The new guy to the board made a comparison to Jesus
Which is idiotic and he’s yet to own it.
George Takei next to go
- Thread starter UCFKnight85
- Start date
The new guy to the board made a comparison to Jesus
Which is idiotic and he’s yet to own it.
Goddamnit. Please please please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid. I literally cannot take the fact that there are people as dumb as you are trying to appear right now who's vote counts the same as mine.
It's called an analogy. Say it with me. A-nal-Ogy. Look it up. You are on the internet.
Let's gather a quick list of the number of things FNB has gotten wrong so far in this one thread alone:
1) he claims that any arguments made by Takei are somehow bullshit if it turned out Takei is guilty (fnb already assumed he is guilty but I'll let that slide)
This is 100% false. Arguments are true or false depending on the merit of the argument, not on the morality of the person making the argument.
2) FNB claimed that this new guy said that Takei= Jesus
This is also false. New guy used an analogy, which evidently is something that bob is completely unfamiliar with. You can argue the validity of th analogy, but not what new guy said.
Bravo bob, I'm sure this list will grow.
1) he claims that any arguments made by Takei are somehow bullshit if it turned out Takei is guilty (fnb already assumed he is guilty but I'll let that slide)
This is 100% false. Arguments are true or false depending on the merit of the argument, not on the morality of the person making the argument.
2) FNB claimed that this new guy said that Takei= Jesus
This is also false. New guy used an analogy, which evidently is something that bob is completely unfamiliar with. You can argue the validity of th analogy, but not what new guy said.
Bravo bob, I'm sure this list will grow.
I am actually slightly upset that people as stupid as bob have a vote that counts the same as mine, yes.
Lol. Ninja loses again. I'll give you credit though that's the first time you've made a counter point that didn't include an insult. Ninja has graduated to middle school!!!
You are actually too stupid to realize that was an insult.
Wow.
Good job completely ignoring my post detailing all the bullshit you posted. I'd do the same thing if someone completely and utterly embarrassed me like that as well.
On a serious note though for real, look up the definition of analogy and maybe read a couple examples, it will avoid this little mix up in the future.
My first guess was going to be: food and beverage. But, I'm going to go with "Fake News Bob".
And, without getting into my own personal beliefs, even if @Trel MK made a comparison to @Jesus, why would that be disallowed? Is it because @Jesus represents the pinnacle of your own personal beliefs? Some of you on here have brought up @Mohammed when discussing Islamic extremists. How are the two situations different?
but seriously, fcuk this guy. hes been preaching like hes some kind of moral authority. lol
There were exactly 1,000 better comparisons to use than the Son of God when referring to George F*cking Takei. That's why.
Apparently only Ray Moore matters, not morality hypocrites in Hollywood.
Well, at least this circus is finally hitting Hollywood too.
Well, at least this circus is finally hitting Hollywood too.
If it were revealed that Jesus was a pedophile, would you still be a Christian?
Depends ...
- Am I a Christian because of what is alleged about Jesus?
- Or am I a Christian because of what is published in the Gospel?
- Am I black because of what is alleged about Martin Luther King, Jr (insert Malcom X, Jessie Jackson, et al.)?
- Or am I a black because of what is published in our struggles?
Same goes for standing for the flag ...
- Do I stand for the flag because I believe in everything my country does?
- Or do I stand for the flag for things others believe it should represent?
Even Christianity preaches this, heavily, even if many Christians don't take it to heart.
Indeed.
Although I do find it ironic that too many Muslims go nuts and riot and even kill whenever Muhammad is characterized, when the whole reason Muhammad didn't want to be characterized or idolized is to avoid people going nuts and rioting and killing in his name.
Yes ... and no, and this is key to understand ...
If it's in a different context, then yes.
If it's in the same context, then no.
I.e., it's beyond hypocrisy, but being a conflict-of-interest.
Examples ... and why?
- Brandon Marshall getting on his high horse about what should be done with players committing domestic violence is a perfect example -- especially when he doesn't even address the reality that he was one.
- Hillary Clinton saying all female accusers should be believed by default is another -- especially when she fires back with a response with "actual victims."
- George Stephanopoulos grilling the author of Clinton Cash is yet another -- especially when Stephanopoulos not only has 8 figures of continued, fiscal liabilities with the Clintons, but he first downplays, then eventually and -- in at least one documented case -- lies about the sheer amount.
It's that their presence in the argument undermines the argument.
Their entire presence is an example of people abusing the system / their position, the actual charge made!
Americans, especially celebrities and journalists, used to understand this.
Now days, the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) has become a cult of personality.
So Takei is yet another example ... a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) who now himself has been accused.
Hence the "greater issue" ...
The problem with the supermajority of Americans is that they only seem to apply to the parties they don't favor.
And ... Isn't that what you do when it comes to Neo-Conservatives, or Conservatives you believe to be Neo-Cons? But then you turn around and defend Progressives, not Liberals, but Progressives using the same arguments you complain Neo-Conservatives do? You say you're not a Progressive, but ... your arguments suggest otherwise.
Case-in-point ...
And before you say "Breibart" or "Fox News" or whomever you want to throw me in bed with, please point out -- even via paraphrase or from your memory -- where I even sounded like such. I fully admit I sound like "Reason.COM" and a typical "Rand" viewpoint at times, and will fully accept such.
I.e., that's a hallmark Progressive (like a Neo-Conservative), assume someone who doesn't think like you must be listening to "Breibart" or "Fox News" (like MSNBC or Huff Post).
And this is the #1 issue I take with you.
You will see only the things you want as analogy, saracasm, etc... when you want, but not in reverse.
I admit some of Bob's views are Neo-Conservative at times. But I end up calling you out more because of the tactics.
But if you haven't noticed, I've called out or clarified where Bob is not being considerate more than once now. Unfortunately you've usually joined before I respond, hence why my "Now hold on" is usually followed by my complaints of you using Mainstream Progressive Media logic.
Alright, a little over-sensitive there. I do (just me, personally) believe the singularity behind the universe (aka "God" or "Jahovah" or "Allah") has a sense of humor and had to laugh at what was said. But that's my own covenant and faith, I just laugh at people who want to make it about Divinity (being a figment) and anyone who goes to Church (being misguided).
Especially people who have 'blind faith' in the Church of Mainstream Media. It doesn't require religion to have 'blind faith' in what anyone else tells you. Whether the claim is 'Religion' or 'Science,' if the listener is ignorant of the foundations, they cannot follow the concept.
SIDE NOTE: I don't believe in many aspects of organized religion, but that's a long story. It also has a lot to do with how I lost my faith in the US media after 1996 and Richard Jewel.
"Locker room talk" = crucify left wing sci fi supporting actor from the 60's and elect right wing president
Last edited:
Gizmodo and Daily Beast have articles out today detailing the culture of sexual harassment at HuffPo and VICE News.
Seems that Ariana Huffington, proclaimed leader of the Women's Movement, is an enabler of sexual harassment and assault if it's profitable for her company.
Seems that Ariana Huffington, proclaimed leader of the Women's Movement, is an enabler of sexual harassment and assault if it's profitable for her company.
Exactly. Hypocritical, left-wing mouthpieces are exactly why we have a right-wing President. That's also what used to get us left-wing Presidents, the hypocrisy of the right-wing establishment.
E.g., the religious-right getting 'caught with their pants down.' Even the divorce and infidelity rates of the "family values" '94 elected Republicans were no better than typical, Congressional rates.
Now it's backfiring on the left, everything from sexual extortion to violation. Their 'sexual freedom' is about 'oh, well, excuse the men for what they do, they are advancing the rights of women, LGBT and et al.' The Clintons started this trend, guilty people, then look hypocritical.
I'll give President Obama some credit, he really is a family man and he navigated conflicts-of-interest as best as he could. But he bloated Washington with special interest and killed a lot of mom'n pop with regulation that backfired, as well as looking like a hypocrite on Afghanistan and, even worse, drone warfare.
Now it's President Trump's turn, from golfing to Syria. But he, or at least his family, are starting to look like the Clintons when it comes to conflicts-of-interest, worse than the Clintons.
In any case ... if the left would stop using Mainstream Media to push Social Justice Warrior issues where many are "do as I say not do as I do," then the left-wing could get back to being freedom-loving Liberals. But since they won't, and they've gone after the 1st Amendment -- directly (throwing reporters in jail, first in the mid '00s, then again in Obama's tenure) -- while Trump just "lip service" -- I have to fear the Democratic party more since '06.
Especially since they heavily control the Mainstream Media ... directly. The Libertarian Party proved that, with Reason.COM leaking the play-by-play and 'bad actors' 3 weeks before the 2016 debates started.
I have to agree. The Huff Post has crossed the line several times. It's amazing what happens when women are put in charge ... they have enough 'bad apples' that ... gasp, they act with 'male privilege!'
Many years back, an insightful African-American sports writer commented on why a more qualified African-American coach didn't get the HC job at a NFL team. It wasn't racism. It wasn't because there was a 'glass ceiling' for African-American coaches. It wasn't that it was a "good'ole boys club."
It was that it was a "good'ole club" -- in general -- where people hire friends who they know, and they agree, and they say, "Oh, he's the best candidate," instead of being objective.
The same has happened at the Huff Post. It's not that they are sexist or racist or whatever. They just have a 'lot of friends' that 'excuse' what they should look at 'more objectively.'
Not sure if serious. If people are truly casting votes based off what hyper partisan dumbass pundits say on either side of the spectrum, we are truly screwed as a country.
Yep unless something more comes out, I don't really see this as a big deal. Could George have done it? Sure but you can't throw him under the bus with just this.
Well, looks like this story was bullshit. I'm just absolutely shocked that the always bipartisan 85 would jump on any chance he gets to crucify anyone on the left.
Scott Brunton, the man who accused George Takei of drugging and sexually assaulting him in 1981, almost certainly wasn't drugged, changed key details of his story, and told at least one outright lie to The Hollywood Reporter, where Brunton's allegations first appeared last November.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/25/george-takei-sexual-assault-me-too
It really never gets old pointing out 85's bullshit.
Probably not, the reporter did quite a bit of investigation and found inconsistencies in his stories.
Plus Takei is way too classy for that, unlike our president.
