I
I dont troll, do I?
Guest
...arguing we could..? stone eachother or exchange blows??I mean most comments are so terrible. so it therefore means if we argued in reallife we could fight blows, righ or wrong?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do you think if we R&S section users met ourselves in a conference and started...
M
Mellow 'ello! Kitteh
Guest
Why dont we just beat each other with video games? That'd be a lot more fun! Stoning is what cavemen/pin heads would do.
reinadelaz
New member
I might have to be stoned before the conference started. Could we hold it in a place where that it legal, please?
God bless.
God bless.
The fact is any meaningful debate would fall to total anarchy as it would be almost impossible to get most of them to listen to each other aside.
I have, and often do challenge my religionist compatriots, often without much subtlety, in real life I am probably even more intolerant if religion that I am here.
I actually have held debates with colleagues on such matters, the real issue being, even when you produce the most damning evidence against what they are saying they will still not accept it, simply because to do so would challenge what they believe to such an extent they could not continue in their belief.
I will give you a very simple example of this, the moon landing deniers, every time ever bit of evidence is trashed to the point you think they have to accept that man did land on the Moon, they will still come back with either something else, or simply give you the 'well it is still my opinion and I am entitled to it' excuse.
As for would it come to blows, probably, you only have to look at world history to see that, one ideology, and it doesn't have to be religion, but that is normally in there somewhere, disagrees with another, they become suspicious that one is going to to undermine the other, next thing we have two countries at war.
I have, and often do challenge my religionist compatriots, often without much subtlety, in real life I am probably even more intolerant if religion that I am here.
I actually have held debates with colleagues on such matters, the real issue being, even when you produce the most damning evidence against what they are saying they will still not accept it, simply because to do so would challenge what they believe to such an extent they could not continue in their belief.
I will give you a very simple example of this, the moon landing deniers, every time ever bit of evidence is trashed to the point you think they have to accept that man did land on the Moon, they will still come back with either something else, or simply give you the 'well it is still my opinion and I am entitled to it' excuse.
As for would it come to blows, probably, you only have to look at world history to see that, one ideology, and it doesn't have to be religion, but that is normally in there somewhere, disagrees with another, they become suspicious that one is going to to undermine the other, next thing we have two countries at war.