NameSilo

Whats going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

Located in Reviews started by MapleDots, Mar 20, 2019.

Replies:
2,017
Views:
54,648

  1. Slanted

    Slanted Member ICA Member VIP

    Posts:
    325
    Likes Received:
    600
    That's not the way debate works, pal. You must present your own case. If you are expecting your opponent to save you, then we will wait until the 2nd Coming!

    Specifically, if you believe your opponent has portrayed your view incorrectly, then you need to clarify what your view is. So far, today alone, I have challenged you to make your argument explicit at least 3 or 4 times. And instead of doing so, you run away.

    Likewise, if you believe your opponent's counterargument is wrong, then you need to refute it. To me, your argument looks like 2 claims: (A) and (B). I already refuted both. You say you believe (A) but not (B). Fine. In that case, unless there is more to your argument, it stands 100% refuted.

    It's no use running away, asking me to apologize for refuting you. If I refuted your argument PLUS another argument that you say you don't believe, that makes no difference. You are still refuted.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. whenpillarsfall

    whenpillarsfall Top Member VIP

    Posts:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    616
    If you're saying my position is X, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is the case. It's not my job to prove what I don't believe to begin with.

    You're conflating a counter argument with your attempt to tell me what my argument is.

    Are you sure you're not religious?
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  3. Slanted

    Slanted Member ICA Member VIP

    Posts:
    325
    Likes Received:
    600
    Let the record show that @whenpillarsfall is running away from a refutation here:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7251205

    So far, today alone, you have made 6 posts that do not present any counterargument whatsoever.

    Nonsense. I did my best to understand your argument, despite it being some mixture of fallacious, incoherent, and false.

    My best attempt to present your argument was as 2 independent claims: (A) and (B). I refuted both. You acknowledge that your argument consists of claim (A), which has been refuted. But you say that you don't believe the separate claim (B). That's perfectly fine. But it's utterly BIZARRE that you think you are exonerated from being refuted on point (A) because I refuted a separate argument (B).

    You have made no attempt to challenge my refutation of (A), despite being challenged to do so repeatedly. And you have made no attempt to expand your argument to something more than just (A), despite being asked repeatedly to present the best version of your case. During your past half dozen posts today, you have simply run away.

    Naturally, I'm willing to accept that you are making any argument that you wish to make. But you need to MAKE it.

    Right now you are playing hide and seek. "I'm not going to tell you what my argument is. Hee hee hee! You've got to guess! And until then, I'm not going to answer about any of the parts of my argument that I acknowledge are mine, even though you have refuted them. Until you can guess what all my secret mystery arguments are, I'm just going to keep hiding and say I'm right because you don't know where I am. Hee hee hee!"

    Mature. That's how rational arguments are won, I'm sure.

    It's pretty clear you are inwardly frustrated and defeated and don't know how to respond with anything remotely like a rational case. Hence the past 6 posts of evasions and dodges and not one single attempt to respond to my refutation of your opinion. Here you are looking desperately for an escape route:

    I'm an atheist. Sorry, I know you're looking for an ad hominem as a way to escape the embarrassment of being wrong. "Look, he's really a secret muslim! Now I'm saved!" Unfortunately for you, you're being publicly shamed by a fellow atheist.

    Deal with it.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  4. NameLlama

    NameLlama Established Member

    Posts:
    769
    Likes Received:
    313
    Humans creating religions based on special doctrines that cannot be overturned means possibility of a central doctrine that says people who hold certain listed views should be silenced for good of the community. Rising against it would mean attacking the entire religion The people may feel that the religion is so important to their lives,, so this one part of it is not a big deal in comparison to the other "wonderful" parts, and they never seriously question if it is bad to censor what they censor. Therefore, religion is very good.
     
  5. Slanted

    Slanted Member ICA Member VIP

    Posts:
    325
    Likes Received:
    600
    What you said would be equally accurate, to the extent that it is accurate, if you substitute "ideology" for "religion". And that ideology could as easily be non-religious as religious.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  6. Dustie

    Dustie Upgraded Member Blue Account ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    330
    Likes Received:
    313
    Uh, I'd venture to say that most of us can't afford a premium domain like Epic.com!
     
  7. TCK

    TCK NameOptions.com VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    355
    What the hell has this thread become? @Rob Monster and @Slanted, I have met both of you at NamesCon and found you guys to be likeable nice people in person. Why are you allowing this thread to polarize people in arguments that have no possible outcome? I agree that this thread does not belong in the review section as it has become too much of a political/religious/opinion thread.

    Just because someone is for gun control, doesn’t mean they are for taking all guns away. Just because someone is for abortion rights, doesn’t mean they are for abortions. Just because someone is anti-religion, doesn’t mean they are anti-Creator. There is no such thing as a binary option for complex topics.

    What is this thread about? Converting people? Sorry that’s not going to happen on a forum like this. I see no benefit to posting opinionated controversial things. Just the opposite. But keep going if that makes you sleep better.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  8. Rob Monster

    Rob Monster CEO, Epik Epik.com Staff PRO Gold Account VIP

    Posts:
    926
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    I think this thread is about a few things:

    - Why does Epik.com support lawful free speech?
    - Has Rob Monster lost his mind in his quest for empowering incontrovertible truth?
    - In what cases is censorship desirable?
    - What is the meaning of life?

    At 46,000+ views, I believe it is the most active thread on NamePros for all of 2019.

    This thread started as a public beatdown for my stance on censorship. I reluctantly engaged around page 16, and have adopted a practice of complete transparency.

    As for converting anyone to some particular world view, perhaps this thread caused more people to contemplate important questions and to seek out answers.

    As for the tone of the thread, I think it became a bit more snarky when @whenpillarsfall made it his quest to mock anyone that believes that there is a Creator to whom we might ultimately be accountable.

    As for @Slanted, since stepping down from Epik, where he did some awesome work, I think he has been on his own search for truth. For anyone who does not know him, his pen is mighty.

    All that said, I think this thread has been a lot of fun. I appreciate that the moderators have allowed this thread to continue despite occasional controversy or bruised sensibilities.

    Wishing everyone in the US a fantastic Memorial Day weekend.

    upload_2019-5-25_23-51-8.png
     
  9. whenpillarsfall

    whenpillarsfall Top Member VIP

    Posts:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    616
    Ha, it's clear to anyone that reads the last few posts it's you running.

    Again, where did I say both A and B are true?

    Still waiting. Just you admit you were wrong. Unless you have evidence I said something I didn't. Burden of proof is on you...

    And just seen you actually used to work for at Epik with Rob. Amazing. So impartial! No wonder you won't call out his awful behaviour. Shame on you.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  10. whenpillarsfall

    whenpillarsfall Top Member VIP

    Posts:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    616
    Jesus Christ, man. It was a joke... I was referencing the fact that you started to ask me to prove I didn't believe something - which is real religious territory. I know subtley can be lost online, but come on...

    I'm sorry I've upset you by calling out your flawed logic, but no need to get so worked up. From what I can tell you have no reason to continue debating with me anyway, because for most the time you've been debating against your own ideas that you've attempted time and time again to inject into my points - the last time embarrassingly so.

    You're the ultimate "what I think you are saying is..." man.

    I also find it amusing that you're totally cool with Rob, your former colleague (and friend?) posting murder videos, calling dead people fakers, pictures of dead fetuses, spreading misinformation and much more... But the moment I called religion a poison it was a step too far.

    I think someone has got a lot of internal conflicts to resolve before they return to this thread.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  11. Slanted

    Slanted Member ICA Member VIP

    Posts:
    325
    Likes Received:
    600
    @whenpillarsfall, I refuted what you yourself acknowledge is your opinion. And instead of making any counter argument, you are using a series of ad hominem fallacies in a desperate attempt to flee.

    Ad hominem #1: Humpty dumpty doesn't need to make a rational argument to explain why all Religion = Poison because he says his opponent is "flawed", "illogical", and "upset".

    When was that? I've challenged you to do so repeatedly. For example, 4 days ago:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-63#post-7248900

    But you continue to run away.

    Ad hominem #2: Humpty dumpty doesn't need to make a rational argument to explain why all Religion = Poison because he says his opponent is secretly religious or else lacks a sense of humor.

    You should be a stand-up comic. What a gift!

    Lesson #1: When someone doesn't laugh at your joke, that doesn't mean they didn't understand you. Explaining the "joke" doesn't make it funnier.

    Joke or no joke, it’s obvious that you are looking for an easy escape. You tried the same thing 6 days ago, reaching for the ad hominem fallacy to disqualify and dismiss me as a religion person (sorry) who is automatically wrong:

    Ad hominem #3: Humpty dumpty doesn't need to make a rational argument to explain why all Religion = Poison because he says his opponent is emotional and "worked up".

    When you say I’m “worked up”, it is an attempt to distract people from the fact that I have refuted your opinion and you don’t have any rebuttal. Let me calmly redirect attention to the COMPLETE LACK of a response by you regarding any of my refutations during the past week.

    Ad hominem #4: Humpty dumpty doesn't need to make a rational argument to explain why all Religion = Poison because he says his opponent was formerly an employee of Epik.com and therefore supports murder and conspiracy theories.

    Spineless slander. This thread is full of my criticism of Rob already from weeks ago. And I resigned from Epik in March over the episode you mention – an action which speaks for itself.

    You are trying to use Rob’s scandal to portray me as immoral and to distract from the conversation you and I are having, which doesn’t involve or refer to Rob at all. And that speaks volumes about your lack of intellectual honesty.

    Let’s return to the point: You expressed the bigoted, non-factual, dogmatic view that all Religion = Poison, Cancer, Mental Illness, Plague. And later that Religion necessarily leads to censorship. I have refuted you in detail every day since May 20:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-61#post-7244184

    For a week now, I have challenged you to present your best case, or any counterargument at all. Yet you continue to run away.

    And now I have reduced you to sputtering a series of hopeless ad hominem attacks.
     
  12. whenpillarsfall

    whenpillarsfall Top Member VIP

    Posts:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    616
    Look at TCK's post above and take stock.

    You are looking rediculous and everyone can see the rediculous inferences you have made to try and polarise my position far beyond what I actually stated.

    You've never actually refuted anything I've said. You've instead injected inferences into my positions and refuted those instead. Like I said, you are simply arguing against your own faulty logic.

    You're jumping about madly now, whilst I keep asking you the same thing.

    You clearly stated that I believe without religion there would be no censorship. (you've made similar untrue statements about my views throughout, but let's focus on this latest one... )

    Now tell me where I said that, or don't bother responding.

    Or accept you were wrong 😂
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  13. NameLlama

    NameLlama Established Member

    Posts:
    769
    Likes Received:
    313
    Said B could change
    to No religion implies less censorship
     
  14. TCK

    TCK NameOptions.com VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    355
    If you can’t empathize with the person you are arguing with, your argument is pointless. It will never end.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  15. MapleDots

    MapleDots Domain Properties 2010 - 2019 VIP

    Posts:
    4,900
    Likes Received:
    9,863
    Unfortunately I cannot agree with that statement. I personally have a lot of respect of Epik and the man that started it. When I opened the topic there was a big hoopla about something that was said by Rob and then deleted. I was hearing rumours all over the place and therefore opened the topic to get some clarification about the circumstances involved.

    So I had no ulterior motive for a smackdown, a beatdown or even remotely trying to disrespect Rob Monster. Of course some of the posters were under a different opinion and probably did engage in an aggressive manner.

    The fact that this topic has taken on several incarnations, where everybody's pen is equal, shows the power of debate is still alive and well on namepros. Personally I will always defend freedom of speech and the ability to converse in a controlled manner, and Rob Monster does that very well.

    I cannot even begin to debate some of the subjects in this topic but I can say that I don't agree with the way Rob is blurring the line between his views, and those of Epik the company. I have this sinking feeling that his personal opinions will one day bite him back when the company grows and it is time for a more homogenized image. If by that time there is a board of directors, or shareholders, Rob will eventually find himself squeezed out.

    That's just a personal opinion but I guess that is allowed in debate (y)
     
  16. Slanted

    Slanted Member ICA Member VIP

    Posts:
    325
    Likes Received:
    600
    This thread has been a tangled knot of topics from the very beginning:

    - Rob Monster
    - Epik
    - Massacres of Religious Minorities
    - Controversial Politics
    - De-Platforming
    - Censorship vs Free Speech
    - Domain Registrar Responsibilities
    - Rob's claim of a fake video

    Discussion of those topics led people to inject more material into the conversation and to take long tangents regarding broad topics that go beyond the scandal that started this thread:

    - Conspiracy theories
    - Rob's personal religious views
    - Islam itself
    - Christianity itself
    - Religion itself

    Some of that came from Rob himself. And some of it came from Rob's critics. And some of it came from opinionated people who just want to brawl.

    In any online forum, there are anti-muslim, anti-christian, or anti-religious people who crawl out of the shadows. They smell a chance to attack a group of people or a set of ideas that they hate. Especially, if there is already a controversy in which a muslim or christian or religious person appears in an unsympathetic light, these bigoted lurkers realize they can use that individual as a pretext to beat up their target group without much chance of anyone defending the target group.

    In my case, when this thread was opened in March, I attempted to focus attention on the core issues . Despite people getting side-tracked, those core issues have been outlined already – mainly during March and April. People who want to see the case – pro or con – for Epik or Rob Monster or De-platforming or Registrar Neutrality can find it here.

    But there are cases where I feel obliged to follow a tangent within this NamePros thread. For example, when someone attacks Islam, then I defend Islam:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...k-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-6#post-7159322

    And when someone denigrates billions of religious people with a preposterous argument that all Religion = Poison / Cancer / Mental Illness / Plague, then I muster evidence to contradict that intolerant, hateful view.

    I detest bigots. And I view it as my ethical responsibility to defend those the bigots are attacking, when the attack occurs in front of my nose and I see nobody else standing up to the bigots.

    I would much rather defend a vulnerable group, person, or idea from an attack – even if I disagree with the group, person, or idea ... if that attack goes too far – than join those whose views coincide with mine in attacking the vulnerable. Other people look for an easy victim they can attack with bad arguments because their arguments wouldn't stand up to criticism if they were attacking someone in another context.

    @whenpillarsfall is a case in point. Dogmatic intolerance to all religion is actually quite similar to the bigotry aimed at a specific religious group. In extreme cases, such dogmatic intolerance leads to repression, censorship, persecution, and harassment of religious minorities. So, in a sense, @whenpillarsfall is relevant to this thread, which originated with a massacre aimed at religion. Granted, his intolerance is weak, since he hasn't advocated for violence. But it's the same tendency: Attack people for their ideological identity rather than debate ideas rationally with mutual respect.

    Thanks. I try to be a nice guy – except to bigots and bullies.

    How am I polarizing anybody? I'm an atheist defending religion. So clearly I am trying to unify people.

    The person I am criticizing is a dogmatic extremist who declares that all Religion = Poison / Plague / Mental Illness. Certainly that opinion is divisive and polarizing, since it denigrates billions of people.

    I can't tell if you are using the word "you" to refer to me (singular) or to Rob and me (plural). But it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to bundle Rob and me as a pair. I resigned from Epik in March and don't work for Rob. Also, my beliefs about the world (as a progressive atheist) have nothing to do with Rob's beliefs about the world (as a conservative christian).

    Rob's conversations in this NamePros thread don't intersect with my conversations in this NamePros thread. The way these forum threads function, a conversation between Rob and person A will leapfrog a conversation me and person B. They all end up strung together sequentially in a single thread, but that doesn't mean that the people involved in those 2 separate conversations are sharing the same conversation or even reading one another's remarks.

    I only defend the ideas that I believe deserve a defense. And I only criticize the ideas that I believe won't be criticized properly without me. Otherwise, I tend not to comment. People of ill will have accused me of supporting ideas merely because I have said nothing. But I'm not obliged to insist the earth is round merely to prove that I don't think it's flat.

    Perhaps you see Rob's views about christianity or politics as polarizing. But my views on religion are not; they're quite inclusive. On politics, I could be very polarizing too, if I chose to talk about that scoundrel Trump. But I have mostly refrained from doing so.

    Please use the singular "you" for Rob or me (since we are 2 separate, dissimilar people) rather than the plural "you" (as if we were singing a duet).

    No. As a believing christian who necessarily feels a duty to evangelize, naturally Rob is going to preach when people bring up his christianity. That's what christians do.

    But, if anything, this thread has been about how to tolerate ideas we disagree with. That is how it began – with an intolerant massacre of a religious minority and an extra-legal campaign of censorship aimed at a domain registrar to cast aside free speech in order to silence bigoted ideas. All of that has been thoroughly discussed already. Now the debate has trailed off so that it's mostly just trolls like @whenpillarsfall who want to express intolerance toward religion, using Rob as an excuse. So we've come full circle – from anti-muslim bigotry that killed dozens ... back to anti-religious bigotry that uses fact-free generalizations and insults instead of bullets. Human beings are a noxious breed of ape, aren't they?

    I'm just pushing back against intolerance. Nobody else was.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  17. Slanted

    Slanted Member ICA Member VIP

    Posts:
    325
    Likes Received:
    600
    Precisely why I have challenged @whenpillarsfall to make his best rational case. He prefers ad hominem attacks. I can empathize with a buffoon. But I would prefer to deal with an abstract argument that has no human identity at all.
     
  18. whenpillarsfall

    whenpillarsfall Top Member VIP

    Posts:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    616
    "I can't empathize with a buffoon"

    And the personal insults begin... When all else fails, eh?

    I guess the one thing I've learnt from this thread is that Epik won't ever see a penny of my money, and I'll make sure people are aware of Rob's views so they can make their own mind up.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  19. TCK

    TCK NameOptions.com VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    355
    You can help bigots and bullies if you try. I believe no one is beyond help. However, who are the bigots and bullies? Are they in this thread?

    "ad hominem". Great Latin expression. But you just ended the argument right there. Anything you say in respect from now on is falling on deaf ears. Maybe that occurred way before. But I wasn't paying attention.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  20. Slanted

    Slanted Member ICA Member VIP

    Posts:
    325
    Likes Received:
    600
    @whenpillarsfall, You are trying to change the subject. The topic you and I are discussing is this your extremist opinion that all Religion = Poison / Cancer Mental Illness / Plague and that Religion necessarily causes censorship.

    Your opinion is embarrassing and indefensible – especially after I have refuted it so many times and challenged you to make a rebuttal (for a full week). So I understand why you are running away and trying to change the subject. Nice try.

    That’s up to you, dude. Rob Monster and Epik have NOTHING to do with our conversation. I don't work for either.

    Insults? What hypocrisy! This is coming from the guy who says Religion = Mental Illness! You've been using insults from the beginning, and I haven't complained because I prefer to focus on rational arguments. I only point out your insults when they occur as an ad hominem logical fallacy. In my previous post, I showed 4 numbered examples of ad hominem attacks / evasions by you today alone:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-65#post-7252368

    Also, you are deliberately leaving out the 2nd half of what I said:

    I have asked you to make a rational argument – anything at all – so that we can discuss ideas and waste time trading insults about the identity of the person making the argument. Debate should be impersonal. Yet you have steadfastly refused to supply anything remotely like a counterargument.

    Now that you have run out of other evasion tactics, today you began declaring that I'm immoral because I once worked at Epik:

    Never mind the fact that I RESIGNED from Epik in protest. Never mind frequent examples of me publicly criticizing Rob. Really, this stunt from you is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

    If you want to redeem yourself, you will apologize for insinuating that I'm immoral merely for having worked at Epik. And you will return to the subject you started, perhaps presenting a rational argument regarding your anti-religious opinion. I dare you to do that. But I expect you won't.
     
  21. Rob Monster

    Rob Monster CEO, Epik Epik.com Staff PRO Gold Account VIP

    Posts:
    926
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    Thanks @MapleDots.

    Your opening post was inflammatory in the sense that it drew attention to a judgmental Shane Cultra post whose comments were way out of line and gave other folks in the industry air-cover to also render judgment. It started a wave. I did wait several days, until page 16, before engaging the dialog here.

    I stand by the decision to challenge arbitrary censorship. I also stand by the decision to fearlessly engage both the radical right and the radical left, and to challenge their (intolerant) views.

    As for the prospect of some commercial consequence of my decision to be transparent, I obviously made a calculated decision there. Why? I believe the stakes are much bigger than NamePros, or even the domain industry. I believe the real battle is for the Creator-endowed right to search for truth.

    In the meantime, there are forces at work that are working to portray me as a villain. For example, right now, there are some folks camped out on a biased Wikipedia article about me:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Monster

    The Wikipedia authors are riffing off of the various other media narratives that surfaced since Epik defied those who wish to censor lawful free speech. The reality is that the law of the land remains highly permissive when it comes to free speech, including a 2017 ruling on the topic:

    upload_2019-5-26_11-48-7.png

    The good news of this thread is that the domain industry has been able to use it for a thoughtful conversation about a number of issues that are relevant to the future of the Internet.
     
  22. Slanted

    Slanted Member ICA Member VIP

    Posts:
    325
    Likes Received:
    600
    Sometimes. People are often too dogmatic to learn. And bullies would rather attack than persuade. With @whenpillasrfall, I began by presenting evidence calmly and sympathetically. And I have challenged him to engage in a calm rational debate about ideas. But he couldn't handle that.

    Of course.

    No. Properly understood, "ad hominem" refers to a logical fallacy – not to personal attacks as such. The way I use "ad hominem" is meant to redirect discussion away from personal attacks (which are logically irrelevant) and back to the ideas.

    @whenpillarsfall has been deaf ears from day 1.

    It's best to either pay full attention or else disregard something. Paying only a little bit of attention tends to result in misunderstandings.
     
  23. Slanted

    Slanted Member ICA Member VIP

    Posts:
    325
    Likes Received:
    600
    That’s hilarious.

    As everyone can see, I have refuted you with historical evidence, to which you have made NO RESPONSE.

    And I have refuted you by exposing specific examples of your logical fallacies, to which you have made NO RESPONSE.

    And I have refuted you by showing you that your stated assumptions imply consequences that you do not believe. If an assumption implies something that is false, then that starting assumption must be false. I have challenged you to explain why the consequences do not follow from your assumptions, to which you have made NO RESPONSE.

    And I have pointed out, every day for a week, your LACK OF RESPONSE on all 3 of these fronts as evidence that you have no case. Even now, you have not presented any counterarguments.

    The following 17 posts refute you. People can judge for themselves:

    Exhibit #1:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-61#post-7244184

    Exhibit #2:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-61#post-7244382

    Exhibit #3:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-61#post-7244628

    Exhibit #4:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-61#post-7245343

    Exhibit #5:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-61#post-7245381

    Exhibit #6:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-62#post-7245582

    Exhibit #7:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-62#post-7246913

    Exhibit #8:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-63#post-7248435


    Exhibit #9:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-63#post-7248900

    Exhibit #10:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7249818

    Exhibit #11:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7250314

    Exhibit #12:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7251205

    Exhibit #13:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7251230

    Exhibit #14:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7251236

    Exhibit #15:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7251240

    Exhibit #15:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-65#post-7251253

    Exhibit #16:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-65#post-7251274

    Exhibit #17:

    https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-65#post-7252368


    I dare you to point to a single counterargument to any of those refutations.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  24. TCK

    TCK NameOptions.com VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    355
    I couldn't disagree more. Your posts and comments regarding the New Zealand mosque killer were inappropriate and inflammatory (and what started this thread). @MapleDots OP was a rational response.

    And your repost of the article "Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment" shows that you, @Rob Monster, support hate speech. What's legal doesn't make it moral.

    You, sir, are on the wrong side of history.

    @Slanted, who are the bigots and bullies? Let's call them out.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  25. TCK

    TCK NameOptions.com VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    355
    If the Internet is your source of "truth" then that is a very sad and dangerous place to be in. The Internet is a haven for misinformation and fake news. You can find anything to support any point of view on the Internet. It is incredibly easy to fake any info online. Even more so if you feel you are a "truth-seeker" and go on forums where other "truth-seekers" feed of off each other's delusions.
     

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!
Topics / Tags:

Share This Page

NameWorth
  1. NamePros uses cookies and similar technologies. By using this site, you are agreeing to our privacy policy, terms, and use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
Loading...