Theist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

[YowYan]

I posted the definition of offended. It includes displeasure. Then, the definition of displeasure includes annoyance, and annoyance includes irritation. So yes, you are offended according to the dictionary, as per your own admittance. Keep being in denial, though.

You also don't seem to understand the meaning of wallie. It means a wall of text. A wall of text is a long essay with no paragraphs, no punctuation, and no proper grammar.

You must be registered for see links

My posts are divided into paragraphs, I use proper punctuation and grammar.

The difference between hostile and mocking is such that I linked you from dictionairies. Both include causing unpleasant feelings.

You can keep being in denial and say that dictionaries don't help my case, but then what does? Why exactly should I take you as an authority on English more than a dictionary? Because you are qualified to form your opinions? Who said so again? You? Who are you again?

You saying that an atheist will do this and a religious nut will do that proves nothing. I say dinosaurs fly and pigs sing. Wait, no.

I realized something. You're the type that can over-analyze a subject so excessively you'll make it come across as if you actually made a perfect point.

So, you're giving me the very specific meaning of 'offended' as stated in the dictionary. Who in this world says they're offended when someone did nothing but bore them? As far as common understanding goes, the word offended is used when people experience something they identify with is being made a mockery of. Or simply disregarded.

'I'm offended by your wallie'? Who says that. Seriously, don't you get bored of yourself? Trying to bring being a keyboard warrior to such a level that you'll spend more than 30 minutes on posts and look up words in the dictionary, completely negating the first point I was making.

 

[Scooby Doo]

I realized something. You're the type that can over-analyze a subject so excessively you'll make it come across as if you actually made a perfect point.

So, you're giving me the very specific meaning of 'offended' as stated in the dictionary. Who in this world says they're offended when someone did nothing but bore them? As far as common understanding goes, the word offended is used when people experience something they identify with themselves being made a mockery of. Or simply disregarded.

'I'm offended by your wallie'? Who says that. Seriously, don't you get bored of yourself? Trying to bring being a keyboard warrior to such a level that you'll spend more than 30 minutes on posts and look up words in the dictionary, completely negating the first point I was making.

Let's not go there again, making assumptions about me. I realized many things about you, but as I also realize it's an argumentation fallacy to refuse a point simply based on the characteristics of the person who makes them, I won't defile the thread with such things.

I'm not overanalyzing things, I clarify them. If you have a different understanding of the words, than what they actually mean in standard English, then we can't have a discussion. Exactly because if you don't know what an argument is, then you won't recognize it even if it's right in front of your face. This is why you say things like 'religious people have no argument'.

Instead of elaborating, you are looking for excuses as to why not have a proper discussion.

If I simply bored you, you shouldn't have used the word irritated. Simple.

What was your first point? That atheists don't get offended? So, again, why are you offended as per the standard meaning of the word? If you are so peaceful, loving, and enlightened, why is it that all I see from you is calling people retarded for having a different view than you, why is it that you generalize 1/4 of the world's population as being violent by nature, while denying that's racism, why are you projecting your own disappointment in the ghetto area you lived in and your thug friends onto others, why do you feel the need to talk about my past and my real life info as if that was a legit point, yet you refuse official sources as not a good point? Why is it that you can't go a single day without feeling the urge to tell people how you are qualified this and that, but others are not? What kind of a mindset it is to parrotting how you win this and that argument, how others have no chance to win, then you preach about how bad the pride of others are?

If you don't care about what legit sources actually say, then keep making up neologisms, but don't expect others to understand your blabbering.

You spend much more time bashing others than I spend on typing these posts, that are actually based on research, not what I think on my own merit alone.

 

[YowYan]

Let's not go there again, making assumptions about me. I realized many things about you, but as I also realize it's an argumentation fallacy to refuse a point simply based on the characteristics of the person who makes them, I won't defile the thread with such things.

I'm not overanalyzing things, I clarify them. If you have a different understanding of the words, than what they actually mean in standard English, then we can't have a discussion. Exactly because if you don't know what an argument is, then you won't recognize it even if it's right in front of your face. This is why you say things like 'religious people have no argument'.

Instead of elaborating, you are looking for excuses as to why not have a proper discussion.

If I simply bored you, you shouldn't have used the word irritated. Simple.

What was your first point? That atheists don't get offended? So, again, why are you offended as per the standard meaning of the word? If you are so peaceful, loving, and enlightened, why is it that all I see from you is calling people retarded for having a different view than you, why is it that you generalize 1/4 of the world's population as being violent by nature, while denying that's racism, why are you projecting your own disappointment in the ghetto area you lived in and your thug friends onto others, why do you feel the need to talk about my past and my real life info as if that was a legit point, yet you refuse official sources as not a good point? Why is it that you can't go a single day without feeling the urge to tell people how you are qualified this and that, but others are not? What kind of a mindset it is to parrotting how you win this and that argument, how others have no chance to win, then you preach about how bad the pride of others are?

If you don't care about what legit sources actually say, then keep making up neologisms, but don't expect others to understand your blabbering.

You spend much more time bashing others than I spend on typing these posts, that are actually based on research, not what I think on my own merit alone.

You want to discuss the definite meaning of 'offended' whilest the common usage of it is clear to the rest of the world. You got the point. Religious pride often makes for physical threats aka hostility. An atheist has no reason to get hostile nor offended. Case closed.

The standard meaning of the word is not something I identify with. I do not see it as part of me as a religinut will see a religious script as part of their being. So, whatever the dictionary says about the word 'offended', the general individual would find it an odd word to use in my case. 'I'm offended you post a wallie'. Makes sense heh.

And as far as I know, I've only said I'm qualified to form an opinion when it comes to the refugee crisis. Threads in which butthurt muslim members are in every way refuted, retorting to insults and cussing when they fail to argue, get deleted. Others just stop replying when they have nothing to say because they know there is no possibility to refute. Again, I'm talking about a specific topic here. As the refugee crisis was the topic of the past year, ofcourse it will be discussed a lot. It is still but one topic.

I don't bash actually, I mention facts. Some people get butthurt because these facts bring shame to their culture or religion. That's their problem. I'm not the one cussing though. They are.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Buddy, you fail to understand nobody wants to discuss the meaning of words with you.

Then don't. Why are you replying then? xd

Anyway, to refute a piece of information simply based on its source, that is, you saying that you don't care about what dictionaries say on the meaning of the words, because you don't 'identify' with dictionaries: it's called the genetic fallacy. Look it up, do some homework on your own.

The problem is that if you don't want to discuss the meaning of words with me, then no, we won't understand each other. Again, you claim how you win an argument, but that claim in itself is not an argument, no matter how many times you repeat it, and while you may post facts, the conclusions you draw from those facts, and the way you present those facts, is very relevant, because, again, false deductions and misrepresentation may occur, and yes, if you make tons of such fallacies at the same time, you shouldn't talk about winning arguments. Resorting to fallacies is something anyone can do. And when I'm trying to explain it to you, you say it doesn't matter. Again, you don't understand argumentation, that's why I linked you legit sources to learn from. Again, many a times the process of argumentation itself is independent from the validity of the facts you post. You can reach a correct conclusion based on false premises, and you can reach a false conclusion based on true premises. That's why it matters what fallacies you make whilst presenting your arguments.

Also, you say noone wants to discuss the meaning of words with me, but has it ever occured to you that maybe people leave your threads because they don't wanna discuss the topic with you?

IT IS IRRELEVANT to the main topic. You know damn well what is meant by those words, whatever the dictionary says. If you get the message, then stay on topic.

Again, you making assumptions about what I know is not a valid argument.

And what's the message, again? That atheists don't get offended? Which atheists? Coz it seems to me that the Chapel Hall shooter, that I was already referring to but I guess you didn't bother reading my post, was a rather angry atheist.

I'm on topic, it's you bringing up my perosnal life all the time.

Another over-analytic approach on a word. 'wallie'. I see a lot of unnecesary text so I, and others would call it a wallie.

Much of your posts are unnecessary too, especially the parts about you making assumptions about me and my past.

You and others may be wrong. Remember, no matter how many people say smtg stupid, it's still stupid. But keep up the hoard mentality...

Your dictionary, yet again, will not help your cause. The frustrating part is you DO understand me and the words you over-analyze but you need something to work your essay on so you'll go ham on single words that, in a more academic approach, would be used in a different way. We're on an anime forum, not your classroom.

I do understand that you think that religious persons are deluded and aggressive, but I disagree.

I said facts, so personal experiences, based off of not only mine but people spread across the country and national news, 'personal experiences' isn't just a little something that occured to me only. It is nationally accepted here.

Then make claims only about your country, not 1/4 of the world.

Other than that; I, Filosoofis and Hawker would bring facts and statistics on the matter that 'offended' some muslims. It puts their people in a bad spotlight. Yet, the facts remain. You call that bashing, we call that realism.

I never said your statistics are bashing. And I agree that it's stupid to get offended by stats, but the motivation matters much. At least to me. Keep that in mind when talking to me. If you only post 'facts' and 'stats' to look smart and claim how you win the argument, then that's an intellectually dishonest way of discussing.

Fact remains that people see things differently, people may draw different conclusions from the very same stats, just like, f.e. scientists interpret a quantum mechanical phenomenon differently, or just like historicians evaluate a certain event differently. Also, what's the point of making a thread asking 'what do you think of immigration', then when someone doesn't agree that immigration is bad, the person gets bashed ? Again, of course I saw people cussing at you too, but that's no justification for you to do the same- at least if you are insiting that you are so much better.

Fact also remains that 'Eurabia' has been refuted, but as this is rather off topic now, let's just say that there are different polls, different statistics and different estimations/predictions on the matter. Every dice has more sides.

This is but one example of butthurt religious offspring failing to bring a legitimate argument to the table so they dodge.

Just like you are trying to dodge long discussions with me?

So I AM qualified to make that remark. Having gone more in-depth in other threads that later on got deleted because they retorted to cussing due to the severe butthurtness, the rest of the base will never see the proof of which group is cussing.
You've seen me cussing or calling the welfare leeches that prey on european women 'savages'. That's it.

I've seen you calling people retards simply for stating that they believe in God and a holy script. Link in the 'stupid is a flawed concept' thread by ComplexCity.

Feel free to have an academic way of discourse in your classroom. This is an anime forum. Get straight to the point or don't reply at all.

Straight to the point? Ok, I disagre with your simplistic and narrow minded approach. Wow, what an intellectual challenge to make such statments, isn't it?

Anyway, yeah I guess I had better abstain from posting, when kids here admittedly don't care about formulating accurate points. I guess I can't force others to be more demanding towards themselves...