SA Mariners retweetledi
SA Mariners
3.5K posts
SA Mariners retweetledi
Officer, I can explain. 😂
She accidentally stole a car, but she has a very good reason for it.👇🏼
English
@TobiasCeres @frankieflakes21 @SleeperNFL @RamsTapes @SleeperBills @SleeperSeahawks Allen is a better QB than Stafford both all-time and currently
English
@accelball @frankieflakes21 @SleeperNFL @RamsTapes @SleeperBills @SleeperSeahawks I guess the mvp doesn’t deserve it?
English
The 99 club for Madden 27:
Myles Garrett
Josh Allen
Matthew Stafford
Trey McBride
Jaxon Smith-Njigba
Ja’Marr Chase
(@MUTLeaksXXVI)
English
English
@SleeperNFL @RamsTapes @SleeperBills @SleeperSeahawks Stafford, JSN, And Allen all should not be 99 overall. That's just crazy.
English
@Azazel__Fallen @Slypador You’re stuck in a loop. I’ve explained myself very clearly and you still don’t understand. Reading’s not for you, clearly
English
@accelball @Slypador You do not understand Subjective Morality. 👍
English
every single moron calling rock solid disgusting for tweeting this while missing the entire point of his argument:
Rock Solid@ShitpostRock
The best logical fallacy to give an atheist when discussing morals is to ask them why it's morally wrong to have intercourse with roadkill It's dead it will not feel anything, nobody will know and there are no victims If you ask a Christian or Buddhist why it's morally wrong, they will tell you it's because the body retains inherent dignity as part of God's creation (or the sacred flow of life), and desecrating it violates divine/natural order, harms your soul/karma, and shows disrespect, even if no one feels it or knows An atheistic worldview of this question taken to its extreme, concludes that intercourse with roadkill is tantamount to masturbation and nothing more
English
English
English
NEW: Washington's Jedd Fisch revealed why QB Demond Williams planned to enter the transfer portal:
"A program told him they’ll pay him an extra $2 million if he goes in the portal, and the kid’s 19 years old."
(via @3xOptionShow)
on3.com/college/washin…
English
@Azazel__Fallen @Slypador And yes, there are no strong rebuttals in the replies. You’re projecting your own religious arguments onto other users
English
@Azazel__Fallen @Slypador So yes, I don’t think you understood what I said.
English
@accelball @Slypador Are you sure you understand the subjective part of Subjective Morality? 🤨
English
@Azazel__Fallen @Slypador I don’t believe morality to be objective. It is subjective. I’m not religious. The problem is that nobody can answer the question in any meaningful way without revealing that they aren’t actually moral people
English
@accelball @Slypador What you call intentional misunderstanding is just a fundamental difference of position. In your world view morality come from God and is Objective, in reality it is Subjective. We disagree on the very premise of the conversation so you won't accept the answers people do give.
English
@meequalsfish @memeticsisyphus I’m an atheist, actually. You still personally can’t answer the question, which says a lot about yourself
English
@accelball @memeticsisyphus So still a yes, that you do personally need a god to tell you to not fuck a corpse...
English
There is an atheist argument against this; it’s repugnant. But opening up the argument that something, especially a non-violent sexual act, is immoral because it is repugnant is obviously not an argument they’re willing to cede.
Rock Solid@ShitpostRock
The best logical fallacy to give an atheist when discussing morals is to ask them why it's morally wrong to have intercourse with roadkill It's dead it will not feel anything, nobody will know and there are no victims If you ask a Christian or Buddhist why it's morally wrong, they will tell you it's because the body retains inherent dignity as part of God's creation (or the sacred flow of life), and desecrating it violates divine/natural order, harms your soul/karma, and shows disrespect, even if no one feels it or knows An atheistic worldview of this question taken to its extreme, concludes that intercourse with roadkill is tantamount to masturbation and nothing more
English
@Slypador "You're a moron if you think fucking corpse of deer is disgusting"
Watching rightoid pipeline into wanting to fuck dead deers has been thrilling but not so surprising
English
@Azazel__Fallen @Slypador If that were true, there’d have been strong rebuttals. But, instead there is only intentional misunderstanding and refusal to engage with the premise, a tactic used when one’s own argument fails to stand on its own merits
English
@Slypador Nah he just said something incredibly stupid and disgusting that any Atheist who has had the morality discussion has heard a million times. That was a particularly disrespectful way to try and start that conversation which is why he is deservedly being mocked.
English
@ctrl4ltpers0na @Slypador You’ve revealed yourself to be too unintelligent to take part in this discussion
English
@polemoskarios @Tristan_Powers1 If God does, then it objectively is not immoral
English
@Tristan_Powers1 Really, simply ask if God tells you to kill an infant is it objectively moral?
English
The funniest part of this is watching the allegedly most educated and logical, intelligent people on the internet serially fail enmass to provide a proper rebuttal.
Basic errors in understanding, its clear they've never read a single work on ethics or philosophy.
Rock Solid@ShitpostRock
The best logical fallacy to give an atheist when discussing morals is to ask them why it's morally wrong to have intercourse with roadkill It's dead it will not feel anything, nobody will know and there are no victims If you ask a Christian or Buddhist why it's morally wrong, they will tell you it's because the body retains inherent dignity as part of God's creation (or the sacred flow of life), and desecrating it violates divine/natural order, harms your soul/karma, and shows disrespect, even if no one feels it or knows An atheistic worldview of this question taken to its extreme, concludes that intercourse with roadkill is tantamount to masturbation and nothing more
English
@Dincan_VP @Emannytheory @PureRedLotus @TeaTimeHaveACup @DenimsTV - Consent is a legal term and doesn’t apply to animals. We’re allowed to slaughter animals for food
- Risk isn’t a factor
- Empathy isn’t a factor because nobody is getting hurt
- Probably your true answer
- Disgust
English
@Emannytheory @PureRedLotus @TeaTimeHaveACup @DenimsTV - Lack of Consent (which also applies to living animals)
- Potential disease
- Empathy
- Conformism
- Smell/wounds (if your body makes you have a sexual drive when seeing wounds/smelling corpse...yeah)
- As far as we know even Cavemen didn't have sex with animal corpses
English
@meequalsfish @memeticsisyphus How would you tell someone else not to do that on a moral ground?
English
@Jeroz @FudgeSmith111 Attacking his tactics because you don’t like that his conclusion makes your side look bad is a fallacy
English
@FudgeSmith111 Comments still pretending that Nick was legit when his scamming tactic already been exposed as fraudulent before lmao
English
The gullible nature of right wingers will never stop amazing me. An employee asked you to leave after you asked them random financial information about the business? Really? Tell me more about how you never got outside.
jay plemons@jayplemons
Nick Shirley uncovers an adult day care in Flushing, Queens with 7,000 phantom members. Nick: “This public document says you have 7,899 members.” Employee: “No, we don’t have 7,000 members.” Nick: “So you’re overbilling then? You’re getting paid $1,600 per patient — that’s how you got $12.9 million in 2024.” Employee: “Please leave.” American taxpayer dollars at work.
English