Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Talk as the ratio of two integers.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RickB

1
Sure it's an important topic, but is really quite separate from child marriage. 
The article isn't just about FGM. It talks about the tribal structure, and women and girls who oppose that structure, and what happens to them. That is relevant to Dave's defense that the girls "wanted it"; girls who refuse to participate in the cultural rituals are socially excluded (entirely) unless they are hardheaded enough to continue and lucky enough to be well-connected.

It was mostly about FGM and the social changes required to change that custom.  I get that and do applaud the article for presenting the struggle to get that societal change implemented.  I can only hope that the other injustices committed against girls in that society (and mentioned in that article) are soon rectified.  And yes, that is a culturally biased opinion, but I do think that a culture that devalues its women devalues itself.

2
How do you even know it's a he? Iirc, Dave just called it a black reporter.
Ohshit I'm a mysoginist now aint I

 :colbert: Neither of you watched the video.

Oh yeah - it features Ted Nugent as well as a few other Fox news 'specialists', which was an actual show for a while.
Mea culpa. I don't read Dave's links because they are to propaganda sites and feature actual Nazi fucks.

Understandable that.  And besides, what the fuck did it have to do with slavery?!?!?!?!


Or was Dave simply extending his : "Slaves actually had it pretty good!" lie?

3
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.


But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?


ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.

4
Yeah, I know, just thought it might be relevant and interesting as a side-topic.

Well, Dave tried to make it such.  It was discussed in the thread after Dave tried to deflect from the child marriage aspect. 

Sure it's an important topic, but is really quite separate from child marriage.  But Dave even now only plays lip service to FGM, but still adamantly supports and defends child marriage.  Though he does offer in his defense, only if also supported in the general society.

5
The point is ... there are reasons why I don't always eat my preferred foods ... but I get plenty of nutrition from other foods ... so do my goats.
who picks up their tab at Wendy's?

LOL, nice one Vox.  But remember that Dave has taken his goats on a holiday from the goat prison twice now, as much as he tries he can't get them pregnant himself.  The first time there was no apparent problems, but the second time he had to take them some of his magical leaves from his property. 
6
https://nytimes.com/2018/01/13/world/africa/female-genital-mutilation-kenya.html


uncool, FGM wasn't the primary argument in this thread.  That FGM was wrong and destructive to the native was pretty much a given by most people in the thread, except for Dave.  The real argument was against (forced) child marriage. 

Dave was rather tepidly against FGM, something that he originally claimed to know nothing about, after he 'discovered' it.

But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired.

These are of course the arguments that Dave supported.

Unsurprisingly, others thought that there might be more to the story.

7
Cops also have to raise a puppy throughout their time in the academy and to graduate, they have to shoot the dog.


Cops aren't Kingsmen!! 

And nesb has a point.  The police face little or no repercussions from killing people.  Even when the circumstances of that killing are very questionable.

8


Hey, Dave.  Which white-is-right site did you get this from?

9
FFS, Dave's dishonesty has been so blatant over the years, there are laws describing it. In particular, the 5th and 6th laws.

Afdave's Laws of Discourse on Internet Discussion Forums

Afdave's First Law: All evidences for evolution are speculative. All speculations for creationism are evidential.

Afdave's Second Law: One may escape intellectual responsibility on any issue merely by stating an intent to pursue it.

Afdave's Third Law: If you have an objection to any point I've raised, I've already addressed it. No, I won't tell you where.

Afdave's Fourth Law: Unanswerable questions are invisible.

Afdave's Fifth Law: The truth of all previously established facts and conclusions are subject to their being convenient to the argument I am presently making.

Afdave's Sixth Law: Any claim AFDave posts on a new discussion board invalidates the refutations of the same claim he has already seen and acknowledged on previous discussion boards.

Afdave's Seventh Law: No matter how transparently pathetic or retarded any of Dave's claims may be they can always be followed by something even more pathetic and retarded.

AFDave's Eighth Law: Any thread where I'm getting my ass handed to me on the original topic can be prolonged indefinitely by the introduction of tangential diversions or an abnormal focus on meaningless minutiae.

AFDave's Ninth Law: A 'troll' is anyone who makes persistent challenges to any of my claims.

AFDave's Law 9(a): A 'blatant troll with a history' is anyone who's been successful at it over the long term.

AFDave's Tenth Law: It's only a quote-mine if I don't use the exact words of the writer, not if I just read his mind and tell you what he really meant.

AFDave's Law 10(b): It is not a quote mine if I am merely quoting someone else's quote mine.

Problem for Dave is even if he wants to be honest (and I suspect he does), he holds dear to his heart a whole bunch of beliefs that contradict reality. It's pretty hard to fight reality without being dishonest.

Dave wants to be perceived as honest, but I don't think that he has any great desire to actually BE honest.  As you say he has too many dishonest beliefs, that can only be defended by being dishonest. 

It is fairly apparent that lying for Dave is second nature. 

10
"The question then naturally arises ... what exactly is Trump trying to do that he thinks is so good for humanity?  Well I would sum it up as follows ... BRINGING FACTORY JOBS BACK TO AMERICA.    And certainly I would agree that having higher paying jobs in America is better than not having higher paying jobs.  I've met union workers at factories over the years and many of them seem to like their lives pretty well.  Certainly they are better off than people who work minimum wage jobs at McDonalds. "

But you insist that having a job, and more so a factory job, is just like slavery in the old south.  In fact you have asserted that the slaves in the old south were much better off than the factory workers in the north.

In effect you are saying that Trump wants to bring  slavery (using your definition) back to America.  I'm sure that his racist Nazi friends will welcome that outcome.

11
have we proven that dave is not trump yet?

i think we need some dna from brain samples from both of them to compare

btw, how was trumps physical? and when is his mental?

DNA from a vacuum will 'match', but will not be very meaningful.

Just saying.

12
Dave, could defend Trump while while eating shit from his 'hole', but that does not change the evidence.
Tbf Hawkins did say he was ashamed of the comments.
... Yes, I'm ashamed of Trump's comment about shit hole countries. 

Which puts him a step above every one of the elected republican legislators present in the room.

Not that that's saying much.

All well and good, except that Dave did not criticize Trump in any way until challenged about Trump's racism.

Trump is a racist.  Dave did not address that racism until challenged.  Ergo, Dave is a racist.

13
Something that always struck me as racist, was when Dave claims that the Wai Wai (sp) called upon Dave's father (ie: god's representative on earth) to solve the problem with not enough food.  Dave's father (ie: god's representative on earth) referred them to his son Dave (son of god?).  Dave proclaims that he solved their problem instantly.  And claimed that they were eternally grateful.

Dave's status as the successor of god (son of god) was assured.  The first step to Dave being recognized as a divine person.
I don't remember that one...


As I remember, not going to bother to quote, a large village was not being supported by their fields. So Dave decreed that the village be split into smaller villages and use lands sufficient to support that village, from an agricultural perspective. 

Dave declares himself the savior of the first village by his divine advice.  Claims that his divinity is supported by the 'tribes'.

14
And how ashamed are you of those people who were at that meeting but conveniently "don't remember" Trump making any such remarks?
This is the most stunning thing about the whole sorry episode, imo.
"Don't remember" ?
Really ?

The most charitable interpretation is that, in their circles, talk like that is thoroughly unremarkable.





The Republican leadership professing to not remember something that happened only a few hours before and not saying something like "Oh, no.  Trump didn't say 'that' he said 'this'.  But to have no memory what-so-ever?  Not at all believable.  The only reasonable conclusion?  Trump did indeed say "shithole" in reference to Africa, Haiti, etc.

Dave, could defend Trump while while eating shit from his 'hole', but that does not change the evidence.

15
Something that always struck me as racist, was when Dave claims that the Wai Wai (sp) called upon Dave's father (ie: god's representative on earth) to solve the problem with not enough food.  Dave's father (ie: god's representative on earth) referred them to his son Dave (son of god?).  Dave proclaims that he solved their problem instantly.  And claimed that they were eternally grateful.

Dave's status as the successor of god (son of god) was assured.  The first step to Dave being recognized as a divine person.



16
Dave on child sex with adults:
A single South African English teacher writes that a child bride is happy with their situation.
That situation - again - is nothing more than a prospective marriage. 

Again: we have no idea how that worked out, and no particular reason to assume it worked out any better than that of the other women whose testimony Hawkins is so eager to ignore.


So true.  We have seen again and again where if a single reference supports Dave's position then any position that refutes or completely contradict Dave's position is summarily dismissed. 

Dave continues to be unable to defend his child sex, slavery, or white supremacist positions, all while insisting that these positions are supported by his christian god.

Simply amazing.

17
Borealis does seem biased to me but it's pretty hard for people to completely overcome all their biases. We all have them and they will inevitably show up.



Of course Borealis is biased. She is an ordinary human being and you are a wilfully ignorant and cowardly despicable liar. Would be hard not to be.

The remarkable bit is the lengths Borealis (and the rest of the staff but mostly Borealis) goes to to accommodate you and your continual bullshit.

Integrity can be hard at times, ask someone who has some.


Dave, the champion of truthiness!!  One must remember that to Dave Truth merely means conformity to the lies of the Bible.

So, don't judge any of Dave's arguments as having anything to do with what is normally recognized  as 'truth' cause Dave doesn't have any knowledge of nor does he recognize any of that as being any sort of 'truth'.

Fucking children, keeping slaves, non-whites being non-humans, sure, those are all true and acceptable.

Just read Dave's posts.  More than enough evidence.
18
Dave on child sex with adults:
A single South African English teacher writes that a child bride is happy with their situation.  Multiple accounts by actual child brides refute this impression.  Dave sides with the South African, draw your own conclusion.

Dave on the treatment of Southern Slaves:
A single reporter states that Calhoun's slaves live in a veritable utopia, where they are able to grow some food on their masters land and derive some income from that labor.  Dave equates chattel slavery (human ownership) with having a job (any and all jobs).  Dave states that because Calhoun does not rail against the mistreatment of slaves this means that slaves are not mistreated anywhere in the south.  Dave ascribes to Calhoun some sort of perfect knowledge and perfect judgement, in that if slaves were mistreated anywhere in the south that Calhoun would be aware of it and if it existed would rail against it.  That Calhoun did not rail against it means that mistreatment of slaves did not exist in that south.  Therefore slaves were not mistreated anywhere in the south.

Dave on neo-Nazis:
When neo-Nazis protest armed with M-16's and AK-47's this does not mean that they are violent or threatening counter-protesters.  No, no, they are merely asserting a right to self defense against counter-protesters not so armed.  As if someone without a firearm is somehow a lethal threat to someone with a firearm.  And that when the side with firearms uses a car to murder someone, their excuse is that the other side was treating while not having firearms.

It seems Dave that there is a trend with these positions (and this is not even a complete list).  That being that by ignoring counter evidence, you support having sex with children, you support slavery and that you support neo-Nazis.

To counter this impression, Dave, you need to address, with evidence not simply banal assertions, each of these points.

19
Then there's this.
"Give 3 good reasons for slavery".

Yeah, no way that doesn't blow in your face.   :dohtr:
20
While on this topic you could talk about Nations which don't actually have borders also such as the Nation of Islam. Jesus talked about his kingdom which was not of this Earth.

Nation of Islam?  Are you referring to the organization that killed Malcolm X?  If so, then that is not nation state in any sense of the word.

If you meant something else then you will need to be more specific.

Please don't interject your religious fables.

21
In the context of the mid-eighteenth century Dave has stated that succession should have not been opposed. 

I wonder if Dave thinks that this is so today?

That is if a population of Muslim Americans within the US wish to secede from the US taking whatever territory that they wish, should they be allowed to do so?

If a population of Black Americans within the US wish to secede from the US taking whatever territory that they wish, should they be allowed to do so?

If a population of White Americans within the US wish to secede from the US taking whatever territory that they wish, should they be allowed to do so?

If a population of Hispanic Americans within the US wish to secede from the US taking whatever territory that they wish, should they be allowed to do so?

In short does Dave think that the US is a nation that should exist?



It's a great question ...

<snip non-answer>

White Supremacists want to establish their own nation within the current borders of the US, Blacks want to do the same so that they can live free from white interference.  Should they be allowed to declare these lands independent from the US?  You have stated that the southern states should been completely unopposed in their secession, do you feel the same way about a modern US?

22
In the context of the mid-eighteenth century Dave has stated that succession should have not been opposed. 

I wonder if Dave thinks that this is so today?

That is if a population of Muslim Americans within the US wish to secede from the US taking whatever territory that they wish, should they be allowed to do so?

If a population of Black Americans within the US wish to secede from the US taking whatever territory that they wish, should they be allowed to do so?

If a population of White Americans within the US wish to secede from the US taking whatever territory that they wish, should they be allowed to do so?

If a population of Hispanic Americans within the US wish to secede from the US taking whatever territory that they wish, should they be allowed to do so?

In short does Dave think that the US is a nation that should exist?


23
Dave hates all forms of slavery.

Dave doesn't want Stalin elected as president.

So Dave votes for Trump to prevent this from happening.

Dave is smart.

Be like Dave.
Lol.  TIL Hillary Clinton is literally Stalin.  Dave is smrt indeed...


Same hair and everything

And of course everyone knows that you can tell someones ideology from their hair style!!!!!

Hillary's mustache seems a bit thin though, maybe she had it airbrushed out?

24
honestly I'd be more suspicious about a younger person getting an amateur radio license than an older person. A 60 year old person can imagine a time before computers. It makes sense.

I think radios and radio signals are kinda cool - I even like playing with wifi signals - so I could see possibly getting a license, but I have no idea what I would do with it.

Glory in your ignorance!!

25
Question for all you Perry Mason types...

Why would Nelly Ohr, age approximately 60, wife of Bruce Ohr who just got demoted within the DOJ for a second time, get a ham radio license in May of 2016?

Hmm?

I'm 66*. I can easily see getting a ham radio licence. It's a good hobby for older people, requiring no serious physical effort, easy to learn, and connects you with an interesting global community. She may even have heard of some of the humanitarian uses of ham radio after various disasters.

Quite a few fishermen in the Maritimes here have mobile marine ham radios to connect with a home station so they can talk to their families. You've never seen those little towers outside people's homes along the coast, Dave?

But of course in this case it's obviously for a Very. Sinister. Reason.

Also, what the hell difference does her age make? What are you implying with this "age approximately 60" business? I seriously want to know.

But according to Dave, the only reason that you might communicate with your neighbors or people outside your neighborhood is for seditious reasons.   A truly odd position for someone supposedly advocating open communication. 

But then Dave isn't advocating open communication, he is advocating christian hegemony. 

And I'm sure that his plan for racial equality has its basis in christian doctrine, but christian doctrine is not in any way based upon equality.  So how could his solution be equality based.