By being proud that I am a man of my word? Sure, that’s pompous isn’t it?
At least in one area, we know you’re surely not holierthanthou - guess that isn’t a very important area to you
Congrats to President Trump
- Thread starter Boomboom521
- Start date
At least in one area, we know you’re surely not holierthanthou - guess that isn’t a very important area to you
So this doesn't qualify?
Boomboom521 said: ↑
I don’t believe that my word is subject to a relative existence of truth.
After you have argued strenuously there is no such thing as objective or absoluteTruth?
Who decided that?
You?
Oh, but you're not pompous are 'ya? Only you get to decide when Truth fits your purposes correct? Is that why you refused to explain your rather obvious hypocracy of your own words?
Your silence equals pompousness.
Last edited:
Truth at times is subject to perspective, and there are very few absolutes in life - if any.
My word (a promise or commitment to action or lack of action) is made to another, but it ultimately is a contract with yourself. Perspective of the terms of that contract only changes when the person who gave their word changes the way they see the outcome. That doesn’t change truth, it just provides justification for breaking the contract. If I give my word to arrive at someone’s house at a certain time, no matter the reason for breaking that promise - although it might make me feel justified in breaking the contract - doesn’t change the fact that my promise was not fulfilled. Its why I don’t often give my word. The person whom I gave my word to arrive at a certain time might accept the reasons for my being late, and dismiss the contract, but that doesn’t change the truth that my word was broken. What makes that truth absolute? It’s an internal contract - there are no alternative perspectives.
Translation: "I get to decide when my words mean what I want them to mean when I say them"
= Pompousness.
Last edited:
Truth is absolute and is not subject to "interpretations". That is the one absolute in Life that never changes. Except for YOU.
It's absoultely amazing to me how you can argue against your own positions in the same post.
You good...you real good Bro!
Last edited:
You realize when I say “my word” I mean a promise, correct?
and yes, when someone makes a promise to another person, they know exactly what promise they make and the terms in which they make it. No other person’s perspective can alter that promise.
I guess you’re saying you didn’t know Country could lie prior to this promise?
I’m sure you’re off on some God tangent now, so enjoy the flight. But yes, what is considered truth is often (I’d say mostly) subject perspective of those viewing it. I am pompous. Truth? To you, sure. To me? Not really. To my mommy? No, I’m a saint.
A lot of work here for you to defend your breaking a promise, and trashing your word. You are not trustworthy. Truth? To me, absolutely. To you, not really. To your children? I hope, it’s a solid no.
but inside — way below the waxy cover, you know, you broke your word
No not at all boom. I had no idea country had lied about the broken promise made to self ban until I had gone away honoring my promise to self ban after losing my bet.
I often communicated with OT members on PM(private message) for the roughly month or so I was away honoring my bet and they told me about the welch country had made.
I also spent my down time reading past threads and I was stunned to find one where country argued as a Christian! (this after insisting on being athiest) So I had no idea country was a scoundrel until it was both pointed out to me and I discovered it for myself while away honoring my word.
After much back-n-forth, members on my side finally convinced me it was silly to self ban while country got away with continuing to post after losing a bet to self ban. The "Christian" lie country told finally tipped me to break my promise and on Monday Jan 13th 2020, I broke my promise to self ban and posted country's lies. I didn't plan to post anymore after that, but as I've mentioned several members insisted I return, particularly after I posted country's blatant lies.
I agreed with them.
Last edited:
As I said, only YOU get to decide what Truth is isn't that correct? That's pompousness my friend.
Well guess what? Almighty God didn't ask your opinion. [smoke]
Last edited:
Then why didn't you say "my promise"? YOU said your "word" is not subject to a relative existence of Truth. You also falsely claim Truth is relative.
Do you even know what you're saying?
That’s fine, let others dictate your own sense of honor. I get it, it’s what you’re all about - some book, some person, always louder than your own inner voice.
So you made up your own arguments on "man made climate change"? No wonder they are so warped! Depends on what others see as "Truth" which YOU choose to argue as "fact" though doesn't it?
It's what you're all about....some book, some person, always louder than your own inner voice (unless YOU disagree with their facts don't 'ya know?)
So according to your own logic, it's "OK" for some folks to dispute climate change caused by humans?
Why then do you argue it as "settled science"?
I think you are using a very tricky example, but yes. The science that tells me climate change is real and a danger to our planet isn’t complied by science discovering one truth - but rather the scientific discovery of many many truths that coincides with the evidence of climate change and it’s dangerous impacts on our environment. If it were just one scientific truth, say that coral reefs are bleaching at a unnaturally high rate and that the bleaching is caused by rising ocean temperatures, I would except counter arguments against the claims. However, even though science tells us that the above is true without much of a doubt, it coincides with literally dozens of other scientific studies that end up with the same assertion of the major culprit. It’s a little harder to dispute these findings when they all align so well. It’s the biggest reason why I say climate change is true - “settled science” is a tricky talking points word used almost to create debate on issues that are irrelevant. Science is never really settled, but hypothesis are proven valid or not. Climate change has been proven valid through hundreds of studies in multiple fields that align without issue.So you made up your own arguments on "man made climate change"? No wonder they are so warped! Depends on what others see as "Truth" which YOU choose to argue as "fact" though doesn't it?
It's what you're all about....some book, some person, always louder than your own inner voice (unless YOU disagree with their facts don't 'ya know?)
So according to your own logic, it's "OK" for some folks to dispute climate change caused by humans?
Why then do you argue it as "settled science"?
it’s just a blatant refusal to see that validity that motivates the “unsettled” argument.
First of all in this very thread YOU said this:
OK...that's your take on the absence of absolute Truth...yet when pinned down to your own words about "man made" climate change, you said this:
Despite the fact there is no consensus scientifically on "man made" coral reef bleaching or any other "climate change" caused by humans, you still contradicted your own argument when you said this:
Fair enough...that's YOUR argument. So then how can you turn right back around and argue for "Scientific fact" of man made climate change, yet at the same time insist it's "up to anyone to interpret Truth as they see it''? Trying to defend your own illogical argument you insisted it's not the veracity of the disputable evidence one must look at, but merely the amalgamation of all in existence which supports whatever you believe.
Thus you said this:
OK. But remember, you also said this (in the very same thread no less)
Yet again contradicting your own argument! So when is it "OK" to dispute evidence that is overwhelming in its variety as to the veracity of a claim as "Truth"? When it comes to the Creation itself, and Almighty God's authorship of it. That overwhelming evidence YOU choose to reject.
Here I agree with your pompous attitude toward that amalgamation of evidence, in which YOU said:
Pompousness defined, detailed, and delineated...all in one post.
OK...that's your take on the absence of absolute Truth...yet when pinned down to your own words about "man made" climate change, you said this:
Despite the fact there is no consensus scientifically on "man made" coral reef bleaching or any other "climate change" caused by humans, you still contradicted your own argument when you said this:
Fair enough...that's YOUR argument. So then how can you turn right back around and argue for "Scientific fact" of man made climate change, yet at the same time insist it's "up to anyone to interpret Truth as they see it''? Trying to defend your own illogical argument you insisted it's not the veracity of the disputable evidence one must look at, but merely the amalgamation of all in existence which supports whatever you believe.
Thus you said this:
OK. But remember, you also said this (in the very same thread no less)
(direct quote)
Yet again contradicting your own argument! So when is it "OK" to dispute evidence that is overwhelming in its variety as to the veracity of a claim as "Truth"? When it comes to the Creation itself, and Almighty God's authorship of it. That overwhelming evidence YOU choose to reject.
Here I agree with your pompous attitude toward that amalgamation of evidence, in which YOU said:
Pompousness defined, detailed, and delineated...all in one post.
I don’t know what your issue is - we have different perspectives of climate change - both see it as truth. I explained my truth on the issue. I also explained that your “truth” on the issue l, although still truth from your perspective of course, is flimsy and irrational due to the high number of corroborated studies from across multiple fields in science. It’s not just scientific measurement that corroborates the consensus, it’s also effects of those measurements. Again - maybe you (and by you I mean the latest rightwing extremist propaganda on the subject) might try to dispute the coral bleaching events as its tied to ocean temperature warming - as THATS tied to climate change in genera - by asserting that temperature measurement findings are inaccurate. As I also said, I would welcome this assertion and agree that the science on climate change (or at least ocean temperature warming) isn’t “settled”. But it’s not just the temperature measurement studies that corroborate the rise in ocean temperatures, it’s also the effects of rising temperatures on marine life (esp the bleaching of coral). These corroborations exist in dozens of major environmental issues facing the planet today - and those issues are all directly tied to rising temperatures - which is easily attributed to man’s effect on the planet.First of all in this very thread YOU said this:
OK...that's your take on the absence of absolute Truth...yet when pinned down to your own words about "man made" climate change, you said this:
Despite the fact there is no consensus scientifically on "man made" coral reef bleaching or any other "climate change" caused by humans, you still contradicted your own argument when you said this:
Fair enough...that's YOUR argument. So then how can you turn right back around and argue for "Scientific fact" of man made climate change, yet at the same time insist it's "up to anyone to interpret Truth as they see it''? Trying to defend your own illogical argument you insisted it's not the veracity of the disputable evidence one must look at, but merely the amalgamation of all in existence which supports whatever you believe.
Thus you said this:
OK. But remember, you also said this (in the very same thread no less)
(direct quote)
Yet again contradicting your own argument! So when is it "OK" to dispute evidence that is overwhelming in its variety as to the veracity of a claim as "Truth"? When it comes to the Creation itself, and Almighty God's authorship of it. That overwhelming evidence YOU choose to reject.
Here I agree with your pompous attitude toward that amalgamation of evidence, in which YOU said:
Pompousness defined, detailed, and delineated...all in one post.
The short : even the ignorant have a perspective of what they see as truth.
but I’ll go one further - maybe there is someone who asserts that, although they agree the man has caused climate change that has increased ocean temperatures and caused the bleaching of coral, they believe it’s not the ultimate cause of man, but rather the will of the God that has begun to destroy the planet. Their assertion being that man follows a predestined design of which they have no true control over. And that all that’s done is done by divine decree. Well then, the truth of manmade climate change isn’t truth to that perspective now is it? And although that truth isn’t is direct contradiction to my own truth, they are in fact two different truths - existing due to two distinct perspectives.
now STFU
but I’ll go one further - maybe there is someone who asserts that, although they agree the man has caused climate change that has increased ocean temperatures and caused the bleaching of coral, they believe it’s not the ultimate cause of man, but rather the will of the God that has begun to destroy the planet. Their assertion being that man follows a predestined design of which they have no true control over. And that all that’s done is done by divine decree. Well then, the truth of manmade climate change isn’t truth to that perspective now is it? And although that truth isn’t is direct contradiction to my own truth, they are in fact two different truths - existing due to two distinct perspectives.
now STFU
Your arrogance is exceeded only by your pompousness. You just don't like hearing (reading) you arguing against yourself but that mirror into your vacant self assuredness is an ugly naked view.
Now you STFU little girl.
We can't even make coral you pompous myrmidon, how in the world do we know how to "bleach" it? There are species of marine life in existence at Ocean depths we can't even submerge to, how in the name of sanity do we humans have control over those temperatures at those depths?
If we wanted to change the global temperature to our desired setting higher or lower than it changes on its own we couldn't, and more importantly we wouldn't have a clue how to do it or maintain it!
Crap you can't even control when or how much do-do comes out of your arrogant ***! All you know is that when it's time to push that sh*t out, you either squeeze your little tight butt cheeks together harder or quickly find a header to dump that load!
If you ask me it's more efficient when it comes out of your mouth instead. Still stinks though.
Last edited:
You just keep arguing against yourself boom, you do my work for me offering your own words which you cannot defend or explain to make my point about your pompous arrogance. I just quote YOU back to you then watch you stain your pretty pink panties. [laughing]