More People That Are Too Stupid To Breed

[Poop Master Flex]

In all fairness its not uncommon for old people to sell cans for money, even if they have money kicking around, maybe he's just extremely cheap. Also I'm gonna say is he may have been loaded when he had the kids and fell into some hardships later in life, happened to my uncle after all, sudden health problems can be a bitch, just saying. But then again he may have been white trash who didn't know how to keep it in his pants.

Either way it's ridiculous what happened to the guy, no one deserves that kind of treatment. No matter how trashy the deceased man may be he's not half as stupid as the kids posting them basically killing a man on Facebook, you may as well call the cops and say "Arrest me now!".

 

[Miko]

Good job they killed him, obviously just a massive time waster

 

[SalvIsWin]

Yes, I'm sure selling cans for cash is how you pay for 12 children. And I'm sure he reported all the money he earned to the government.

Look, I'm never in favor of murder for any reason. But there are a lot of red flags in this article about the type of person this guy was.


Exactly. Common sense would tell you that if you have no money, you stop having kids. I don't care where you live, common sense has to kick in.

And maybe this guy was an angel. Maybe he was a great guy who did everything the right way, etc. At which point I'd be wrong about doing the world a favor. But, as I said, there are a lot of red flags about this.

Sly, your series of posts in this thread rivals anything else I've ever read on this site for stupidity. I don't agree with you a lot of times, but you're being an absolute moron here.

You know absolutely zero about the context or circumstances of this man, and 'red flags' are something people say to justify their snap judgement about something/one or to confirm their prejudice. If you think it's appropriate to hear a story about a man getting beaten so badly he dies and then post that they did the world a favour, you're no better than any of the Republican idiots you lambast.

edit: lmao then you berate Pera for a lack of intelligence because he's pointing out the same thing I did, WTF? Lol

 

[Slyfox696]

Sign of a beaten man. Stand down sir.

Alot of red flags about the type of person you are in this thread.

Whatever comforts you. If you can't see how a man who has 12 kids, draws disability, and picks up cans to sell in an area of Chicago inhabited by gang members doesn't suggest someone who might be a flawed human being, then that's all on you.

As I said, he very well could be an angel on Earth, which would make my comment wrong. But right now, I'll stick to my original guess.

You know absolutely zero about the context or circumstances of this man

Which is why I said I'm "going to guess". You did actually read this thread, right?

and 'red flags' are something people say to justify their snap judgement about something/one or to confirm their prejudice.

Uhh, how else do you make judgment, unless based on the facts presented? Your statement that "red flags" is only to justify snap judgment is ludicrous. I didn't make a "snap judgment", I read the article and posted my feelings.

Again, you did actually read this thread, right?

If you think it's appropriate to hear a story about a man getting beaten so badly he dies and then post that they did the world a favour, you're no better than any of the Republican idiots you lambast.

Wow, so many ridiculous things in this statement.

edit: lmao then you berate Pera for a lack of intelligence because he's pointing out the same thing I did, WTF? Lol

The difference is I've seen you post intelligent things before, even if you're not doing so in this thread. Pera, on the other hand, has proven his stupidity at least once before, and I've never seen anything from him to change my opinion. Now I realize it's not "politically correct" to point out the faults of the recently deceased, but perhaps you ought to be a little less sensitive to someone you don't know and just try to understand what would make me (and at least one other person) think of the possibility this man wasn't the great man you're making him out to be.

Do me a favor. Read the thread again, at least my posts. Realize how ridiculous you sound in your oversensitivity, and then get back to me with an apology.

 

[Pera]

Whatever comforts you. If you can't see how a man who has 12 kids, draws disability, and picks up cans to sell in an area of Chicago inhabited by gang members doesn't suggest someone who might be a flawed human being, then that's all on you.

I'm still waiting:

"Exactly. Common sense would tell you that if you have no money, you stop having kids. I don't care where you live, common sense has to kick in."

Prove to everyone he had no money and we'll be done with it. I'm still waiting for your evidence that this guy had a disability and that he had no money. Tick tock, tick tock. Stop attacking the man and play the ball, just simply link me to a quote in the article where it said a 62 y.o. man who collects cans didn't have money. Prove he was a 'flawed man' like you say. The only flawed one here is you I guess. Alot of red flags slyfox, alot of red flags.

Instead you come up with a whiny little post that says you don't want to post no more, because you have no proof the guy had no money, which ruins your whole opinion on the guy. Your entitled to an opinion, but it's ridiculously stupid based on the facts given in the article, and it somehow leads you to a ridiculous judgment on the victim.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm still waiting:

You're still dumb.

Prove to everyone he had no money and we'll be done with it.

Really? Is it so difficult for you to Google?

Maria Carmen Mora, 59, who married her husband in Mexico more than 40 years, said he was a hard worker. The family started out very poor, she said. Delfino, who had built their home in Michoacan, Mexico, came to the Chicago area to work home construction and was eventually joined by other family members.

A work accident left him without full use of his right arm, she said, so he was unable to continue working. But Valentin Mora, 38, said his father's disability didn't keep him stuck inside. He would often walk around the neighborhood and collect cans to help support the family.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...1_murder-charges-west-rogers-park-prosecutors

I'm still waiting for your evidence that this guy had a disability

It's in the fucking summary in the opening post.

Two more teens have been charged in the beating death of a 62-year-old disabled man

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=222029

You're not helping yourself with regards to how I view your intelligence.

Tick tock, tick tock.

So funny when a 15 second Google search and reading the opening post to your thread would have answered your questions.

Stop attacking the man and play the ball, just simply link me to a quote in the article where it said a 62 y.o. man who collects cans didn't have money. Prove he was a 'flawed man' like you say.

I can't PROVE it, which is why I said from the very beginning:

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that while these people were stupid to do this and deserve jail, I'm going to guess they did the world a favor.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=4014397&postcount=10

Jesus Christ, do you process anything you read? Are you really this lazy?

Instead you come up with a whiny little post that says you don't want to post no more

No, it was a post which accurately reflected how stupid I think you are, which you have proven once again with your latest post.

because you have no proof the guy had no money, which ruins your whole opinion on the guy.

Completely false. Money was only part of the reason I made my first statement.

Your entitled to an opinion, but it's ridiculously stupid based on the facts given in the article

Not at all. 12 children, gang violence, selling cans for money, receiving disability paycheck...it's not ridiculous as all. In fact, I imagine if you only that information and didn't know he was the victim of murder, you'd probably be much more inclined to think the same thing. But when people hear "innocent victim", we automatically assume the finest qualities to the victim. Look no further than the Trayvon Martin case for proof of that.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Whatever comforts you. If you can't see how a man who has 12 kids, draws disability, and picks up cans to sell in an area of Chicago inhabited by gang members doesn't suggest someone who might be a flawed human being, then that's all on you.

A man who has 12 kids says nothing about the man, nothing besides he has a lot of kids. My grandfather has nine children, he's average in almost every respect, all of his children are successful. A lot of immigrants that come to this country have a lot of children - it says nothing about their success of the success of their children. To draw anything off of this is stupid.

He picks up cans. OK - the possibility exists he might be poor, the possibility exists he simply enjoys it and has nothing to do. There is nothing clear to suggest one way or the other.

Living in an area with gang members... a lot of areas have gang members. Welland, ON is a perfectly fine place to live, however it also happened to be a spot frequented by the Hell's Angels on occasion. I live in Niagara Falls, ON, honeymoon capital of the world, very nice place - also home to some gang and corrupt activity - it happens everywhere.

The fact that you take these three things and go - yep, the likely possibility is that this guy was scum of the Earth and therefore I'm somewhat happy he's dead - unbelievable.

Which is why I said I'm "going to guess". You did actually read this thread, right?

Prefacing your stupidity with saying 'I'm going to guess' doesn't make it any less dumb. I'm going to guess 2+2=5, I'm also a dumbass if I say that. You said what you said, you guessed it, you're also dumb as hell for saying it. What's the problem?

On an aside, one of your favourite arguments on this forum is, " Did you even read the thread?" which follows or is followed by something that has nothing to do with the other persons argument. This is a perfect example. You said that you were just guessing, so that clears you of all stupidity for making the statement - no lol. IDC if you're guessing or stating it as a fact, if you say something that dumb, it's dumb. You can post all the rolling smileys you want and non sequitur reasoning you can come up with, but it doesn't prove your point. Also, posting something akin to, 'this is so stupid' and not actually addressing it just makes you look like you have nothing to say in defense.

Uhh, how else do you make judgment, unless based on the facts presented? Your statement that "red flags" is only to justify snap judgment is ludicrous. I didn't make a "snap judgment", I read the article and posted my feelings.

You read the article, took in data, make a judgement based off insufficient information. That's a snap judgement in my book. Regardless, the point is that you don't have enough information to make any claim let alone the ridiculous one that you did. I'm pretty sure you're aware of the differences between a judgement based on all the facts, and a judgement based on limited data.

Wow, so many ridiculous things in this statement.

Thanks for pointing them out, it really shows that you're actually able to defend your position. Saying 'Wow so many ridiculous things in this statement' can be said about anything - the fact that you think this is an acceptable response is baffling.

The difference is I've seen you post intelligent things before, even if you're not doing so in this thread. Pera, on the other hand, has proven his stupidity at least once before, and I've never seen anything from him to change my opinion. Now I realize it's not "politically correct" to point out the faults of the recently deceased, but perhaps you ought to be a little less sensitive to someone you don't know and just try to understand what would make me (and at least one other person) think of the possibility this man wasn't the great man you're making him out to be.

I haven't seen any of his other posts, and even if every other thing he's said was absolute shit it wouldn't make a difference in this case. Pera, idiot or not because I have no idea, is actually correct in this circumstance, so I will acknowledge that.

Lastly, you're not pointing out faults, your making assumptions based on limited data that cannot possible support your claims - AKA you're jumping to conclusions. It also happens that your conclusion is outrageous.

 

[SalvIsWin]

I can't believe I forgot to add this, but I better before Sly jumps down my throat. Even if the man was a poor, disabled (still not sure why this is bad in your mind, how dare people be disabled, but w/e lmao), father of 12 (same as before), who lived in a gang neighbourhood - they did the world a favour?

That's undefendable.

 

[Pera]

You're still dumb.

Another whiny post with more weh weh weh's. You're like a big baby.

Really? Is it so difficult for you to Google?

No time of the accident (so it is unclear how long he hasn't been working) and STILL no evidence the guy had no money. And that's the whole basis of your theory his death was a favor to the world.

No, it was a post which accurately reflected how stupid I think you are, which you have proven once again with your latest post.

Nah mate, you moaned like a 12 y.o. school girl.

Completely false. Money was only part of the reason I made my first statement.

Oh yeh, I forgot the part where you 'presumed' he didn't report the money he was earning from can collection to the government. Another one of your valid reasons as to the red flags about the man.

Not at all. 12 children, gang violence, selling cans for money, receiving disability paycheck...it's not ridiculous as all. In fact, I imagine if you only that information and didn't know he was the victim of murder, you'd probably be much more inclined to think the same thing. But when people hear "innocent victim", we automatically assume the finest qualities to the victim. Look no further than the Trayvon Martin case for proof of that.

What does having 12 children have to do with anything, anything at all? I give credit to the man that he was able to support and raise a family that big. He lives in an area with gang violence, so what? A man should be able to walk around the streets without being attacked, especially a 62 y.o disabled man. he sells cans, due to probably being restricted by his age and disability. Drawing a conclusion from all the facts that are given that his death was a favor to the world makes you come across as a complete and utter fool.

Plenty of people have agreed with me also that your opinion is based purely on stupid speculation. Congratulations.

 

[Pera]

I can't believe I forgot to add this, but I better before Sly jumps down my throat. Even if the man was a poor, disabled (still not sure why this is bad in your mind, how dare people be disabled, but w/e lmao), father of 12 (same as before), who lived in a gang neighbourhood - they did the world a favour?

That's undefendable.

Bang on.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Just a quick note to certain users in this thread. Read a posters FULL response and opinion before jumping down their throat and attacking them. If you did read the full response you wouldn't be going all apeshit.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Just a quick note to certain users in this thread. Read a posters FULL response and opinion

Don't tell me what to do! I'll read whatever I want to read.

YOU FASCIST!

On a lighter note, I live in Chicago. I didn't think you could get money for cans and most people with 12 kids get their own reality show.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Don't tell me what to do! I'll read whatever I want to read.

YOU FASCIST!

Oh you will read it all, and you will LIKE it!

 

[Slyfox696]

A man who has 12 kids says nothing about the man, nothing besides he has a lot of kids. My grandfather has nine children, he's average in almost every respect, all of his children are successful. A lot of immigrants that come to this country have a lot of children - it says nothing about their success of the success of their children. To draw anything off of this is stupid.

He picks up cans. OK - the possibility exists he might be poor, the possibility exists he simply enjoys it and has nothing to do. There is nothing clear to suggest one way or the other.

Living in an area with gang members... a lot of areas have gang members. Welland, ON is a perfectly fine place to live, however it also happened to be a spot frequented by the Hell's Angels on occasion. I live in Niagara Falls, ON, honeymoon capital of the world, very nice place - also home to some gang and corrupt activity - it happens everywhere.

The fact that you take these three things and go - yep, the likely possibility is that this guy was scum of the Earth and therefore I'm somewhat happy he's dead - unbelievable.

Holy Mother of blatant misrepresentations Batman!

I never said I was happy he's dead, I said I'm going to guess the world is better off. Two distinctly different concepts. I don't give a flying fuck if he's alive or dead, I don't know the man, never have and never will.

But you're just being silly if you don't see why a person would make such a judgment based on the information we have.

Prefacing your stupidity with saying 'I'm going to guess' doesn't make it any less dumb.

Uhh, way to take words out of context. You said I "know absolutely zero about the context or circumstances of this man", which I showed that I agree with you by framing my original statement as a guess. Well...sort of agree, since there a few facts in the article which I used to make my guess.

C'mon now, you're smarter than this.

On an aside, one of your favourite arguments on this forum is, " Did you even read the thread?"

Yes, but I sincerely wonder if you actually have. Your statements either show you to have not read the thread, to have misunderstood what you read or to be blatantly misrepresenting what I said. For Pera, I know when he says something stupid like he did in his latest post I responded, it's because he's not very smart. But for you, I was GUESSING (there's that word again, huh?) you simply hadn't read the thread, or not closely enough if you had.

You said that you were just guessing, so that clears you of all stupidity for making the statement - no lol.

Except: A) I wasn't trying to distance myself from my original statement and B) You seem to have forgotten why I pointed out that I said "guess", which I addressed earlier in this post.

IDC if you're guessing or stating it as a fact, if you say something that dumb, it's dumb.

But it's not dumb. I've seen people who, more or less, fit this description and my assertion of who they are. When you have all of those factors put together, many times it is EXACTLY as I said in my first post.

Perhaps you have never seen scum of the Earth people, but I have. I've dealt with them on numerous occasions. Was this guy scum of the Earth? I don't know, but given the information I have, I'm going to guess that on a continuum from scum to angel, he'll fall closer to the scum end than the angel end. Could I be wrong? Sure. But with the information we were given, that's the conclusion I came to, and you really haven't said anything which disproves that conclusion. Your entire position has been nothing but oversensitivity that I would dare attack a man who was murdered. As I said to Pera, if I described a random person as "12 children, gang violence, selling cans for money, receiving disability paycheck", are you telling me your first thought would be of a great humanitarian? Or would it be a drug user? Or a gang banger? Or someone abusing government assistance? You don't get any other information, are you telling me your first thought is the second coming of Jesus Christ? Somehow I seriously doubt you'd think much different than me, if you didn't know the man was murdered by teens playing a game.

Also, posting something akin to, 'this is so stupid' and not actually addressing it just makes you look like you have nothing to say in defense.

I dissect posts nearly line by line, and you think I have nothing to say in defense? If I simply leave it as "this is so stupid", it's because I either don't want to waste additional time replying to something so ridiculous or I have already explained it or even if I do explain it, you won't get it.

In your case...well, I'll address that later in this post.

You read the article, took in data, make a judgement based off insufficient information.

No, I made a judgment based off all the information which has been provided to me. Do you have anymore pertinent information which contradicts my position, preferably information which comes from a non-biased source?

I'm pretty sure you're aware of the differences between a judgement based on all the facts, and a judgement based on limited data.

And I'm sure you understand the concept of making a judgment based upon all the information provided to you at the time of judgment.

Thanks for pointing them out, it really shows that you're actually able to defend your position. Saying 'Wow so many ridiculous things in this statement' can be said about anything - the fact that you think this is an acceptable response is baffling.

1) You've never proven the world wasn't done a favor, nor have you tried
2) You're flame-baiting, not only me but Republicans as well, with your Republican statement.
3) The reasons I criticize Republicans are far different than what I said here
4) This has nothing to do with politics, yet somehow you think it's a fitting comparison
5) For argument's sake, even if I was wrong in my initial opinion of the deceased, making one statement proven inaccurate by additional facts not known at the time of said statement, is not at all akin to words/actions which are consistent over time with the person's (the Republican) words/actions.

As I said, so many ridiculous things in your statement. Sorry I didn't feel the need to waste my time before to point them out, I thought my time would be more productively spent playing Civ 4 than ridiculing you.

I haven't seen any of his other posts, and even if every other thing he's said was absolute shit it wouldn't make a difference in this case. Pera, idiot or not because I have no idea, is actually correct in this circumstance, so I will acknowledge that.

No, he's not correct. It astounds me that someone whom I consider to be reasonably intelligent (you) is sticking your head in the sand refusing to see what other people see...that this man carries the traits of a person who is not an angel on Earth. What's more you have yet to refute my position, but rather just provide scenarios where he might not be a bad person.

As I've said MULTIPLE times in this thread, even before you posted, if more information came out that he was a saint, volunteered in a soup kitchen, donated money to cancer research, never did drugs, never cheated on his wife, never was arrested...whatever...then I would be wrong about the world having been done a favor. But until such information is provided, I can only go on what I know.

The main point of contention here is whether or not Delfino Mora was a good man. You have little to no evidence he is, and I've explained my evidence which suggests to me he wasn't so good of a man. It's really that simple.

Lastly, you're not pointing out faults

Red flags then.

your making assumptions based on limited data that cannot possible support your claims - AKA you're jumping to conclusions.

Really?

So a man who has children in the double digits, shares an area with gang members, collects disability and sells cans to make money couldn't POSSIBLY support my claim that he's a burden on society? Really?

Who's being stupid now?

I can't believe I forgot to add this, but I better before Sly jumps down my throat. Even if the man was a poor, disabled (still not sure why this is bad in your mind, how dare people be disabled, but w/e lmao), father of 12 (same as before), who lived in a gang neighbourhood - they did the world a favour?

That's undefendable.

You're right, no death can ever be a favor to the world. When Osama Bin Laden was killed, the world wasn't better off. When Hussein was killed, the world wasn't better off.

Is it your position that no death ever favors the world? It's a leading question, I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. Give me your response to that question, and I'll use it for my next answer. How you answer determines how I respond.

Another whiny post with more weh weh weh's. You're like a big baby.

How is me repeatedly calling you stupid, while pointing out evidence of your stupidity (like your inability to remember the first post of the thread) whiny?

No time of the accident (so it is unclear how long he hasn't been working) and STILL no evidence the guy had no money.

What the fuck are you talking about? The guy was poor, collected disability and still had to sell CANS AND SCRAP METAL TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY.

Are you really this obtuse? Are you incapable of inferring anything?

Nah mate, you moaned like a 12 y.o. school girl.

No no, it pointed out how stupid you are. Which you are proving again.

Oh yeh, I forgot the part where you 'presumed' he didn't report the money he was earning from can collection to the government. Another one of your valid reasons as to the red flags about the man.

You also forgot the other parts, which doesn't surprise me, even though I listed them in the very post you are quoting. Dumbass.

What does having 12 children have to do with anything, anything at all?

A man who is poor enough to have to sell cans to support himself should not be having 12 children. If he is that poor, then somewhere along the line, those children were very likely supported by government assistance. Why does that matter? Because why should taxpayers have to pay for him not being able to keep his dick in his pants?

My grandparents were devout German Catholics. I never asked, but I'm going to assume contraception wasn't something they used. They only had six children, and they had a fair amount of money. This guy had 12 children, and was very poor. Using the reasonable assumption that a very poor family with 12 kids relied on government money to survive, are you telling me that taking him off government money doesn't provide a benefit to society? Do you have any evidence where his passing has left a void, where his positives outweighed his negatives in society?

He lives in an area with gang violence, so what?

Suggests he might have run afoul of the law, if not been in a gang himself. Do I know if either of those statements are true? No, just like you don't know they're not.

A man should be able to walk around the streets without being attacked, especially a 62 y.o disabled man.

Well, it's good to see you have the ability at least to comprehend the fact he's disabled, even if you had to have it pointed out to you it was in the opening post. Bet you felt stupid then, didn't you?

Furthermore, I specifically said in my first post these kids were stupid to do this and deserve to go to jail. So I agree a man should be able to walk around the streets without being attacked. Unfortunately for you, that's completely irrelevant to our debate.

he sells cans, due to probably being restricted by his age and disability.

I almost admire your innocence. If it wasn't for your stupidity, I'd probably let you off the hook. If a person wanted to work, he could work. I've seen people with one arm work before. Are your job prospects limited? Certainly, but you can work if you truly want to.

Just a quick note to certain users in this thread. Read a posters FULL response and opinion before jumping down their throat and attacking them. If you did read the full response you wouldn't be going all apeshit.

Not sure who you're directing this towards, but I know it would help the people arguing with me.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Not sure who you're directing this towards, but I know it would help the people arguing with me.

Well I will say I certainly wasn't directing it towards you but its definitely users you are debating with.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Perhaps you have never seen scum of the Earth people, but I have. I've dealt with them on numerous occasions. Was this guy scum of the Earth? I don't know, but given the information I have, I'm going to guess that on a continuum from scum to angel, he'll fall closer to the scum end than the angel end. Could I be wrong? Sure. But with the information we were given, that's the conclusion I came to, and you really haven't said anything which disproves that conclusion.

I haven't said anything that disproves YOUR claim? That's not how this works, you think he's closer to scum of the Earth, that means you have to give reasoning which will either be, or not be, sufficient to support your claim. I'm telling you it isn't and I've explained why, I don't have to prove he's not the scum of the Earth.

Your entire position has been nothing but oversensitivity that I would dare attack a man who was murdered. As I said to Pera, if I described a random person as "12 children, gang violence, selling cans for money, receiving disability paycheck", are you telling me your first thought would be of a great humanitarian? Or would it be a drug user? Or a gang banger? Or someone abusing government assistance? You don't get any other information, are you telling me your first thought is the second coming of Jesus Christ? Somehow I seriously doubt you'd think much different than me, if you didn't know the man was murdered by teens playing a game.

It really isn't over sensitivity, if the man was a drug dealer or rapist I still wouldn't agree with what you said but I probably wouldn't even have posted, it wouldn't have bothered me. What bothers me is that in your book:

• Being poor.
• Having a lot of children.
• Being disabled (seriously, what the fuck with this one?)
• Collecting cans.

That's enough for you to believe the world has been done a favour with his death. He may be poor - so what? He was injured in an accident and is now disabled and this is a strike against him? What the fuck? He has 12 children, so? And he collects cans because he cannot work and he's old now and he wants to help anyway he can. You've taken all this and said, yep, closer to scum of the Earth, I have all the relevant facts I need. I'm not going to be able to prove this is a stupid assertion, others can decide for themself, but I can't see your defense for this.

No, I made a judgment based off all the information which has been provided to me. Do you have anymore pertinent information which contradicts my position, preferably information which comes from a non-biased source?

I'll concede the man was likely poor, was disabled, had 12 children, and was collecting cans - nothing there condemns this man in my eyes, it's still baffling to me that you view each one of these as further evidence of this mans shittiness.

And I'm sure you understand the concept of making a judgment based upon all the information provided to you at the time of judgment.

Right, it's called a snap judgement lmao. Like I said, you don't have all the information, you have some, but you want to make your opinion anyway, so you're going to do it. Personally I'd like to get away from whether or not he was poor, etc because it really doesn't matter - The man could be a poor disabled grandfather out collecting cans, I still don't see the connection with that and having done the world a favour with his death.

1) You've never proven the world wasn't done a favor, nor have you tried

...? Come on. You know this is a fallacy. You make the claim, now I have to prove it isn't true lmao, give me a fucking break. If you want me to seriously tell you why this is a stupid expectation for you to have, I will.

No, he's not correct. It astounds me that someone whom I consider to be reasonably intelligent (you) is sticking your head in the sand refusing to see what other people see...that this man carries the traits of a person who is not an angel on Earth. What's more you have yet to refute my position, but rather just provide scenarios where he might not be a bad person.

Being poor isn't a fucking crime. Having 12 children isn't a fucking crime. Holy shit. If it also said he stole money and food from others to feed his growing family, then I would start to see where you're coming from, but in your mind, if you're poor, disabled, or have a lot of children watch the fuck out because Sly thinks you'd be doing us all a favour by croaking.

Also, stop asking me to refute your fucking position. It's your position, you have to show why it's correct, I don't have to show why it's wrong. You sound like a fucking creationist here, "God exists and did everything - prove to me I'm wrong mwahaha!" You've given what you think is substantial evidence, I'm explaining to you why I think it isn't sufficient, that's all I need to do, I don't need to further prove why in fact the man was a fucking angel, I don't know if he was, maybe he wasn't, but I'm not making the claim, I'm saying your claim is dumb.

As I've said MULTIPLE times in this thread, even before you posted, if more information came out that he was a saint, volunteered in a soup kitchen, donated money to cancer research, never did drugs, never cheated on his wife, never was arrested...whatever...then I would be wrong about the world having been done a favor. But until such information is provided, I can only go on what I know.

I believe you that you made up your mind with limited information, that's actually one of my points for why your assertion is baseless, you have little information to make a claim like that.

The main point of contention here is whether or not Delfino Mora was a good man. You have little to no evidence he is, and I've explained my evidence which suggests to me he wasn't so good of a man. It's really that simple.

It. Doesn't. Work. That. Way.

You make the claim that the world was done a favour when he died, now it's up to you to provide the evidence for that claim. You've done so, and I feel you've done so insufficiently, and I've explained why - I don't need to prove on top of that if he's a good man, I didn't make the claim. Is he a good man? I don't know. He might be, might not, but I didn't make a claim because I don't know enough to say one way or another. In my opinion I've clearly said why your evidence isn't evidence at all, that's all I wanted to do, not prove he's a saint.

You're right, no death can ever be a favor to the world. When Osama Bin Laden was killed, the world wasn't better off. When Hussein was killed, the world wasn't better off.

Is it your position that no death even favors the world? It's a leading question, I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. Give me your response to that question, and I'll use it for my next answer. How you answer determines how I respond.
How is me repeatedly calling you stupid, while pointing out evidence of your stupidity (like your inability to remember the first post of the thread) whiny?

That's WOULD be a great argument if my position was that no death can ever benefit the world - it's a good fucking thing I didn't say that though lmao. I said that the position that the world was done a favour with the death of a poor, disabled, grandfather of 12 who was collecting cans is undefendable - not Osama bin Laden lmao. I'm simply talking about this scenario, nothing more.

 

[GI Cake]

Stay classy Wrestlezone.

 

[Slyfox696]

I haven't said anything that disproves YOUR claim? That's not how this works, you think he's closer to scum of the Earth, that means you have to give reasoning which will either be, or not be, sufficient to support your claim. I'm telling you it isn't and I've explained why, I don't have to prove he's not the scum of the Earth.

But you're the one who took offense to my statement. I've laid out my evidence for why I made my statement. Either your position is that Mora WAS a good person (which you've provided no evidence for), or that you don't have any idea of what kind of person he is, making your outrage at my position faulty.

You can claim I don't know everything about him, to which I've already agreed and even stated that more facts could prove me wrong. So then where is your continued outrage coming from?

It really isn't over sensitivity

Sure it is, why else are you so outraged over this?

What bothers me is that in your book:

• Being poor.
• Having a lot of children.
• Being disabled (seriously, what the fuck with this one?)
• Collecting cans.

That's enough for you to believe the world has been done a favour with his death.

Once again, you are misrepresenting my position. It's not those four facts themselves, but rather what they suggest, which is what made me say I'd guess the world has been done a favor.

Seriously, this isn't hard. I'm not sure why I've had to explain it to you multiple times. And it's not that he was disabled, it's being on disability. There is a difference.

He may be poor - so what? He was injured in an accident and is now disabled and this is a strike against him? What the fuck? He has 12 children, so? And he collects cans because he cannot work and he's old now and he wants to help anyway he can.

I've already addressed all of this.

Right, it's called a snap judgement lmao.

No, a snap judgment is an immediate response, usually without thought or deliberation. I did not make a snap judgment. I read the facts presented to us, and from this formed an opinion. You disagree with my opinion, fair enough. But it's not a snap judgment.

...? Come on. You know this is a fallacy. You make the claim, now I have to prove it isn't true lmao, give me a fucking break. If you want me to seriously tell you why this is a stupid expectation for you to have, I will.

It's not a fallacy. As I said earlier, you are claiming only one of two positions. 1) Mora was a good man, or 2) We don't have any idea what kind of man he is, making your outrage at my opinion derived from facts presented silly.

I'm going to assume your outrage is based on the idea that Mora was a good man, otherwise it's pointless to even discuss this as I've already agreed it's possible my opinion could be wrong. Thus, since I'm operating under the assumption you're trying to claim Mora was a good man, it's on you to provide evidence that he's a good man.

As I said, it's not a fallacy for me to ask you to support your (assumed) position that the world wasn't done a favor. I've already given the reasons I made my statement, it's now on you to show how the world wasn't done a favor. That's usually how debate works.

Also, stop asking me to refute your fucking position. It's your position, you have to show why it's correct

Wrong, I have to provide evidence for why I made my statement, which I have done on multiple occasions. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean I haven't.

You're better than this. Take a moment, step back, and think about this rationally for a second. You're being overemotional, and it's clouding your ability to look at this rationally.

I don't have to show why it's wrong.

How convenient for you. So in other words, you don't have to actually provide ANY proof for your continuous claims I'm stupid for taking a position influenced by facts and experiences, you just get to shout over and over without ever having to take a position yourself.

Seriously?

That's WOULD be a great argument if my position was that no death can ever benefit the world - it's a good fucking thing I didn't say that though lmao.

I never said you did.

I said that the position that the world was done a favour with the death of a poor, disabled, grandfather of 12 who was collecting cans is undefendable - not Osama bin Laden lmao. I'm simply talking about this scenario, nothing more.

Okay but you agree that death can benefit the world, correct? Judging from your response, I'll assume you agree it can. So then, the whole debate centers around whether or not Mora was a good man, or a man who was a drain on society, in one way or another.

I've showed the facts which suggest he very well could have been, especially when you take them together. As I said, the particulars themselves suggest other problems with the person. At which point my original statement is COMPLETELY defendable, as I've shown throughout this thread.

Are you going to tell me it's outside the realm of reasonable assumption to believe this man relied on government paychecks to feed a family so large he couldn't do it himself, refused to search for a job because he collected disability, didn't pay taxes to the government providing the paycheck, and sold the cans for cash so he wouldn't have to report any earnings to the government? Is it hard to believe that when he or his family needed healthcare, he rolled into a hospital ER so he didn't pay because he didn't have health insurance, thus contributing to the higher costs of healthcare and higher costs of insurance? Is it so difficult for you to believe that a poor man (which you've agreed is very likely) would work outside the law, especially knowing socio-economic status is one of the best predictors of crime? Is it so hard to believe that a man who lives and collects cans in an area inhabited by gang members might have committed crimes himself?

Now, can I prove ANY of those statements to be fact? No, I cannot. I freely admit that, and did so nearly from the very beginning. Could it be none of those are true, and he was a great contributor to society? Sure, I freely admitted that from nearly the very beginning. But are you REALLY going to sit at your keyboard and tell me my last paragraph is completely implausible? Of course you won't.

And that's the point. You know as well as I do that EVERY thing I said in that paragraph is entirely possible, even believable. If a news report came out saying that very thing, very few people would be truly surprised. Your continual claim that I'm stupid for using facts to envision a very possible scenario is ridiculous.

So are we done now? Are you done being indignant about a comment which I have proven on multiple occasions to be foundationally sound, even if it turns out to not be accurate?

 

[SalvIsWin]

But you're the one who took offense to my statement. I've laid out my evidence for why I made my statement. Either your position is that Mora WAS a good person (which you've provided no evidence for), or that you don't have any idea of what kind of person he is, making your outrage at my position faulty.

What I don't like is that you made your ridiculous conclusion based on very little. You made the claim, you've given reasoning which I don't think is remotely sufficient. I don't have a claim other than that your reasoning is poor, which I've explained.

You can claim I don't know everything about him, to which I've already agreed and even stated that more facts could prove me wrong. So then where is your continued outrage coming from?

Sure it is, why else are you so outraged over this?

None of this is really relevant at all. You've pretty much admitted I don't need to prove wrong what you're saying, whether or not you think I should find your statement outrageous is subjective.

Once again, you are misrepresenting my position. It's not those four facts themselves, but rather what they suggest, which is what made me say I'd guess the world has been done a favor.

Seriously, this isn't hard. I'm not sure why I've had to explain it to you multiple times. And it's not that he was disabled, it's being on disability. There is a difference.

I fully understand your reasoning, I think it's really poor. Believe me there is no misunderstanding.

It's not a fallacy. As I said earlier, you are claiming only one of two positions. 1) Mora was a good man, or 2) You don't have any idea what kind of man he is, making your outrage at my opinion derived from facts presented silly.

I'm going to assume your outrage is based on the idea that Mora was a good man, otherwise it's pointless to even discuss this as I've already agreed it's possible my opinion could be wrong. Thus, since I'm operating under the assumption you're trying to claim Mora was a good man, it's on you to provide evidence that he's a good man.

As I said, it's not a fallacy for me to ask you to support your (assumed) position that the world wasn't done a favor. I've already given the reasons I made my statement, it's now on you to show how the world wasn't done a favor. That's usually how debate works.

Wrong, I have to provide evidence for why I made my statement, which I have done on multiple occasions. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean I haven't.

You're better than this. Take a moment, step back, and think about this rationally for a second. You're being overemotional, and it's clouding your ability to look at this rationally.

This is one of the most bizarre series of statements I've ever read from you. You're of the opinion that you can make a claim, and I have to prove it wrong if I think your opinion is stupid? That's absurd.

How convenient for you. So in other words, you don't have to actually provide ANY proof for your continuous claims I'm stupid for taking a position influenced by facts and experiences, you just get to shout over and over without ever having to take a position yourself.

Let's break this down.

Your position - The world is better off now that this man is dead. He was closer to being scum than he was to being good.
My position - Your claim is baseless because there isn't enough information.

My entire position dictates that I couldn't prove he's a good man, it's impossible for me to prove he's a good man because my position is that there is not enough evidence, therefore for you to say that there is and then make your statement is stupid in my opinion. I've presented why I think there isn't enough information, that's it, I don't have anything else to say because I don't have any other position than that lmao.

You made your claim, you backed it up with your reasoning. I said why I think there isn't enough evidence and why I think it's stupid for you to make such a conclusion. If that's too convenient for me in your mind then take that up with logic because that's how this works.

Okay but you agree that death can benefit the world, correct? Judging from your response, I'll assume you agree it can. So then, the whole debate centers around whether or not Mora was a good man, or a man who was a drain on society, in one way or another.

I've showed the facts which suggest he very well could have been, especially when you take them together. As I said, the particulars themselves suggest other problems with the person. At which point my original statement is COMPLETELY defendable, as I've shown throughout this thread.

Are you going to tell me it's outside the realm of reasonable assumption to believe this man relied on government paychecks to feed a family so large he couldn't do it himself, refused to search for a job because he collected disability, didn't pay taxes to the government providing the paycheck, and sold the cans for cash so he wouldn't have to report any earnings to the government? Is it hard to believe that when he or his family needed healthcare, he rolled into a hospital ER so he didn't pay because he didn't have health insurance, thus contributing to the higher costs of healthcare and higher costs of insurance? Is it so difficult for you to believe that a poor man (which you've agreed is very likely) would work outside the law, especially knowing socio-economic status is one of the best predictors of crime? Is it so hard to believe that a man who lives and collects cans in an area inhabited by gang members might have committed crimes himself?

Now, can I prove ANY of those statements to be fact? No, I cannot. I freely admit that, and did so nearly from the very beginning. Could it be none of those are true, and he was a great contributor to society? Sure, I freely admitted that from nearly the very beginning. But are you REALLY going to sit at your keyboard and tell me my last paragraph is completely implausible? Of course you won't.

And that's the point. You know as well as I do that EVERY thing I said in that paragraph is entirely possible, even believable. If a news report came out saying that very thing, very few people would be truly surprised. Your continual claim that I'm stupid for using facts to envision a very possible scenario is ridiculous.

It is outside of the realm of reasonable assumption, yes. It's possible, but it takes more than just possibility for something to be valid. It's possible that you're an ogre and that we've just never discovered another one of your species, but it's not reasonable. In my opinion, on a scale of 1 - 10, with 1 being zero relevant data to base an opinion off of and 10 being having all the relevant data, I would say you're at a 3. You have some relevant information, not nearly enough to make your claim however.

---

As an aside, you would make an excellent Christian apologist! You could claim there's a God, and then when I say that your reasoning is faulty because of X, Y, and Z, you can say I have to prove God doesn't exist because I can't think your opinion is dumb unless my claim is that there is no God.

 

[Slyfox696]

What I don't like is that you made your ridiculous conclusion based on very little.

If you feel it's ridiculous, despite my repeatedly showing you what I'm basing it from, then perhaps you're not as intelligent as I gave you credit for.

None of this is really relevant at all. You've pretty much admitted I don't need to prove wrong what you're saying, whether or not you think I should find your statement outrageous is subjective.

But you claiming me stupid because you disagree with my statement you DO have to prove.

Seriously, what the fuck happened to you? When did you lose your ability to reason and be rational?

This is one of the most bizarre series of statements I've ever read from you. You're of the opinion that you can make a claim, and I have to prove it wrong if I think your opinion is stupid? That's absurd.

Really? Now isn't this interesting...let's go back, shall we?

Thanks for pointing them out, it really shows that you're actually able to defend your position. Saying 'Wow so many ridiculous things in this statement' can be said about anything - the fact that you think this is an acceptable response is baffling.

So, in other words, when YOU made the claim that I thought was outrageous, I have to prove it ridiculous, but when the shoe is on the other foot, you're absolved from doing the same.

Hypocrite much?

It is outside of the realm of reasonable assumption, yes.

Then there's really no point to continue. If you're going to insist on saying such ridiculous things, then it's obvious you're never going to get it. Everything I said there can easily be imagined as a legitimate possibility by anyone who is viewing this from even a remotely rational standpoint. The fact you say it is outside the realm of reasonable possibility shows you are not being rational, and instead are simply being obstinate.

Which is a shame because I usually do have decent respect for your intelligence (probably as great of a compliment I give on the forum), but you really are sounding foolish in this thread.

As an aside, you would make an excellent Christian apologist! You could claim there's a God, and then when I say that your reasoning is faulty because of X, Y, and Z, you can say I have to prove God doesn't exist because I can't think your opinion is dumb unless my claim is that there is no God.

*sigh*

Except you're not saying my reasoning is faulty, you're saying I shouldn't have come up with my reasoning based upon the evidence presented. When asked to show how my reasoning is faulty, you claim it's not your responsibility to show how my reasoning is faulty. When asked if a reasonable scenario can be derived from the evidence we both have, you claim it's not reasonable, because apparently the overwhelming majority of people who have 12 children, don't work but live off government paychecks and live in an area inhabited by gang members are productive members of society whose death is a hardship on society.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

These posts are getting way too long for a spam thread.

 

[SalvIsWin]

I've given my reasoning, Sly. Read any of the my other posts for why I think any of the reasons you gave aren't valid. For example, I said that he's poor, so what? I don't think that him being poor is an indication of anything other than his lack of money, it doesn't push him towards scum or towards angel - it means nothing. I have given my reasoning.

Also, there's a difference between possibility and reasonable assumptions. I agreed it's a possibility that he was not a good person, I don't think it's reasonable to have that as a conclusion at this point because there are too few facts, that is what I was saying when I said it was outside the realm of reasonable assumption - reasonable being the key word.

You've asked why your reasoning is faulty, I have given it to you. What you have done is asked for me to prove your statement false, which I can't, and it was an absurd request to make. I've clearly stated that I think none of the facts we know are reasonably indicative of the type of person he was, you think they are, I think that's stupid.

 

[Slyfox696]

I've given my reasoning, Sly. Read any of the my other posts for why I think any of the reasons you gave aren't valid. For example, I said that he's poor, so what? I don't think that him being poor is an indication of anything other than his lack of money, it doesn't push him towards scum or towards angel - it means nothing. I have given my reasoning.

Also, there's a difference between possibility and reasonable assumptions. I agreed it's a possibility that he was not a good person, I don't think it's reasonable to have that as a conclusion at this point because there are too few facts, that is what I was saying when I said it was outside the realm of reasonable assumption - reasonable being the key word.

You've asked why your reasoning is faulty, I have given it to you. What you have done is asked for me to prove your statement false, which I can't, and it was an absurd request to make. I've clearly stated that I think none of the facts we know are reasonably indicative of the type of person he was, you think they are, I think that's stupid.

You have never once even attempted to prove my reasoning faulty, only lacking sufficient evidence. My thought process is perfectly reasonable, given what we know. Is it correct, maybe not, but it is reasonable. While you wish to express outrage at the indignation someone would dare criticize someone who was killed, I'm going to stick to my original statement, which is that I'm going to guess the world was done a favor. If you wish to think of me as a piece of shit because of that, fine, I don't really give a flying fuck. But your original statement, that my comment is stupid, is completely false, as I have now proven on multiple occasions. If you choose not to understand it, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact my statement is perfectly reasonable, as is my thought process which was led from the facts we know. And no amount of your outrage will change that.

 

[Pera]

Perfectly reasonable.

Probably why you have no children. You'd probably think your wife or girlfriend was cheating on you while she was out playing bingo.

But keep administrating forums, no red flags in doing that....