Smut for Smut

[Pippy]

Hey,

Can you provide evidence for any of this?

Nope. I think god made the world. We have been over my ability to provide someone like yourself with "evidence" over the internet. Me having to make my own site, and cite the site... But I can prove that when you declare the world inefficient that you define efficiency by proxy, and that the world cannot be as inefficient as you purport. All the animals that went extinct are not a sign of an inefficient world unless an efficient world includes all animals at once...

Did you forget what you wrote?

Oh, I see. Well irreducible complexity is about the best point, that is why I was laughing when you told me I couldn't use it. Please tell me why you disapprove of god, but you cannot mention christians or the bible or creationists. Go.

Do you have evidence to support your claim that humans are more perverse than 20 years ago?

What is with you people? Are you Kyu in diguise? There is no such thing as evidence for an opinion. I hold the thought that people are more perverse nowadays. Can I provide evidence? No. What evidence did I make my idea upon? The world I live in... One track minds, evidence evidence evidence...

Are you actually serious? You said:
"Illegal narcotics make more money than guns, food, precious metals, real drugs, houses, cats, and pornography. I bet you it's the case, if you feel like looking it up, and you can disprove that, please do."
Now, there are a lot of things wrong in this statement.
First, you make an assumption without backing up any of your claims, and trying to shift the burden of proof.
Second, you make a claim that illegal narcotics makes more money than your other criteria. You then try to include pharmaceuticals as dangerous and "should be illegal". What the hell? I'm not here to cater to your assumptions and think that would be illegal in your view of the world.
Third, you say the number for illegal narcotics is low, based on ???
You made a claim, and not only have you failed to back it up, you have disproven it.

I know what I said, thank you. It was in response to your argument that 'McDonald's makes money' when I said they were immoral. You maintain that you weren't arguing that making money was a moral quialifier, but I am not sure what you did mean. I also said that Child Slavery makes more money, and you also asked me to prove that. I told you it was an impossible estimate to make. First, I make an assumption without (gasp) backing up my claims. I made an assumption because to all appearances you best argument was that McDonald's can't be bad since it makes all that money, and I was trying to show that bad things make a ton of money by their nature. It is not 'invalidated' by this precious 'evidence', it is a statement of opinion. And I asked if you disagreed with me, if you would take the best that that was an untrue statement. And then, with the best 'evidence' we can produce on the internet, I googled it and posted some sentences. That is evidence. It is fallable, could be written by a monkey, could be untrue, but it's the best numbers we got. So I went, after you chose not to take the bet, and looked it up. Shifting the burden of proof? It is an opinion. You burdens or proof and evidence get old fast, this is a conversation not a public debate. And in my first point I added that drugs make more money than anything if you count the drugs the ar elegal but just as destructive. SSRI's for one. I;m not here to cater to your assumptions of what you think should be illegal" ROFL man, you take this too seriously. I'm not here to pander to whatever the fuck you think is not bad for us. Then I say the number for narcotics is low, based on my knowledge of the size and scale of narcotics trafficking. Again, a wild and untamed opinion. I think up my own thoughts, they don't come out with teir own 'evidence' I can send over the internet. Fucking evidence. I made an assumption, you did not get involved in it, I looked it up, as per the numbers I found food made more money, but it was in different years. I still think drugs makes more money, now am I denying evidence? Don't worry about the stupid fucking drugs opinion. Fuck.

"If I couldn't have thought of it, how could it be possible?"
You also make MORE claims with no evidence. It's traversing from intellectual dishonesty into full-on willful ignorance.

Argue the point or don't See in other parts you lambaste me for not qualifying what I say with 'i think' and in others you belittle me for qualifying my thought with 'i think'... You're a difficult man to please. Show me how I am supposed to provide a kid over the net evidence that I think people are more perverse today than 20 years ago? How is it possible. Oh wait. I promise you that I do in fact hold that view. There, proof of my opinion. Arguing with you is tiring. You asked if I though people were more perverse, I answered you query. In my answer you have decided that I went from intellectual dishonesty (either I'm stupid or I'm lying) to willful ignorance. So I shouldn't have answered you question? It was a trick question? Do you disagree, are people less perverse now than 20 years ago?

Please show me where I said that if something makes money, it can't be bad.

Instead why don't you tell me whatever you meant if in fact I misunderstood you. I said 'Porn is bad' one of your responses was that 'porn makes a ton of money'. I assumed that you meant porn can't be bad, look at the money it's making. You arrogantly disavowed that point. And then made it again for McDonald's. But this whole time, if you do not mean that making profit holds or changes moral value, I don't know what you DID mean. Instead of me showing you again when you said that, tell me how I misheard you so we can carry on with the actual conversation.

They also provide nutritional information for their consumers on demand, so you know what you're eating. It can be unhealthy, but so can anything if you practice it in excess.

They lie to their customers. Look up McLibel, that was a very telling case. They got in a ton of trouble for telling vegetarians that the fries were absolutely not made with beef stock, and the whole time they were. They redid their chicken nuggets to all white meat after getting sued, not because they wanted to improve their product. I could make the argument that eating one bid mac is unhealthy. I hate McDonald's for their business, social and environmental practices. But if you choose you eat fast food, and get sick, and lower you overall quality and length of life, and get taken advantage of, and make some crooked motherfuckers a little more wealthy, don't pretend there is something wrong with me.

The picture you're trying to paint is that porn, like McDonald's, is some kind of wolf in sheep's clothing that pretends to be a shining beacon of moral value. I'm saying you have a seriously skewed view.

It is a wolf on sheeps clothing. Oatmeal and rat pretending to be a hamburger. Pictures of degradation and shame pretending to be harmless entertainment. The picture you seems to be painting in response is that McDonald's is not guilty of the crimes I have pinned upon it's greasy bib. Evidence of you counter opinion? Please don't enlighten me about what you think of my world view, this is coming from someone who sees nothing wrong with porn.

I may well be done, unless you start making more sense, or less sense. But if it is more of this (what others here have calles) charecter assassination (hahahahahahahaha), I may be done arguing with you. You've made a couple interesting points, but got a little hung up demanding evidence for things that cannot be proven over the internet. I still appreciate you input, although less now that most of what you have to say is seemingly irrelevant slander.

Thank you.