It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I Like Trump, In One Simple Gif

page: 34
84
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Baseless assumptions?

More evidence of how you critique others for things that you also do.




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Baseless assumptions?

More evidence of how you critique others for things that you also do.


Get it all out. I'll be your whipping boy if you need it.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you ARE ignoring your own double standards and hypocrisy.

Noted.



Given that I just showed your hipocrisy, and you attempt to slander me with it, only further proves your double standards.


Wow. It seems there is no level too low for you to stoop to in order to "win" is there?

It's really simple - anyone with two eyes and the ability to read can see that you were being hypocritical and applying double standards by trying to paint me with a "moral outrage" brush because of supposed name calling yet ignoring all those others who did it - which was the reason I called them "childish".

Keep ignoring that all you like, you're only serving to prove the point even further by doing so.


edit on 27/5/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm




moral outrage gave many countries the motive to refuse his attempts to expand his military and influence.


Something doesn't become true through sheer force of repetition. You won't prove it?


how about i give you the benefit of the doubt and leave the homework to your capable resources and ingenuity. you said that "moral outrage is self serving". you are not wrong, let me put that out there. but let us not assume that "self serving" means selfish, as in greedy and malanthropic (not misanthropic). the bill of rights is arguably self serving, but this does not mean that the bill of rights infringes - rather, it protects. it protects the interests of self from those who indulge in the vices of self. interests vs vices. a very precarious differentation but crucial when discussion humanitarian welfare. there are "inalienable rights" as described by the constitution, rights that could only be established by recognizing a self worth serving on a most basic level. self preservation on a government level. this is where moral outrage comes into play, defending our rights from those who would take away our freedom for the good of our welfare. this is what hitler attempted and much of the world protested upon seeing the cost of such philosophy, given that genocide was considered "collateral" in the quest for peace. unfortunately, some people have difficulty discerning between peace and quiet. just as some have difficulty discerning between moral outrage and political oppression. the lines are subtle but crucial.

sorry for the lack of substance visavis articles, statistics, pictures, etc. but i feel as though anyone even passingly familiar with history is well aware of the lines that can be drawn between the nazi regime and moral outrage. and even more lines from there to philanthropic victory following the demise of said regime. im sure i can be forgiven if i leave the more dense material to google for those who need a refresher.


That's fair. I apologize for insisting you prove your point. When I said "reductionist" and not "false" it meant I partially agreed, just that it wasn't the whole of the story. I think we can agree on that.

I think there is a fine line between the self-serving nature of moral outrage, and actual altruistic moral outrage. One is based on feelings, and the other on principle. It would be hard, unless people are honest, to determine either or.


no apologies necessary, i have developed a policy of not doing homework for the forums unless there is legitimate confusion or fake news being pushed. sorry for the inconvenience. i do believe strongly in altruistic moral outrage, but you seem to think it doesnt carry much weight in current politics. which is your opinion and your right.


I was probably too flippant with it. I just thinkThere are legitimate cause for moral outrage, and then there are illegitimate cause for moral outrage. This case in particular, and the subsequent moral outrage, is one such instance.


moral outrage has been the cause of much social injustice as well, which is also worth pointing out. and this forum boasts more than a little of that sort of thing. moral outrage gave rise to the nazi regime after all.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you ARE ignoring your own double standards and hypocrisy.

Noted.



Given that I just showed your hipocrisy, and you attempt to slander me with it, only further proves your double standards.


Wow. It seems there is no level too low for you to stoop to in order to "win" is there?

It's really simple - anyone with two eyes and the ability to read can see that you were being hypocritical and applying double standards by trying to paint me with a "moral outrage" brush because of supposed name calling yet ignoring all those other who did it - which was the reason I called them "childish".

Keep ignoring that all you like, you're only serving to prove the point even further by doing so.


Anyone can see that I was replying to your name-calling of President Trump. I Didn't even read your conversations with others, let alone ignore them.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Get it all out. I'll be your whipping boy if you need it.

Get what out? This is SOP at ATS. You do it to so stop trying to play it off.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm




moral outrage gave many countries the motive to refuse his attempts to expand his military and influence.


Something doesn't become true through sheer force of repetition. You won't prove it?


how about i give you the benefit of the doubt and leave the homework to your capable resources and ingenuity. you said that "moral outrage is self serving". you are not wrong, let me put that out there. but let us not assume that "self serving" means selfish, as in greedy and malanthropic (not misanthropic). the bill of rights is arguably self serving, but this does not mean that the bill of rights infringes - rather, it protects. it protects the interests of self from those who indulge in the vices of self. interests vs vices. a very precarious differentation but crucial when discussion humanitarian welfare. there are "inalienable rights" as described by the constitution, rights that could only be established by recognizing a self worth serving on a most basic level. self preservation on a government level. this is where moral outrage comes into play, defending our rights from those who would take away our freedom for the good of our welfare. this is what hitler attempted and much of the world protested upon seeing the cost of such philosophy, given that genocide was considered "collateral" in the quest for peace. unfortunately, some people have difficulty discerning between peace and quiet. just as some have difficulty discerning between moral outrage and political oppression. the lines are subtle but crucial.

sorry for the lack of substance visavis articles, statistics, pictures, etc. but i feel as though anyone even passingly familiar with history is well aware of the lines that can be drawn between the nazi regime and moral outrage. and even more lines from there to philanthropic victory following the demise of said regime. im sure i can be forgiven if i leave the more dense material to google for those who need a refresher.


That's fair. I apologize for insisting you prove your point. When I said "reductionist" and not "false" it meant I partially agreed, just that it wasn't the whole of the story. I think we can agree on that.

I think there is a fine line between the self-serving nature of moral outrage, and actual altruistic moral outrage. One is based on feelings, and the other on principle. It would be hard, unless people are honest, to determine either or.


no apologies necessary, i have developed a policy of not doing homework for the forums unless there is legitimate confusion or fake news being pushed. sorry for the inconvenience. i do believe strongly in altruistic moral outrage, but you seem to think it doesnt carry much weight in current politics. which is your opinion and your right.


I was probably too flippant with it. I just thinkThere are legitimate cause for moral outrage, and then there are illegitimate cause for moral outrage. This case in particular, and the subsequent moral outrage, is one such instance.


moral outrage has been the cause of much social injustice as well, which is also worth pointing out. and this forum boasts more than a little of that sort of thing. moral outrage gave rise to the nazi regime after all.


I laughed out loud there. Very cheeky.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually that was not obvious.

If you did not read Kryties conversations with others then why did you reply to a post from one of those conversations?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Get it all out. I'll be your whipping boy if you need it.

Get what out? This is SOP at ATS. You do it to so stop trying to play it off.


I will not stop doing anything. I will, however, continue to be the source of your indignation if you need it. I've heard burning effigies works quite well for some.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you ARE ignoring your own double standards and hypocrisy.

Noted.



Given that I just showed your hipocrisy, and you attempt to slander me with it, only further proves your double standards.


Wow. It seems there is no level too low for you to stoop to in order to "win" is there?

It's really simple - anyone with two eyes and the ability to read can see that you were being hypocritical and applying double standards by trying to paint me with a "moral outrage" brush because of supposed name calling yet ignoring all those other who did it - which was the reason I called them "childish".

Keep ignoring that all you like, you're only serving to prove the point even further by doing so.


Anyone can see that I was replying to your name-calling of President Trump. I Didn't even read your conversations with others, let alone ignore them.


So it's not OK, in your eyes, to call Trump names (even though he does this himself to others) and further to that, it IS OK for others to call people "triggered" and "snowflakes"?

How is this not the dictionary definition of hypocrisy and double standard?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually that was not obvious.

If you did not read Kryties conversations with others then why did you reply to a post from one of those conversations?


Because he was calling the president names.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you ARE ignoring your own double standards and hypocrisy.

Noted.



Given that I just showed your hipocrisy, and you attempt to slander me with it, only further proves your double standards.


Wow. It seems there is no level too low for you to stoop to in order to "win" is there?

It's really simple - anyone with two eyes and the ability to read can see that you were being hypocritical and applying double standards by trying to paint me with a "moral outrage" brush because of supposed name calling yet ignoring all those other who did it - which was the reason I called them "childish".

Keep ignoring that all you like, you're only serving to prove the point even further by doing so.


Anyone can see that I was replying to your name-calling of President Trump. I Didn't even read your conversations with others, let alone ignore them.


So it's not OK, in your eyes, to call Trump names (even though he does this himself to others) and further to that, it IS OK for others to call people "triggered" and "snowflakes"?

How is this not the dictionary definition of hypocrisy and double standard?


Did I say anywhere it was ok to call people names? No. Making things up out of thin air is the going rate, though.

Actually I have written threads about name-calling if you wish to take a look.

Name calling: the basest form of propaganda
What did the snowflake ever do to you?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually that was not obvious.

If you did not read Kryties conversations with others then why did you reply to a post from one of those conversations?


Because he was calling the president names.


Actually, if you want to be accurate, I said he ACTED LIKE a belligerent and petulant teenager.

Indeed, to be accurate I did not actually call him anything.

Continue with your hypocrisy and double standards though.......



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Those were not names. They were descriptors. Just like saying someone is funny or serious or moody.


I see a supposedly grown man acting like a petulant, belligerent teenager.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 27-5-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you ARE ignoring your own double standards and hypocrisy.

Noted.



Given that I just showed your hipocrisy, and you attempt to slander me with it, only further proves your double standards.


Wow. It seems there is no level too low for you to stoop to in order to "win" is there?

It's really simple - anyone with two eyes and the ability to read can see that you were being hypocritical and applying double standards by trying to paint me with a "moral outrage" brush because of supposed name calling yet ignoring all those other who did it - which was the reason I called them "childish".

Keep ignoring that all you like, you're only serving to prove the point even further by doing so.


Anyone can see that I was replying to your name-calling of President Trump. I Didn't even read your conversations with others, let alone ignore them.


So it's not OK, in your eyes, to call Trump names (even though he does this himself to others) and further to that, it IS OK for others to call people "triggered" and "snowflakes"?

How is this not the dictionary definition of hypocrisy and double standard?


Did I say anywhere it was ok to call people names? No. Making things up out of thin air is the going rate, though.

Actually I have written threads about name-calling if you wish to take a look.

Name calling: the basest form of propaganda
What did the snowflake ever do to you?



Feel free to go through the thread then and make a post pouring scorn on everyone else who name called then - if indeed you weren't just targeting me and do not want to appear to be applying double standards.......


.....I eagerly await that post.........



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually that was not obvious.

If you did not read Kryties conversations with others then why did you reply to a post from one of those conversations?


Because he was calling the president names.


Actually, if you want to be accurate, I said he ACTED LIKE a belligerent and petulant teenager.

Indeed, to be accurate I did not actually call him anything.

Continue with your hypocrisy and double standards though.......


You're right. My mistake. I apologize for that.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually that was not obvious.

If you did not read Kryties conversations with others then why did you reply to a post from one of those conversations?


Because he was calling the president names.


Actually, if you want to be accurate, I said he ACTED LIKE a belligerent and petulant teenager.

Indeed, to be accurate I did not actually call him anything.

Continue with your hypocrisy and double standards though.......


You're right. My mistake. I apologize for that.


Great! So the last several pages have been for nothing based on your faulty reading. It kind of makes me believe that you were so desperate to target me that you blinded yourself.

I accept your apology though.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually that was not obvious.

If you did not read Kryties conversations with others then why did you reply to a post from one of those conversations?


Because he was calling the president names.


Actually, if you want to be accurate, I said he ACTED LIKE a belligerent and petulant teenager.

Indeed, to be accurate I did not actually call him anything.

Continue with your hypocrisy and double standards though.......


You're right. My mistake. I apologize for that.


Great! So the last several pages have been for nothing based on your faulty reading. It kind of makes me believe that you were so desperate to target me that you blinded yourself.

I accept your apology though.


Actually no I was commenting on your moral outrage and how it applied to this particular scenario. I was wrong to state that you were a hypocrite but I think my point still stands.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Lol, you should have put a trigger warning on here.

Lol


You still carrying on childishly talking about "triggering" people?

Grow up.




Responding 2 days late bud, I call that getting triggered.


If the mud pit is too much for you pumpkin then I suggest passing by.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually that was not obvious.

If you did not read Kryties conversations with others then why did you reply to a post from one of those conversations?


Because he was calling the president names.


Actually, if you want to be accurate, I said he ACTED LIKE a belligerent and petulant teenager.

Indeed, to be accurate I did not actually call him anything.

Continue with your hypocrisy and double standards though.......


You're right. My mistake. I apologize for that.


Great! So the last several pages have been for nothing based on your faulty reading. It kind of makes me believe that you were so desperate to target me that you blinded yourself.

I accept your apology though.


Actually no I was commenting on your moral outrage and how it applied to this particular scenario. I was wrong to state that you were a hypocrite but I think my point still stands.


Saying Trump acted like a petulant and belligerent teenager when he pushed the Montenegro PM out of the way to get in front, then puffed himself up and tried to look like he was the "alpha" is hardly "moral outrage". It is a description of how he looked and acted.


edit on 27/5/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)







 
84
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join