why

IBDaMann wrote:

Ikari said:IB daMann, Your actions in this message (Some Trump records taken to Mar-a-Lago clearly marked as classified, including documents at 'top secret' level) violate Rule 6a:
You cannot comment on moderator actions, attack moderation or attack a moderator (in the capacity of being a mod) "upstairs". There is one place and one place only where you are free to comment on moderation - https://debatepolitics.com/threads/forum-rules.28594/

Your account's access may be limited based on these actions. Please keep this in mind when posting or using our site.

Your action was stupid. You should have read my post for comprehension before knee-jerking a brain-dead response. I openly acknowledged changing some words in the quote for literary effect and to more clearly answer his stupid question. You can't call that "Trolling" or "Flaming" or whatever. You were supposed to have learned the literary vehicles in highschool.

Put some intelligence into your censorship.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

keepit wrote:gfm, if you agree 100% with the party line you aren't thinking for your self.

I fail to see how this means anything, since I am far from 100% agreeing with any political party's platform.

I wish you hadn't responded. keepit was just trolling you. Look at the exaggeration of his post. He knew that he could get a rise out of you.

You, naturally, put thought into your response and put in the effort to provide a thorough answer ...

IBdaMann wrote:
followed by two additional well-written posts ...

IBdaMann wrote:
... and keepit just laughed at you for wasting your time and effort. Once he saw that you were done he fired back another troll-barb. "So why don't you like the ones you mentioned. Is it because the aren't conservative enough."

IBdaMann wrote:
At least then you gave him an RQAA ... but I winced when I saw the trouble through which you went to provide your initial answers when it wasn't a serious question in the first place.

IBdaMann wrote:
... but your posts were good, don't get me wrong.

IBDaMann wrote:

Ikari said:Yeah, openly acknowledging that you broke the rules doesn't negate the fact that you broke the rules.

I didn't break the rules. I didn't change the meaning of his quote. I built the answer into the quote. Are you totally illiterate? All you had to do was read the F'ing post.

The censors at Debate Politics are not the sharpest tacks in the box.

Ikari said: Good lord. Just don't break the rules and your fine.

Please read your own rules in their entirety, understand the intent, and then make intelligent decisions. You are not required to knee-jerk erroneously. Seriously. You're not.

Ikari said: Besides, you had many posts in that thread that were over the line.

Not a single one. In every post I made a thesis statement (a main point), I thoroughly supported that point, and if someone is totally stupid, I make the observation and I totally support the observation.

If you think there is one or more examples of where I have not done so, please point them out to me. I am always happy to provide additional clarification if anyone thinks it is needed. But one thing you cannot validly claim is that I don't completely support my stated positions.

I realize that the real problem is that Debate Politics does not appreciate intelligent/educated posters because that makes the broad base of stupid posters on this site feel threatened. Debate Politics has spent years systematically banning intelligent contributors at the request of truly brain-dead members. Debate Politics' core business model is to develop a "Safe Space" for stupid people, where they will find refuge behind censors who will ban the "offending" members.

Go take a look at my back-n-forth with ttwtt78640. He is so representative of the kind of posters that Debate Politics has cultivated. He knows absolutely nothing but on this site he believes that he is a total genius. I am an expert in the classified world. I won't go into my credentials but I am an expert and I can tell that he doesn't even know the basics. Yet I cannot even help him without him doubling down on stupid and pretending that he is the expert.

Bodhisattva is exactly the same, except across the board. In both cases, I was the one who was "warned" for "trolling/flaming/bainting" by censors who sense that a stupid person is likely to feel threatened by an actual expert and so we had better nip this in the bud. My expertise is flagged as "Trolling/Flaming/Baiting."

If you ever want to know why there is no cognitive activity going on, it's because it has all been squelched.

Ikari said:You're lucky I didn't thread ban you.

Nope. This board is the benefactor of my presence. If you ban me then you lose the benefit of my posting. If you don't want me making stupid posters feel threatened then please, ban me. If the board owner is looking to protect and coddle the stupidest among us then I don't want to be thwarting his/her efforts.

If that is the case then just ban me, I won't take it personally. You can dispense with all the pretending that I am trolling or baiting or however you categorize intelligence.

If you lose me, you lose me. I already have other sites where intelligent posting is appreciated and encouraged. I only returned to Debate Politics to check my profile and saw a few posts that were begging for intelligent responses. Oooops, my mistake.

The bottom line is that I'm not going to be bullied into dumbing down my post to keep the stupid happy.

Ikari said:But this is over now. I will entertain no more discussion on this topic from you,

Great, ban me. I see that you became a censor just for the power trip. Excercise it. Make yourself feel powerful. You know you want to.

Ikari said:Do not contact me again regarding this, else it will be taken as harassment.

You are a coward. You definitely belong in a censorship position.

Too funny. You consider a PM to be "harassment." How melodramatic.
-------------

Global Warming - the preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

The problem with predatory Marxism is that eventually the economy is dead and the Marxist runs out of people with money to redistribute.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you just see the smoke pouring from his head with the C-clamp on the verge of meltdown?

IBdaMann wrote:
This might be it! I have just been warned for a consecutive 3rd and 4th time. I just finished bashing on one of the censors. We might be looking at being done with Debate Politics.

IBDaMann wrote:

Ikari said:IB daMann, Your actions in this message (Some Trump records taken to Mar-a-Lago clearly marked as classified, including documents at 'top secret' level) violate Rule 6a:
You cannot comment on moderator actions, attack moderation or attack a moderator (in the capacity of being a mod) "upstairs". There is one place and one place only where you are free to comment on moderation - https://debatepolitics.com/threads/forum-rules.28594/

Your account's access may be limited based on these actions. Please keep this in mind when posting or using our site.

Your action was stupid. You should have read my post for comprehension before knee-jerking a brain-dead response. I openly acknowledged changing some words in the quote for literary effect and to more clearly answer his stupid question. You can't call that "Trolling" or "Flaming" or whatever. You were supposed to have learned the literary vehicles in highschool.

Put some intelligence into your censorship.

.

IBdaMann wrote:
One more thing about Debate Politics ... rarely do I find such rabid feverishness to simply disagree with me on matters of my expertise. It boggles my mind. I can't help anyone there without said individual completely doubling down on stupid.

IBdaMann wrote:
I will not miss that vapid absence of intellect once I'm banned. I just don't understand what's taking so long to ban me. I've been warned four times already. Three have been for the catch-all "Trolling/Flaming/Baiting" which they flag on any post demonstrating substantive intelligence.

IBdaMann wrote:
@tmiddles ... when you made it a point to mention that gfm7175 and Into the Night (and I) had been banned from Debate Politics, was it your intention to levy a compliment? Can I take a rain check on my compliment? I really expect to be banned soon. I really am working on it.

IBdaMann wrote:
OK ... NOW it's got to happen. It has to. I just finished dumping on a censor. I pressed the banning subject so it really shouldn't be long now.

IBDaMann wrote:

Ikari said:Yeah, openly acknowledging that you broke the rules doesn't negate the fact that you broke the rules.

I didn't break the rules. I didn't change the meaning of his quote. I built the answer into the quote. Are you totally illiterate? All you had to do was read the F'ing post.

The censors at Debate Politics are not the sharpest tacks in the box.

Ikari said: Good lord. Just don't break the rules and your fine.

Please read your own rules in their entirety, understand the intent, and then make intelligent decisions. You are not required to knee-jerk erroneously. Seriously. You're not.

Ikari said: Besides, you had many posts in that thread that were over the line.

Not a single one. In every post I made a thesis statement (a main point), I thoroughly supported that point, and if someone is totally stupid, I make the observation and I totally support the observation.

If you think there is one or more examples of where I have not done so, please point them out to me. I am always happy to provide additional clarification if anyone thinks it is needed. But one thing you cannot validly claim is that I don't completely support my stated positions.

I realize that the real problem is that Debate Politics does not appreciate intelligent/educated posters because that makes the broad base of stupid posters on this site feel threatened. Debate Politics has spent years systematically banning intelligent contributors at the request of truly brain-dead members. Debate Politics' core business model is to develop a "Safe Space" for stupid people, where they will find refuge behind censors who will ban the "offending" members.

Go take a look at my back-n-forth with ttwtt78640. He is so representative of the kind of posters that Debate Politics has cultivated. He knows absolutely nothing but on this site he believes that he is a total genius. I am an expert in the classified world. I won't go into my credentials but I am an expert and I can tell that he doesn't even know the basics. Yet I cannot even help him without him doubling down on stupid and pretending that he is the expert.

Bodhisattva is exactly the same, except across the board. In both cases, I was the one who was "warned" for "trolling/flaming/bainting" by censors who sense that a stupid person is likely to feel threatened by an actual expert and so we had better nip this in the bud. My expertise is flagged as "Trolling/Flaming/Baiting."

If you ever want to know why there is no cognitive activity going on, it's because it has all been squelched.

Ikari said:You're lucky I didn't thread ban you.

Nope. This board is the benefactor of my presence. If you ban me then you lose the benefit of my posting. If you don't want me making stupid posters feel threatened then please, ban me. If the board owner is looking to protect and coddle the stupidest among us then I don't want to be thwarting his/her efforts.

If that is the case then just ban me, I won't take it personally. You can dispense with all the pretending that I am trolling or baiting or however you categorize intelligence.

If you lose me, you lose me. I already have other sites where intelligent posting is appreciated and encouraged. I only returned to Debate Politics to check my profile and saw a few posts that were begging for intelligent responses. Oooops, my mistake.

The bottom line is that I'm not going to be bullied into dumbing down my post to keep the stupid happy.

Ikari said:But this is over now. I will entertain no more discussion on this topic from you,

Great, ban me. I see that you became a censor just for the power trip. Excercise it. Make yourself feel powerful. You know you want to.

Ikari said:Do not contact me again regarding this, else it will be taken as harassment.

You are a coward. You definitely belong in a censorship position.

Too funny. You consider a PM to be "harassment." How melodramatic.
-------------

Global Warming - the preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

The problem with predatory Marxism is that eventually the economy is dead and the Marxist runs out of people with money to redistribute.

gfm7175 wrote:
... speaking of which, I currently have my own intellectually inept ignoramus that I am conversing with over on the Political Forum. He goes by the moniker 'WalterSobchak', and here's the brilliance that he has to say in response to one of my posts:

WalterSobchak says: This post is adorable considering it comes from someone who has fallen completely and bought the fake voter fraud lie that Trump spewed to his clan.

NPC's indeed. LOL

gfm7175 says: So you're saying that I should save this post of yours for when you scream "fraud!" come November??


WalterSobchak says: First of all, nobody gives a **** about the midterms other than rightists. Lastly, go ahead. You will never hear me claim "fraud" without a shred of evidence to back it up. That is a major difference with me and a trumpist. LOL

gfm7175 says: I sure hope that's the case... Then it'll be an even easier landslide for "rightists". Are you saying that you're not going to be voting in them??

You'll claim it the very second that fake news media outlets tell you to claim it. We both know this to be true.


WalterSobchak says: Yeah, I'll vote in the midterms.

Nah, you see, I have the ability to think for myself. Unfortunately rightists lost that ability once Trump came in and told them what to think.

gfm7175 says: Welcome to Paradox City my friend... You now need to clear your paradox to return to being rational:

[1] First of all, nobody gives a **** about the midterms other than rightists.
[2] Leftists like myself also give a **** about the midterms.

Which one is it?

You have yet to display that ability to this forum.

In order to criticize others of "losing that ability", it's a good idea to first display having that ability for yourself (as that then evidences that you actually know what you are talking about). Since you have yet to display any such ability, it seems to me that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
You asked for a definition of "ultra conservative movement".
OK, i'll try and i'll be brief and you do the same.
Since this discussion, according to you, relates to a state of mind rather than "positions on issues" i'll go along with that "state of mind" point of view in this brief definition.

State of mind of ultra conservatives -

Doesn't understand the meaning of the word argumentative.

keepit wrote:
Doesn't understand figures of speech.

keepit wrote:
Doesn't understand the difference between a significant semantic difference and an insignificant one.

keepit wrote:
Doesn't understand that making false claims is wrong.

keepit wrote:
I could go on and on. Please be brief in your response.

keepit wrote:I could go on and on. Please be brief in your response.

keepit wrote:You asked for a definition of "ultra conservative movement".
OK, i'll try and i'll be brief and you do the same.

keepit wrote:Since this discussion, according to you, relates to a state of mind rather than "positions on issues" i'll go along with that "state of mind" point of view in this brief definition.

keepit wrote:It doesn't matter which party you're talking about, someone who buys into every position/issue of the party isn't thinking for themself.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:I could go on and on. Please be brief in your response.

I am always exactly as brief as I need to be.

Instead of focusing on trying to be brief, please start being honest.

keepit wrote:You asked for a definition of "ultra conservative movement".
OK, i'll try and i'll be brief and you do the same.

I don't want you to be brief, I want you to be accurate. Please do so.

keepit wrote:Since this discussion, according to you, relates to a state of mind rather than "positions on issues" i'll go along with that "state of mind" point of view in this brief definition.

I never stated nor implied any of this.

Give me a full and accurate definition of "ultra-conservative movement" and give me some specific examples.

There are two parts to that requirement:

1. a full and accurate definition of "ultra-conservative movement"
2. give some specific examples

Do not be brief. Be accurate. Do not define something having to do with "mindsets." Accurately define "ultra-conservative movement."

Please get to it. Don't forget the specific examples.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:It doesn't matter which party you're talking about, someone who buys into every position/issue of the party isn't thinking for themself.

Did you start a brand new thread just to deliberately break the continuity of the previous thread you totally screwed up?

The correct word is "himself" not "themself." "Themself" cannot even be a word because "them" is a plural and requires "selves" instead of "self."

IBdaMann wrote:
I have not yet been banned from Debate Politics. I just popped over there to get a screenshot of my banning announcement and instead I was able to respond to posts so ... I don't know what more I can do.

gfm7175 wrote:Ahhhhhhhhhh, good ol' devildave... I remember him too. He might be one of the "smarter" ones on that forum

IOW, he's a complete moron.

IBDaMann wrote on Debate Politics, 15 February 2022, at 8:27 PM Wisconsin Time

devildavid said: Climate change has nothing to do with religion, except in the eyes of fanatics who try to claim it. It is science and requires no beliefs.

Climate Change is nothing but a fanatical religion. There is no science. The belief is on your part, that you somehow have some sort of science, some sort of wisdom. Like I said, if you were any good with science you would immediately recognize the inherent violations of physics underlying the faith.

Like all religions, the Global Warming religion recruits to bring in more members. The Global Warming religion is relegated to recruiting from the stupid and the uneducated because they aren't able to call boolschit on any of the meaningless gibber-babble.

I understand physics and math. I wish I could tell you that everything about Global Warming, Climate Change and greenhouse effect were consistent with physics but they are either not physically possible or they aren't even unambiguously defined such that science can even apply.

The Church of Global Warming doesn't try to recruit people like me because I'll spot the violations of physics and the bad math instantly. That's why those who believe in the faith as you do are necessarily not any good with science or math.

I'm not saying that you don't have every right to worship whichever religion you wish. It's just that the moment you try to call your religion "science" you are begging actual scientists (not the political hacktivists that you call "scientists") to pick apart your beliefs at the seams.

Any rational adult can verify that everything I write is completely accurate by noting that you will not engage in any technical discussion of the physics of what you believe. In fact, the idea of discussing physics and learning how your dogma is just plain wrong, will force you to panic and EVADE any and all such discussion. Perhaps you will claim "I am no scientist" which would prompt the question "Well, then why you do believe it? The default position in science is to not believe, to doubt, to question, to scrutinize ... until there is science. You are painfully aware that you have no science yet you are willing to profess your faith as you have done in your previous posts.

Yes, you definitely have a physics-violating religion on your hands.

Let me know if anything changes and you would like to discuss physics. I'm happy to help.

Oh, by the way, if you were thinking that you are an atheist ... you're not. You can't worship Global Warming and yet somehow be devoid of any theism.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Ahhhhhhhhhh, good ol' devildave... I remember him too. He might be one of the "smarter" ones on that forum

IOW, he's a complete moron.

I hope you can see the drastic difference between an actual atheist (such as me) and a fundamentalist theist of a competing religion who simply calls himself an atheist so that you will fear and ultimately capitulate to his religion while blaming and hating me.

I have no religion to forthwith proselytize or to need you to worship. I have no religion for your religion to threaten. I have no religion to refer to as "thettled thienth." I have no religion to compel me to mock you for worshiping "false gods" that are not my gods.

I'm perfectly fine with your God and your Bible and your faith, and I am happy to discuss them all with you until the cows come home on their own. What pikks me off is someone pressuring me into not discussing said topics freely.

IBdaMann wrote:
In short, when you run into posters like devildave, or into threads like "Belief and Skepticism" on Debate Politics whereby Christians and their religious faith is simply being mocked, that's your clue that they aren't atheists, because otherwise they just wouldn't care. They are fully indoctrinated theists who are going for the throat of what they see as their top competitor(s) in the "religion" category.

IBdaMann wrote:
As a bonus, I offer you my previous post to devildave:

Elora said:

IBDaMann wrote:

Elora posted:

IBDaMann wrote:

Elora said: Salvation is not a possession but a process that is not obtained until the end of one's life or the end of this old world, whichever comes 1st...

"But the one who has endured to the end will be saved." Matthew 24:13

The next time you wonder why Marxists NEED to attack Christians, remember that the answer can be found in your NEED to bash Catholics.

Matthew 18: 23-34

lol...they are NOT my brothers and sisters...

LittleNipper wrote: Do I really have to think for everyone here. And I thought atheists were free-thinkers. What they are is rather FREE of THINKING! All they know how to do is have gay sex and have the gall to call Christians stupid....

IBdaMann wrote:
Then there is LittleNipper:

LittleNipper wrote: Do I really have to think for everyone here. And I thought atheists were free-thinkers. What they are is rather FREE of THINKING! All they know how to do is have gay sex and have the gall to call Christians stupid....

LittleNipper is like too many Christians who buy the Marxists' claim of atheism on face value and as a result they direct their hatred towards actual atheists like me, not at Marxists.

gfm7175 wrote: Then, he expresses the bigoted view that all "atheists" have gay sex.