Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[chrisrlink]

that's what I meant I said he probably meant trump (in a sarcastic truth) speaking of the impeachment seems (at least 1) GOP congressman broke ranks i still highly doubt 11 more will follow suit but still +1 so far 6 as of now broke rank

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-trial-02-09-2021/

 

[tabzer]

There is no evidence the soul, as described above, exists.

Are you using your modern post-election definition of "evidence" or are you using the actual definition? There's evidence, but you haven't collected enough to convince yourself. That's fine.

 

[Lacius]

Are you using your modern post-election definition of "evidence" or are you using the actual definition? There's evidence, but you haven't collected enough to convince yourself. That's fine.

I'm no more using an alternative definition of "evidence" than I am using an alternative definition of "soul." Screw off.

 

[Plasmaster09]

I'm no more using an alternative definition of "evidence" than I am using an alternative definition of "soul." Screw off.

man tabzer just will not shut up about the human soul
it's almost like he's delusional and/or trolling and trying to repeatedly distract everyone from how baseless and bullshit his claims are

 

[tabzer]

I'm no more using an alternative definition of "evidence" than I am using an alternative definition of "soul." Screw off.

That's a rather long-winded way of saying,"yes".

 

[Lacius]

That's a rather long-winded way of saying,"yes".

That's objectively and demonstrably untrue.

 

[tabzer]

That's objectively and demonstrably untrue.

That sounds nice, but what does that mean?

 

[Lacius]

That sounds nice, but what does that mean?

It means there was nothing about my previous statement that answered "yes" to your question, objectively. I don't blame you for deflecting though.

 

[tabzer]

It means there was nothing about my previous statement that answered "yes" to your question, objectively. I don't blame you for deflecting though.

When you say that you do something no more than you do something else, it means that you do both at a relatively comparable rate. Seeing you demonstrate the application of an arbitrarily derived definition of "soul" just to be antagonistic against someone using the word would suggest that you aren't against doing that with other words. Words like "truth" "facts" and "evidence" for example. I mean you can use ignorance to further the divide if you want. That's between you and your god government. Keep the faith narrative.

 

[Lacius]

When you say that you do something no more than you do something else, it means that you do both at a relatively comparable rate. Seeing you demonstrate the application of an arbitrarily derived definition of "soul" just to be antagonistic against someone using the word would suggest that you aren't against doing that with other words. Words like "truth" "facts" and "evidence" for example. I mean you can use ignorance to further the divide if you want. That's between you and your god government. Keep the faith narrative.

You skipped the part where I wasn't using an alternative definition of "evidence" nor "soul." I don't blame you for wanting to deflect though. I'd rather make posts that lack any real substance too if the alternative were arguing for the existence of widespread voter fraud or the existence of an immortal soul.

Good effort.

 

[tabzer]

You skipped the part where I wasn't using an alternative definition of "evidence" nor "soul."

No I didn't. You got all pissy and deflected by saying that this isn't the place to talk about it although you want to make sure you had the last word about the subject (not to mention the first edgy comment about the subject).

You are using a very specific definition of the word that has no root in religion or the conversation. You borrowed it from somewhere else. Did @tthousand confide in you about his idea of what it means before you decided to reveal your edge?

 

[Lacius]

No I didn't. You got all pissy and deflected by saying that this isn't the place to talk about it although you want to make sure you had the last word about the subject (not to mention the first edgy comment about the subject).

You are using a very specific definition of the word that has no root in religion or the conversation. You borrowed it from somewhere else. Did @tthousand confide in you about his idea of what it means before you decided to reveal your edge?

This isn't the place to talk about the concept of the soul and how completely absurd it is. Tag me in a relevant thread or PM me if you really want to talk about it (but I sincerely doubt you actually do). If you just want to have an argument about semantics, I'm not interested, considering my use comports with the popular usage, and it wouldn't matter if it did or not.

 

[tabzer]

considering my use comports with the popular usage, and it wouldn't matter if it did or not.

Yes it does.

 

[Lacius]

Yes it does.

You know what you need to do in order to continue the conversation.

And I agree. It does comport with the popular usage.

 

[tabzer]

You know what you need to do in order to continue the conversation.

And I agree. It does comport with the popular usage.

I think you mean, "popular usage".

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

I think you mean, "popular usage".

That's how he spelt it tho

 

[tabzer]

That's how he spelt it tho

The spelling was perfect.

 

[smf]

Are you using your modern post-election definition of "evidence" or are you using the actual definition? There's evidence, but you haven't collected enough to convince yourself. That's fine.

There is no different between pre and post election evidence. Trump had no evidence of rigged election before the election or after it.

There is no evidence of a soul, there is evidence of brain activity and psychology.
What evidence do you think exists for a soul?

 

[tabzer]

There is no different between pre and post election evidence. Trump had no evidence of rigged election before the election or after it.

There is no evidence of a soul, there is evidence of brain activity and psychology.
What evidence do you think exists for a soul?

I am talking about the definition of words and how they are used. I haven't been responding to you since you first said something because it seemed like that you weren't even trying to see the points I was making.

First point, and @Lacius knows this; things like affidavits, and people willing to testify, were considered "evidence" for all of our lives, up until last year. So the underlying definition of "evidence" has clearly been changed to fit a dishonest narrative..

Second point, the Hebrew word for the Judeo-Christian "soul" is "naphesh" which is closer to meaning "living being" than the "popular" fantasy pseudo-definition of "eternal afterlife vehicle". Of course, with the current standard of "evidence" that has been recently adopted, there is no evidence that you or @Lacius exist. There is more that could be debated about the fate of the soul and so on, but the initial issue I brought up were that people BS'ing their way through a discussion and it turned out that they didn't like to be called out on it.

 

[Lacius]

I am talking about the definition of words and how they are used. I haven't been responding to you since you first said something because it seemed like that you weren't even trying to see the points I was making.

First point, and @Lacius knows this; things like affidavits, and people willing to testify, were considered "evidence" for all of our lives, up until last year. So the underlying definition of "evidence" has clearly been changed to fit a dishonest narrative..

Second point, the Hebrew word for the Judeo-Christian "soul" is "naphesh" which is closer to meaning "living being" than the "popular" fantasy pseudo-definition of "eternal afterlife vehicle". Of course, with the current standard of "evidence" that has been recently adopted, there is no evidence that you or @Lacius exist. There is more that could be debated about the fate of the soul and so on, but the initial issue I brought up were that people BS'ing their way through a discussion and it turned out that they didn't like to be called out on it.

• Me: Dinosaurs are extinct.
• Tabzer: Ah, but the etymology of the word "dinosaur" is "big lizard," so by definition, you actually believe dinosaurs are not extinct.

That's what you sound like, and that's what your semantic argument boils down to. I don't fucking care if you want to redefine the soul into existence. It's not how I was using the word, and it's not how it's popularly used by those who say "I will pray for your soul" in this country.

Respectfully, this kind of semantic "argument" is mind-numbingly boring. I don't care if you want to call what I was talking about a "glib glob" instead of a "soul."