those caused by the two bombs? Yes or no Sherlock? Show us all your moral genius!

Nothing I have typed is in support of war crimes you complete fool! — universeness

Here you are.

Would you have preferred the death of many more American soldiers and goodness knows how many Japanese civilians during a full invasion of the Japanese mainlands. The evidence from the time suggests that the Japanese would not have surrendered easily. — universeness

You are making the act of killing civilians a matter of preference. You are using a hypothetical as a made up better evil.
We are judging the act ..and you are trying to justified with hypotheticals.
You sound like American cops who violate people's rights in order to keep them safe and .....free.
I can not believe someone can be that stupid...I think you are a troll.

Yes dimwit! When the choice is between the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and the death of millions of innocent civilians and hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides — universeness

-False dichotomy, who told you that those are the only choices...and if they are acceptable to begin with.
THEY ARE NOT. You are confusing the fact that crimes are committed with your act making up excuses for them.
What it might have happened, doesn't mean that you need to force us to take a side!
This is the propaganda that Mass Media forced on us in Europe. "You need to agree with NATO's existential threat on Russia...or else you are in favor of Russian invasion".
Why on earth should I accept one of your "evils" mr Propaganda? I reject both from your hypothetical buffet of options and I make a judgement based our current laws.
Boy you are slow and damaged.
CRIMES are not a matter of preference and they are not justified by hypothetical future evil acts or crimes.
Seriously , how old are you????

"idiotic thinking", "you complete fool!", "Your dimwitted judgment", "you are a dishonest person", "are hilarious BEPO", "your own dishonesty", "your skewed projections", "Yes dimwit!", "your own dishonesty and imbecilic interpretations", "brain fog you suffer from", etc.

Now I know you are reversing the bullet (and his linguistic bullet carries way more contempt than yours!) but don't lower yourself to that boring, pseudo-logical, imbecillic, BEPO dimwit talk of that moronic gasbag! A single hole in the bag suffices! Psjsssshshsh.....

this is NOT a historical forum. We are not analyzing the implications and make projections on hypothetical scenarios.
This is a philosophical forum. We reflect on moral evaluations on ACTUAL acts.
The prospect of a future crime doesn't make nuking civilians a preference...