The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:40 am

It gives me no pleasure to point out that you’re rather absurd, and I don’t think it’s intentional. Apparently, your affliction of superficiality extends to more than just religion.

At least I didn't speak to you in the third person but rather, man to man.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:47 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:40 am

It gives me no pleasure to point out that you’re rather absurd, and I don’t think it’s intentional. Apparently, your affliction of superficiality extends to more than just religion.

At least I didn't speak to you in the third person but rather, man to man.

I didn't speak to you in the third person either. Not sure what you are blathering about now.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:54 am

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:47 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:40 am

It gives me no pleasure to point out that you’re rather absurd, and I don’t think it’s intentional. Apparently, your affliction of superficiality extends to more than just religion.

At least I didn't speak to you in the third person but rather, man to man.

I didn't speak to you in the third person either. Not sure what you are blathering about now.

You're not sure? Well, if you're not sure of that, you're either stupid or a liar, Gary.

Maybe both.

You do realize that 47 years of diplomacy that made Iran stronger, led to the need to shut down their ambitions of world conquest.

Chew on that. See if you can comprehend.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:59 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:54 am

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:47 am
It gives me no pleasure to point out that you’re rather absurd, and I don’t think it’s intentional. Apparently, your affliction of superficiality extends to more than just religion.

At least I didn't speak to you in the third person but rather, man to man.

I didn't speak to you in the third person either. Not sure what you are blathering about now.

You're not sure? Well, if you're not sure of that, you're either stupid or a liar, Gary.

Then I don't recall where I talked to you in the third person. "You" is second person and that's how I usually refer to you.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:06 am

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:59 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:54 am

I didn't speak to you in the third person either. Not sure what you are blathering about now.

You're not sure? Well, if you're not sure of that, you're either stupid or a liar, Gary.

Then I don't recall where I talked to you in the third person. "You" is second person and that's how I usually refer to you.

Then I shall explain.

When you, or anyone, speaks of someone in the third person, this is a disrespectful act.
It is a known tactic of disrespect.
It's petty, childish, and an example of simplistic thinking borne of impotence.

It happens, and I'm pretty sure you've resorted to it in the past, with someone or other.
You are a disrespectful person.
You disrespect God even though you are not sure if God exists.
You disrespect yourself, all the time.
You disrespect other people, all the time.
No doubt you have other targets.
All the time means, it's not a slip, it's not one-off. It's a habit.

As such, you have a propensity for disrespect, and will obviously reach for the tools of disrespect.
The simplistic tools of disrespect.

Me, in my intellectual generosity, thought that you had the where with all to put the comment into a philosophical perspective, given where you happen to be.

However, you, as the attention whore you call yourself, want to make it all about you instead of about the principle.

And since you're so damn eager to make it personal, you insist on having your nose rubbed in it, rather than a polite hint.

Now, you can be sure that I was speaking to principle ... as usual.
And, you can also be sure you were just thinking of yourself ... as usual, which caused your confusion.

And as the great humanitarian, you can be sure that you have displayed your concerns to lie with trashing the United States, serving as an apologist for Iran during a war with Iran, and confusing playing dumb with worthwhile questions, rather than devoting a single brain cell as to ... Why the war is necessary per all the evidence and facts that have been presented, about this particular situation war.

There. You have what you needed.

Apparently, you don't understand man to man.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:27 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:06 am

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 2:59 am
You're not sure? Well, if you're not sure of that, you're either stupid or a liar, Gary.

Then I don't recall where I talked to you in the third person. "You" is second person and that's how I usually refer to you.

Then I shall explain.

When you, or anyone, speaks of someone in the third person, this is a disrespectful act.
It is a known tactic of disrespect.
It's petty, childish, and an example of simplistic thinking borne of impotence.

It happens, and I'm pretty sure you've resorted to it in the past, with someone or other.
You are a disrespectful person.
You disrespect God even though you are not sure if God exists.
You disrespect yourself, all the time.
You disrespect other people, all the time.
No doubt you have other targets.
All the time means, it's not a slip, it's not one-off. It's a habit.

As such, you have a propensity for disrespect, and will obviously reach for the tools of disrespect.
The simplistic tools of disrespect.

Me, in my intellectual generosity, thought that you had the where with all to put the comment into a philosophical perspective, given where you happen to be.

However, you, as the attention whore you call yourself, want to make it all about you instead of about the principle.

And since you're so damn eager to make it personal, you insist on having your nose rubbed in it, rather than a polite hint.

Now, you can be sure that I was speaking to principle ... as usual.
And, you can also be sure you were just thinking of yourself ... as usual, which caused your confusion.

And as the great humanitarian, you can be sure that you have displayed your concerns to lie with trashing the United States, serving as an apologist for Iran during a war with Iran, and confusing playing dumb with worthwhile questions, rather than devoting a single brain cell as to ... Why the war is necessary per all the evidence and facts that have presented, about this situation.

There. You have what you needed.

Of course, might makes right, and we have the might, so it is right for us to attack Iran if they don't do what we ask. But if Iran attacks us it would be wrong. Or do you think it's OK for Iran to attack us if we don't do what they want? Or the Monroe doctrine, we get to f*** all we want with smaller countries in the Western Hemisphere because that's our God given assignment. Truth belongs to us and anyone else is just mistaken.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:33 am

Gary, apparently your basis of understanding international conflict, and power shifts, and for that matter reality ... amounts to playground rules.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:36 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:33 am

Gary, apparently your basis of understanding international conflict, and power shifts, and for that matter reality ... amounts to playground rules.

Oh, so now you're a "realist". If Iran develops nukes and the US somehow crumbles and leaves Iran to boss us around, would you be a "realist" then and accept Iran's right to boss us around?

Gary, honestly now.

Did you like the song?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAv4JAf ... rt_radio=1

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:39 am Gary, honestly now.

Did you like the song?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAv4JAf ... rt_radio=1

Maybe the Iranians could ask you the same thing if they ever gain the upper hand, and you want to protest their domination.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:39 am

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:36 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:33 am

Gary, apparently your basis of understanding international conflict, and power shifts, and for that matter reality ... amounts to playground rules.

Oh, so now you're a "realist". If Iran develops nukes and the US somehow crumbles and leaves Iran to boss us around, would you be a "realist" then and accept Iran's right to boss us around?

I accept your right to understand for yourself, in the context of world events, the reality of power in the world.

Begin with the 5-W's, because you sure as hell don't listen or understand, no matter what you cling to obvious absurdities. Take my word for it.

Iran certainly does understand the nature of power, even if you don't and are sympathetic with the terrorists and tyrants, as you obviously are.

Their objective understanding of power is why they insist on being a nuclear power.

It's also why Iran understands the objective power of Martyrdom.

Now bug off before I fart in your general direction.


At least I didn't start insinuating with questions both stupid and rhetorical.
Did you, Gary?
Be honest in your reply, because the truth is obvious.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:58 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:39 am

Walker wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 3:36 am
Gary, apparently your basis of understanding international conflict, and power shifts, and for that matter reality ... amounts to playground rules.

Oh, so now you're a "realist". If Iran develops nukes and the US somehow crumbles and leaves Iran to boss us around, would you be a "realist" then and accept Iran's right to boss us around?

I accept your right to understand for yourself, in the context of world events, the reality of power in the world.

Begin with the 5-W's, because you sure as hell don't listen or understand, no matter what you cling to obvious absurdities. Take my word for it.

Iran certainly does understand the nature of power, even if you don't and are sympathetic with the terrorists and tyrants, as you obviously are.

Yes. Iranians hate us for our "freedom". They're not human. Which I guess is entirely possible because some of us don't appear to be human either.

Yet it's ok for the US, the biggest and most dangerous whackjob on the planet, to have the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 4:01 am Yes. Iranians hate us for our "freedom". They're not human. Which I guess is entirely possible because some of us don't appear to be human either.

Absurdity.