"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction..."

Duke said:
Television was already be derided as taking over for social interaction even back then. automated assembly lines were beginning to come to rise, meaning less people and more machines in the workplace. It's not necessary 'communications', just technology. Technology becoming the norm over what was previous a human role. Replace a person with tech, you replace the social interaction that came with that person as well.
Click to expand...

true, good points, just had a flashback to chaplin's modern times
 
Mr. Asa said:
PS - the resident psychologist said that I had a valid point in the Fuelband argument. Coincidentally you never returned to it to continue the discussion based.
Click to expand...

:lol: I guess you also missed where he said I had one too.

Which is one reason why I haven't gone back. Add that to your 'more right' stuff, and I find zero value or worth debating anything with you. Here we are days later, and you are still going on about it.

And here, now that I validated my point, you go off on some tangent about a DIFFERENT thread or topic in some kind of 'but, but, then this' counter.

Seriously. Get over it.
 
Mr. Asa said:
The onus is on you to prove what you said, not me.

You really have a problem with the word "quit" don't you?
Click to expand...

:lol: Okay. There is no onus on me for anything outside whatever is in your mind. And the issue was your point, but instead you keep looking for something, anything, to make you 'more right'.

Find your dick, grab it, remind yourself you are a man, and move the fuck on, nancy.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: 1 person
Syrup Beaver said:
I think the most difficult thing to explain to someone from 1950 would be the decided lack of flying cars.

How disappointing that would be.
Click to expand...

no flying cars, no people living on the moon, no hovering buildings, and what the fuck is all this pollution?

i'd be pretty disappointed if i came to this time from the 50s.
 
Duke said:
:lol: I guess you also missed where he said I had one too.

Which is one reason why I haven't gone back. Add that to your 'more right' stuff, and I find zero value or worth debating anything with you. Here we are days later, and you are still going on about it.

And here, now that I validated my point, you go off on some tangent about a DIFFERENT thread or topic in some kind of 'but, but, then this' counter.

Seriously. Get over it.
Click to expand...
He said you had 3/4 of a valid point. However the fun part about you having a valid point or not does not matter, as you dismissing my arguments as irrelevant was revealed to be incorrect.

I like that you continue to argue grammar instead of the points of the debate.



The Duke uses circuitous logic and deflection!
It's not very effective
 
Duke said:
:lol: I guess you also missed where he said I had one too.

Which is one reason why I haven't gone back. Add that to your 'more right' stuff, and I find zero value or worth debating anything with you. Here we are days later, and you are still going on about it.

And here, now that I validated my point, you go off on some tangent about a DIFFERENT thread or topic in some kind of 'but, but, then this' counter.

Seriously. Get over it.
Click to expand...

this could be a naive statement but both of you generally make reasonable points and I for one enjoy reading them.... as to any resolutions, that has to do with stubbornness which is not on short supply here
 
Mr. Asa said:
He said you had 3/4 of a valid point. However the fun part about you having a valid point or not does not matter, as you dismissing my arguments as irrelevant was revealed to be incorrect.

I like that you continue to argue grammar instead of the points of the debate.
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder if you even are fully cognascent of what you say. Where the fuck am I arguing grammar now, Enemy?


And just because you judged Mortlach as some kind of 'grand precentor general' over a debate in which you made some rather silly point, which I refuted more because having the discussion with you brought zero value, at all. AND HERE YOU ARE STILL BUTTHURT ABOUT IT DAYS LATER.

seriously. Tried saying it many times now. Move the fuck on.
 
Mr. Asa said:
The Duke uses circuitous logic and deflection!
It's not very effective
Click to expand...

Dude, honestly. Your projecting here. You do these things, and then accuse me of it.


You make a comment on how you doubt Einstein said something because in the 50's no one thought of technology doing what it does today. I SHOWED you prime examples of how people indeed see it. Instead of saying 'ah so it is', you go off on the onus of proving an einstein quote, and then spend the rest of the time going off about a discussion i left 2 days back yet you can't.

It befuddles me. And it's the reason why this conversation is over.
 
Last edited:
Duke said:
I sometimes wonder if you even are fully cognascent of what you say. Where the fuck am I arguing grammar now, Enemy?


And just because you judged Mortlach as some kind of 'grand precentor general' over a debate in which you made some rather silly point, which I refuted more because having the discussion with you brought zero value, at all. AND HERE YOU ARE STILL BUTTHURT ABOUT IT DAYS LATER.

seriously. Tried saying it many times now. Move the fuck on.
Click to expand...
"ZOMG! He keeps saying more right! what a fucking idiot!" - Duke (paraphrased)
Misspelled cognizant, BTW

I mentioned Mort as he is someone that you know that works as a psychologist, therefore he could judge the merit of what I was saying. The reason I mentioned him was because you work in IT and I do not rate you as capable of judging whether an argument based in human behavior is reasonable or unreasonable.

You move on, fucko. Takes two people to argue and you are incapable of dropping an argument.





I bet a dollar that you ignore or deflect away from the lines regarding Mort as they would mean that you would have to revise your statements and revisit the argument
 
Duke said:
Dude, honestly. Your projecting here. You do these thing, and then accuse me of it. It's befuddles me. And it's the reason why this conversation is over.
Click to expand...
I use those tools as they are the only ones you respond to. When I tried to use a valid, logical argument you got all butthurt and ran away from the argument by saying I was making an unreasonable argument that made no sense.
 
You keep thinking the 'more right' is about grammar.

No, nancy, it's about that only women use 'more right' as some kind of 'winning point' of there arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back