The Official "Damned Trump" Thread: Phase II

[TheWhiteMarten]

Here's a question for you...try to answer somewhat honestly...why are you here?  It's pretty obvious that you aren't going to bring the members here around to your way of thinking.  My guess is that you are just another troll.

I've been honest every time the question has been asked, and I will repeat it again in honesty... 

I created the account as an atheist in the process of deconversion; my old forum and home of 17 years (atheistforums.com) is pretty much dead in regard to debate and theological topics and we had have interactions over the years as communities. When I saw theological debate was essentially non-existent here I moved on and didn't really browse any other content.

I spent way too much time on social media around the election due to a lull in work, and in that time I started seeing people like Darkmatter2525 have meltdowns, massive atheist accounts begin spreading the most illogical and nonsensical of memes, and just... really childish and moronic behavior from "pop media" atheists. I hoped that maybe that was more the behavior of Reddit atheists rather than serious atheists.

I guess I'm here because I didn't want to believe, and still don't, that atheists have truly reached this bottom of the barrel; that a movement I dedicated hundreds of hours to in my youth and the prime of my life has become an absolute cesspool of illogical nonsense and the brainwashing of our "educated" by Muslims and communists to further their own agendas. More so than anything *any* of yall can say to me, that one actually hurts a bit.

Other than that I just swing by from time to time to see if any theological, anthropological, 9th-15th century history, 1830-1880s American history, aviation, vexillology, motorcycle, or other topic comes up that catches my interest. I don't really want to start any religious-based topics just because I feel like that's a bit too pretentious and preachy. 

If I see something I find goofy I say so, as is my right, and I try to respond with the same respect I am shown.

[Angrboda]

Here's a question for you...try to answer somewhat honestly...why are you here?  It's pretty obvious that you aren't going to bring the members here around to your way of thinking.  My guess is that you are just another troll.

I've been honest every time the question has been asked, and I will repeat it again in honesty... 

I created the account as an atheist in the process of deconversion; my old forum and home of 17 years (atheistforums.com) is pretty much dead in regard to debate and theological topics and we had have interactions over the years as communities. When I saw theological debate was essentially non-existent here I moved on and didn't really browse any other content.

I spent way too much time on social media around the election due to a lull in work, and in that time I started seeing people like Darkmatter2525 have meltdowns, massive atheist accounts begin spreading the most illogical and nonsensical of memes, and just... really childish and moronic behavior from "pop media" atheists. I hoped that maybe that was more the behavior of Reddit atheists rather than serious atheists.

I guess I'm here because I didn't want to believe, and still don't, that atheists have truly reached this bottom of the barrel; that a movement I dedicated hundreds of hours to in my youth and the prime of my life has become an absolute cesspool of illogical nonsense and the brainwashing of our "educated" by Muslims and communists to further their own agendas. More so than anything *any* of yall can say to me, that one actually hurts a bit.

Other than that I just swing by from time to time to see if any theological, anthropological, 9th-15th century history, 1830-1880s American history, aviation, vexillology, motorcycle, or other topic comes up that catches my interest. I don't really want to start any religious-based topics just because I feel like that's a bit too pretentious and preachy. 

If I see something I find goofy I say so, as is my right, and I try to respond with the same respect I am shown.

Seek and ye shall find.

[Fake Messiah]

So another thread turned into TheWhiteMarten talking about himself.

[TheWhiteMarten]

Cute; another trend I've noticed from several of you is the constant use of ad homs as a way to avoid answering questions.

Which philosopher advocated that technique again?

Let's try again, and lets do a better job of pretending to be logical and rational - would you continue to employ someone incompetent merely based on the merit of, "experience?"

I already answered that in two different ways.  Try to keep up.

You told me what you believed Trump's EO was for; you told me that democracies work slow.

Neither of which is an answer to, "Would you continue to employ someone incompetent merely based on the merit of, "experience?" - and the lack of answer is becoming an answer in itself.

[TheWhiteMarten]

So another thread turned into TheWhiteMarten talking about himself.

Tends to happen when multiple people start spamming nonsensical remarks at you and then asking you questions about yourself. Seriously, cut out architects nonsensical ad hom remarks and Gurglers incoherent nonsense and these threads lose about 20-40% of their posts.

Getting jealous, or just coming to further try and dog pile and derail the thread? Because I am taking two people seriously at the moment, but I don't mind smarting off with you for a laugh if you want to make a fool out of both of us.

[Angrboda]

I already answered that in two different ways.  Try to keep up.

You told me what you believed Trump's EO was for; you told me that democracies work slow.

Neither of which is an answer to, "Would you continue to employ someone incompetent merely based on the merit of, "experience?" - and the lack of answer is becoming an answer in itself.

If you say so. Your question only makes sense in this context if incompetence among civil servants is sufficiently widespread. What is your evidence that it is?

And no, you didn't keep up. You apparently missed at least two additional comments I addressed to the question. Please try to keep up.

[Fake Messiah]

So another thread turned into TheWhiteMarten talking about himself.

Getting jealous,

No, I just want to talk about the topic of this thread. I don't want to talk about you because I don't give a shit about you and your life.

[TheWhiteMarten]

Getting jealous,

No, I just want to talk about the topic of this thread. I don't want to talk about you because I don't give a shit about you and your life.

Well, this is your second post talking about me - neither of which I was holding your hand or otherwise forcing you to do so.

Now, if you will excuse me, several of us are talking about the topic of the thread - stop interrupting.

[TheWhiteMarten]

You told me what you believed Trump's EO was for; you told me that democracies work slow.

Neither of which is an answer to, "Would you continue to employ someone incompetent merely based on the merit of, "experience?" - and the lack of answer is becoming an answer in itself.

If you say so.   Your question only makes sense in this context if incompetence among civil servants is sufficiently widespread.  What is your evidence that it is?

And no, you didn't keep up.  You apparently missed at least two additional comments I addressed to the question.  Please try to keep up.

Page 21: EO and the process of democracy; no answer.
Page 22: I answer your question; response is that power can be abused and will be abused, what guard rails exist to stop abuse? Accusation that I am affiliated with people who think Michel Obama is a man. No answer.
Page 23: Personal experience in Florida, we've been here before. No answer.
Page 24: Return to, "I've already answered." No answer.

It's not a hard question, in fact for anyone who has been anywhere near a position of power it should be an unbelievably and immediate answer; "No."

Employing someone merely by the merit of them being "experienced" is not good business as "experienced" is a catch-all phrase; experienced when? How long, how long ago, how long at one time?

Experienced how? By being good at the job, or by simply having done it? And does that job provide meaningful and profitable value to the organization or could you be terminated and the net-benefit outweigh the loss of your productivity and talents?

Who are you experienced under? What have they done, what were there agendas, do they align with how the new adminstration intends to operate? 

When these questions come up short, there should be *no* bureaucratic red tape preventing the termination of this employee.

[Angrboda]

If you say so.   Your question only makes sense in this context if incompetence among civil servants is sufficiently widespread.  What is your evidence that it is?

And no, you didn't keep up.  You apparently missed at least two additional comments I addressed to the question.  Please try to keep up.

Page 21: EO and the process of democracy; no answer.
Page 22: I answer your question; response is that power can be abused and will be abused, what guard rails exist to stop abuse? Accusation that I am affiliated with people who think Michel Obama is a man. No answer.
Page 23: Personal experience in Florida, we've been here before. No answer.
Page 24: Return to, "I've already answered." No answer.

It's not a hard question, in fact for anyone who has been anywhere near a position of power it should be an unbelievably and immediate answer; "No."

Employing someone merely by the merit of them being "experienced" is not good business as "experienced" is a catch-all phrase; experienced when? How long, how long ago, how long at one time?

Experienced how? By being good at the job, or by simply having done it? And does that job provide meaningful and profitable value to the organization or could you be terminated and the net-benefit outweigh the loss of your productivity and talents?

Who are you experienced under? What have they done, what were there agendas, do they align with how the new adminstration intends to operate? 

When these questions come up short, there should be *no* bureaucratic red tape preventing the termination of this employee.

That's a lot of words to avoid acknowledging that Schedule F is an answer to a nonexistent problem that you have no evidence exists. Then what's it for?