Obama considering steep nuclear arms cuts

[Razgovory]

I want to eat oreos cookies in a bowl of cereal and milk topped with condensated milk.

Be the change you wish to see in the world.

Point is, life is not about what we want to do, but about what is right for us to do.
I don't want stupid sugary calories in my body.

Well make up your goddamn mind!

[Ideologue]

No, but they are not unrelated either, since genocide can only be committed by people who want to.

That is an interesting assumption.

They're just going to Madagascar, where they'll be happy.  THEY'RE JUST GOING TO MADAGASCAR.

[grumbler]

That is an interesting assumption.

That's an interesting misuse of the word "assumption." 

Motive is the distinction between genocide and murder that is not genocide.  That's not an "assumption," that's a definition.  An assumption would be something alone the lines of "it is part of the human condition to be capable of killing people simply because one wants to eliminate their 'race,' religion, or ethnicity."

[garbon]

That is an interesting assumption.

That's an interesting misuse of the word "assumption." 

Motive is the distinction between genocide and murder that is not genocide.  That's not an "assumption," that's a definition.  An assumption would be something alone the lines of "it is part of the human condition to be capable of killing people simply because one wants to eliminate their 'race,' religion, or ethnicity."

How many people participating in a mass killing that was orchestrated to eliminate a "'race,' religion, or ethnicity" have to not want that goal but a different one (for now let's leave out those who are killing but don't want to) in order to make it not a genocide?

[fhdz]

That is an interesting assumption.

That's an interesting misuse of the word "assumption." 

Motive is the distinction between genocide and murder that is not genocide.  That's not an "assumption," that's a definition.  An assumption would be something alone the lines of "it is part of the human condition to be capable of killing people simply because one wants to eliminate their 'race,' religion, or ethnicity."

Humans are capable of murdering. Humans are capable of participating in a genocide. Not all humans involve themselves in either thing. That does not make them incapable of doing so. Is this really a series of statements you have difficulty grasping, or are you just offended that you're being lumped in with the rest of us mortals?

Your style of argument is tiresome, quibbling, and focuses on a few branches on a few trees instead of the forest in order to score your Languish version of debate club points. No thank you. Not interested in continuing.

[Razgovory]

I guess it isn't genocide if you don't mean it.  The government requisitioned all your food and caused a famine.  Sorry about that, clerical error.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Another otherwise interesting argument destroyed by a Semantics Death Storm. 

[Razgovory]

We are going to have to write posts with a footnote behind every word linking to a dictionary entry.

[grumbler]

Humans are capable of murdering. Humans are capable of participating in a genocide. Not all humans involve themselves in either thing. That does not make them incapable of doing so. Is this really a series of statements you have difficulty grasping, or are you just offended that you're being lumped in with the rest of us mortals?

What I don't understand is why you persist in misconstruing my argument.  Your argument is that being capable of genocide is a part of "the human condition."  Not that there is a small number of humans capable of doing so, but that the capacity to murder innocent people to wipe out their group is inherent in our nature as humans (which is the definition of "the human condition").

I disagree.  What about that cannot you understand?

What makes you think you speak for all mortals but me?  Why even bring some bogus argument about what I am "just offended" by into this?  We are talking about a general rule; the "human condition."

Your style of argument is tiresome, quibbling, and focuses on a few branches on a few trees instead of the forest in order to score your Languish version of debate club points. No thank you. Not interested in continuing.

When you are down to complaining about the way I argue rather than what I argue, you are intellectually bankrupt in the argument, so withdrawal from the debate is wise and logical.  That your assertion is untrue is of no consequence, given its complete irrelevance.

[fhdz]

I disagree.

And you are welcome to your disagreement. I don't give a shit.

[CountDeMoney]

I disagree.

And you are welcome to your disagreement. I don't give a shit.

That's rather un-fahdiz of you, man.  'Sup widdat?

[Eddie Teach]

I don't give a shit.

Thus your argument is intellectually bankrupt and grumbler wins. Sorry. 

[11B4V]

Another otherwise interesting argument destroyed by a Semantics Death Storm.

But always entertaining.

[CountDeMoney]

a Semantics Death Storm.

It's more like a Semantics EMP Pulse.  Immediately burns out every communications transistor and circuit board in the area.

[grumbler]

I don't give a shit.

Thus your argument is intellectually bankrupt and grumbler wins. Sorry. 

  He's not making an argument.

"Intellectually bankrupt" means that one has run out of intellectual arguments and is making arguments that are non-intellectual.  Fahdiz started with some intellectual arguments, but continued without them when all of his intellectual arguments were refuted (switching, instead, to the argument that the way I expressed myself was faulty, or something like that). That's intellectual bankruptcy.

Ideas can start out intellectually bankrupt, of course, but that's not what happened here.