patrick.net

rando says

That was Dawson

I loved him in M*A**S*H
www.youtube.com/embed/UmzsWxPLIOo

"I know nothing" is your Freudian slip as you misrepresent "hogans heroes" for "MASH".

Dan8267 says

rando says

That was Dawson

I loved him in M*A**S*H

www.youtube.com/embed/UmzsWxPLIOo

BlueSardine says

"I know nothing" is your Freudian slip as you misrepresent "hogans heroes" for "MASH".

Do I really have to explain the joke to you?

Nice try, but occam's razor validates my post.

Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

"I know nothing" is your Freudian slip as you misrepresent "hogans heroes" for "MASH".

Do I really have to explain the joke to you?

BlueSardine says

Nice try, but occam's razor validates my post.

No, it doesn't, and you clearly do not understand Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor does NOT say that the simplest explanation is the best -- and that doesn't even apply here anyway. Occam's Razor is "We should not multiply entities needlessly.". This means that if two explanations have the exact same result, then the one with fewer actors is preferred. For example, the existence of the universe by purely natural means has one fewer actors than the hypothesis that a god created the universe, therefore, the default belief should be in no god.

Occam's Razor
1. Never proves anything. It merely places the burden of proof of needless entities on the proponent of those entities.
2. Does not say the simpler explanation is better. The simpler explanation may be the one with needless entities. Natural laws are far deeper, richer, and more complex than "god did it", yet actually have explanatory power.

Once more, trolls demonstrate that their opinions and posts are worthless. Shrek does, however, illustrate why the conservative right is every bit as incapable of reasoning as the conservative left.

Dawkins could come to patrick.net & get banned.

Dan8267 says

Do I really have to explain the joke to you?

Everything has to be explained to patnetters. lol

Dan8267 says

YesYNot says

Dan, you are using the classic definition of liberal.

1. Clarity in language matters. Changing nomenclature for the sole purpose of falsely associating one set of beliefs with another completely conflicting set of beliefs is not acceptable. Doing so is simply a thinly veiled poisoning the well argument. If what Trigglypuff says is wrong, then everything Sam Harris says must also be wrong because we label them both liberals even though they have complete opposite beliefs.

This is exactly what you do when you claim that people like Donald Trump, Vlad the Impaler and Adolf Hitler are Christian and therefore all Christians are bad. Just because Trigglypuff identifies as a liberal, doesn't make her a liberal right Dan? So just because a bunch of murdering liars identify themselves as Christians doesn't make them Christians either right Dan? What makes a person a liberal is who they are, not who they say they are. What makes a person a Christian is who they are, not who they say they are. Hopefully now you see the error or your ways. You explained it to yourself.

Clarity in language matters, so if you want to know what a Christian is, look to the person who defined and exemplified it. He had is followers right down exactly who He is, what He did, what He taught, and what He promises to do.

Dan8267 says

Wrong. By definition, liberals do not believe in suppressing opposing speech

says the illiberal guy who justifies his own conservatism: suppressing opposing speech by censoring who can post on "his" threads

Dan8267 says

The simpler explanation may be the one with needless entities. Natural laws are far deeper, richer, and more complex than "god did it", yet actually have explanatory power.

Natural laws have no explanatory power on the origin of the universe. God is not a "needless entity". It is deep, rich and complex to discover how God did it, and how he continues to keep it up. That is what science is, a systematic study of God's creation.

The origin requires an explanation that natural law can not provide (without introduction of a "needless" entity).

Here is how the founder of modern taxonomy described it:
Carl Linnaeus

“We imagine that the Creator at the actual time of creation made only one single species for each natural order of plants, this species being different in habit and fructification from all the rest. That he made these mutually fertile, whence out of their progeny, fructification having been somewhat changed, Genera of natural classes have arisen as many in number as the different parents, and since this is not carried further, we regard this also as having been done by His Omnipotent hand directly in the beginning; thus all Genera were primeval and constituted a single Species. That as many Genera having arisen as there were individuals in the beginning, these plants in course of time became fertilised by others of different sort and thus arose Species until so many were produced as now exist... these Species were sometimes fertilised out of congeners, that is other Species of the same Genus, whence have arisen Varieties. ”

Fundamenta fructificationis (1742). As quoted in John S. Wilkins (2009), "Species: A History of the Idea," University of California Press. p. 72

PeopleUnited says

says the illiberal guy who justifies his own conservatism: suppressing opposing speech by censoring who can post on "his" threads

Once more you are caught in a lie. There is no way that any person on PatNet can censor another person. All users are free to open their own threads and say whatever they want.

You are arguing that not admitting out disruptive people is censorship. So if TrigglyPuff isn't allowed to shout down all speakers she doesn't like, then she's being censored. This is not how the real world work.

You are simply being a special snowflake whining about being banned for your bad and disruptive behavior.

PeopleUnited says

Natural laws have no explanatory power on the origin of the universe.

Yes, they do. Nothingness is unstable

“Nothing is unstable,” Frank Wilczek, a physicist and Nobel laureate from MIT, finally said to a general murmur of agreement of his colleagues on stage, John Barrow of Cambridge University in England, Paul Davies of Arizona State and George Ellis of the University of Cape Town in South Africa.

Given a chance, nature will make nothingness boil with activity.

In contrast, your god hypothesis explains nothing including existence. If your god created the universe, then what created your god. If your god can exist without being created, then why can the universe also no exist without being created? You could call the universe itself god, if you are willing to accept that god is non-sentient, amoral, and ignorant of your existence.

Once again, you failed to do anything except make baseless assertions that are easily disproved. I don't have to censor you. You're arguments are nonsense.

Dan8267 says

Liberalism is NOT a self-identifying term. If you don't believe in liberalism, you are not a liberal.

Christianity is NOT a self-identifying term. If you do not know Christ as your savior, you are not a Christian.

Matthew Chapter 7

True and False Disciples
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

The Wise and Foolish Builders
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

Natural laws have no explanatory power on the origin of the universe.

Yes, they do. Nothingness is unstable

“Nothing is unstable,” Frank Wilczek, a physicist and Nobel laureate from MIT, finally said to a general murmur of agreement of his colleagues on stage, John Barrow of Cambridge University in England, Paul Davies of Arizona State and George Ellis of the University of Cape Town in South Africa.

Given a chance, nature will make nothingness boil with activity.

Bullshit, some guys with letters behind their names make a false statement and you call it gospel. You are exactly what you accuse Christians of being.

Your own words are evidence of your true condition.

Dan8267 says

Once again, Dan failed to do anything except make baseless assertions that are easily disproved. I don't have to censor him. His arguments are nonsense.

PeopleUnited says

Christianity is NOT a self-identifying term. If you do not know Christ as your savior, you are not a Christian.

Yes, a Christian is, by definition, someone who believes in the divinity of Christ. Many such persons were pure evil, including Hitler.

Christians can and do commit genocide, rape, slavery, torture, etc.

PeopleUnited says

Bullshit, some guys with letters behind their names make a false statement and you call it gospel.

Those statement have plenty of empirical evidence. Quarks tend to align themselves with peaks in quantum fluctuation. Virtual particles have been observed.

I believe in statements for which there is evidence. You believe in nonsense despite evidence to the contrary. This is why your opinions on things don't matter and why your ignorance is dangerous. Some things, like climate change, are damn important and belief in them should not be based on fairy tales.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

Once again, Dan failed to do anything except make baseless assertions that are easily disproved. I don't have to censor him. His arguments are nonsense.

I did not say that. You are simply lying. Typical Christian.

I don't have to lie to further my position because the truth is on my side. If it weren't, I'd switch positions to whatever was true.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

says the illiberal guy who justifies his own conservatism: suppressing opposing speech by censoring who can post on "his" threads

Once more you are caught in a lie. There is no way that any person on PatNet can censor another person. All users are free to open their own threads and say whatever they want.

Stop it Dan, no one censors more than you. I am the true guy who never censors. I have never ever put anyone on ignore or given an ad hominem. I have never given a "dislike" either.

Strategist says

Stop it Dan, no one censors more than you.

As I've stated, banning trolls from one's own threads prevents them from disrupting conversations and turning otherwise productive conversations into turd flinging flame wars, but it does not in any way censor them.

Case in point, I've banned you. How exactly have I prevented you from saying anything you want to? Unless you can give a good answer to that, you are lying.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Stop it Dan, no one censors more than you.

As I've stated, banning trolls from one's own threads prevents them from disrupting conversations and turning otherwise productive conversations into turd flinging flame wars, but it does not in any way censor them.

Case in point, I've banned you. How exactly have I prevented you from saying anything you want to? Unless you can give a good answer to that, you are lying.

By preventing me from saying anything I want, anywhere. Duh!

Strategist says

By preventing me from saying anything I want, anywhere. Duh!

That is not censorship. You clearly have deep problems with basic English words.

You never could say anything anywhere. You cannot say anything inside the Pentagon because you won't be allowed in there.

Furthermore, PatNet isn't a where and you can still say virtually anything on PatNet. You aren't losing audience members by being banned from a person's threads.

You seem to believe that freedom of speech is the freedom to disrupt other people's speech. It is not. Freedom of speech is the ability to communicate with anyone who wants to communicate with you about any subject you and the other person wish to discuss. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with preventing other people from having productive conversations or being invited to spread misinformation, or having equal access to a conversation or symposium held by a reputable organization.

Put simply, your freedom of speech isn't being violated simply because the generals in the Pentagon aren't inviting you into the war room to discuss your ideas about how to fight a war. You are being ridiculous.

People that are involved in a thread do not necessarily scan other threads to see relevant input.
So potential posters to a thread are losing audience members in the thread due to the fact that they are banned.

So what you have written below is basically an outright fucking lie.

Live with it deal with it.
Liar.
Dan8267 says

You aren't losing audience members by being banned from a person's threads.

This is what is known as a false equivalency Pat net.com is not the Pentagon.
What this really is is a barrage of words to smokescreen the fact that your answers are all fucked up.
Dan8267 says

Put simply, your freedom of speech isn't being violated simply because the generals in the Pentagon aren't inviting you into the war room to discuss your ideas about how to fight a war. You are being ridiculous.

You seem to believe that you know what others believe which you do not.
How arrogant.
Dan8267 says

You seem to believe that freedom of speech is the freedom to disrupt other people's speech.

Not even close.
Freedom of speech does not have anything to do with anyone who wants to communicate with you about any subject.
Freedom of speech has everything to do with one's right to voice their opinions as long as no physical harm comes of it to other people.
Dan8267 says

Freedom of speech is the ability to communicate with anyone who wants to communicate with you about any subject you and the other person wish to discuss.

This depends on one's definition of where.
A physical where is where your body is currently located. A mental where is where your mind is at which definitely can be patnet.com.
So your definition below is meaningless since you decided not to sub categorize the Where You Are referring to.
Dan8267 says

Furthermore, PatNet isn't a where

Correct.
Strategist says

By preventing me from saying anything I want, anywhere. Duh!

BlueSardine says

People that are involved in a thread do not necessarily scan other threads to see relevant input.

Irrelevant. The newspaper and television stations not giving you free publicity is not an infringement on your free speech. Your free speech isn't being oppressed because Nightline does not solicit your opinion on air.

Your complaint is also hypocritical as you present misinformation, blatant lies, and cherry picked data.

BlueSardine says

So what you have written below is basically an outright fucking lie.

Live with it deal with it.

Liar.

Clearly not as I have explained about. And for you to call anyone a liar is utter hypocrisy.

BlueSardine says

This is what is known as a false equivalency Pat net.com is not the Pentagon.

No, it's not. You just suck at logic. I'm not saying the Pentagon and PatNet are the same thing. Hell, no two forums are the same thing. However, your argument is flawed because it would apply to both.

The statement "your car cannot be made out of metal because nothing is made out of metal" is an incorrect statement and can be proven by showing that submarines are made out of metal. The fact that cars and submarines are not the same thing is irrelevant to disproving the premise "nothing is made out of metal".

I could give you thousands of examples where you are not invited to speak. According to the original premise, all these examples and any others would violate your free speech rights. So clearly, that premise is bullshit. Not being invited into a conversation when you have started flame wars over and over again is not a violation of your free speech rights, nor is it censorship. You are just wrong.

And if you actually wanted to have a constructive debate with someone, you wouldn't be starting flame wars and trolling in the first place.

BlueSardine says

A physical where is where your body is currently located. A mental where is where your mind is at which definitely can be patnet.com.

So your definition below is meaningless since you decided not to sub categorize the Where You Are referring to.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, PatNet isn't a where

Then again, you can't say things anywhere. You can't say things on the White House press releases. You can't say things in the fiscal reports of corporations. You can't say whatever you want at a random high school graduation ceremony.

Just because not every person gives the microphone to every other person in every venue on the planet does not mean you are being censored. You are not entitled to me helping you get your message and lies across.

BlueSardine says

Freedom of speech has everything to do with one's right to voice their opinions as long as no physical harm comes of it to other people.

Banning people does not stop you from voicing your opinion. Your posts on this thread proves that.

My posts in this thread prove i have freedom of speech here specifically because i am not banned on this thread.
Hey thanks for making my point..
Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

Freedom of speech has everything to do with one's right to voice their opinions as long as no physical harm comes of it to other people.

Banning people does not stop you from voicing your opinion. Your posts on this thread proves that.

Nightline is a tv show comprised of current newsworthy segments.
Patnet is an internet free speech forum
Apples and oranges
False equivilancy again.
This appears to be your speciality. ..
Dan8267 says

Your free speech isn't being oppressed because Nightline does not solicit your opinion on air.

You suck at detecting equivilancies..
Dan8267 says

You just suck at logic.

I'll make it easy.
Give me 100...
Dan8267 says

I could give you thousands of examples where you are not invited to speak.

Patnet.com is not the newspapers or television.
Another false equivilancy. Yawn...
Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

People that are involved in a thread do not necessarily scan other threads to see relevant input.

Irrelevant. The newspaper and television stations not giving you free publicity is not an infringement on your free speech.

The comparison is anonymous internet forums, not people with microphones sharing on a global basis.
Another false equivilancy. ...yawn
Dan8267 says

Just because not every person gives the microphone to every other person in every venue on the planet does not mean you are being censored.

False Yawn equivilancy
Dan8267 says

You can't say things on the White House press releases.

Oh is Patrick.net an S or C corp?
Public or private?
Dan8267 says

You can't say things in the fiscal reports of corporations

BlueSardine says

My posts in this thread prove i have freedom of speech here specifically because i am not banned on this thread.

Hey thanks for making my point..

I didn't. You're just not that smart.

I would have to have the power and exercise the power to ban you from all threads for your point to have been made.

You can shout all you want on PatNet. I'm not under any obligation, ethical or otherwise, to invite you into my broadcast and hand you my microphone. That's where your analogy fails.

BlueSardine says

Apples and oranges

False equivilancy again.

No two apples are the same. So I guess you are saying that you cannot compare apples to apples.

BlueSardine says

Patnet.com is not the newspapers or television.

Another false equivilancy. Yawn..

PatNet is electronic communication just like television and modern newspapers.

PatNet isn't Use.net or Reddit. So unless censorship applies specifically to PatNet, then you are saying it's impossible for anything on PatNet to be censorship. After all censorship is what government does, and PatNet is not government. False equivalency.

Works both ways.

BlueSardine says

The comparison is anonymous internet forums, not people with microphones sharing on a global basis.

Censorship has nothing intrinsically or uniquely to do with Internet forums. Plus PatNet isn't any other Internet forum. It's not Usenet or Reddit. So apples and oranges again.

You have utterly failed to show anyway that my banning trolls like you from my threads in any way censors you or violates your freedom of speech. And quite frankly, you could get unbanned simply by growing up and no longer starting flame wars. You simply lack the maturity to do that.

BlueSardine says

Oh is Patrick.net an S or C corp?

As usual, you demonstrate too little intelligence to get the point that is obvious to everyone else.

The validictorian can.
The rest of the class is banned.
Oh are we talking about your year end kindergarden graduation? You must have been the chief heehaw.
Splains a lot bout how you turned out..
Dan8267 says

You can't say whatever you want at a random high school graduation ceremony.

You did. You're just too stupid to realize it.
Dan8267 says

Hey thanks for making my point..

I didn't. You're just not that smart.

BlueSardine says

The validictorian can.

Actually no. But anyway everyone else's freedom of speech would be violated according to the arguments you are making. To continue the analogy, the high school administration is the thread host and the valedictorian is invited to speak, but the class clown is not. You are the class clown. You were not invited to speak because you are an embarrassment to the school, have nothing worth listening to, and would just take a giant dump on the podium if given the chance.

BlueSardine says

You did. You're just too stupid to realize it.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Fortunately the evidence is abundant in your previous posts..
Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

You did. You're just too stupid to realize it.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Actually, yes.
Tell me who screened and approved the validictorian speech for Cal Berkeley 2017?
Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

The validictorian can.

Actually no.