jimmychauck

回覆 76# beebeechan

點樣生成都好，請問六十六卷書入面宜家邊卷書有足夠多人爭辯係咪正統？你喺呢堆正統到揾唔揾到證據支持你講嘅野？

回覆 77# beebeechan

咁你舉唔舉到例呀？佢地爭辯緊係咪正統咩？又想離題講去邊？

jimmychauck

回覆 80# beebeechan

咁你站在黃絲對立面上，又要為曱甴一詞不誠不實地辯護，無法攞有效文明嘅論述出黎。
我個人係咁直㗎啦，你唔想文明講口，真係唔好嘥時間。
我吊9班爛屍都係咁講㗎啦，一日到黑淨係識得匿埋喺老共槍杆後面，毫無論述，講拳咪算，扮咩講道理啫？
連"用曱甴去物化異議者係不文明不可接受嘅行為"都唔接受，咁底層嘅價值觀都唔同，有咩好傾？有咩需要傾？

jimmychauck

回覆 82# beebeechan

你又迴避問題做乜？問你六十六你就去講另外七卷，唔通天主教唔認同該六十六係正典？你答唔到咪認左佢。

jimmychauck

唔嘥時間答你，生成AI答你

what constitutes unacceptable discriminatory behaviour?
how does dehumanization play into this?

Dehumanization is a key factor that paves the way for unacceptable discriminatory behaviour. Here's how it works:

• Reduces Empathy: When we see someone as less than human, it's easier to dismiss their feelings and experiences. This makes us less likely to empathize with their situation or understand the impact of our actions.
• Justifies Unequal Treatment: If someone is seen as an animal, an object, or even a disease, it becomes easier to justify treating them unfairly. Dehumanization makes discrimination seem less wrong and more like a response to a threat or nuisance.
• Breaks Down Moral Barriers: When someone isn't considered fully human, the moral reservations about treating them poorly weaken. This can lead to more blatant and severe forms of discrimination.

Think about historical examples like genocides or slavery. Dehumanizing propaganda played a crucial role in making these atrocities seem acceptable.

Here's how dehumanization can manifest in everyday situations:

• Dehumanizing Language: Using slurs, comparing people to animals or objects, or making generalizations about entire groups are all ways to dehumanize.
• Denying Individuality: Treating everyone in a particular group as the same, ignoring their unique personalities and experiences, is a form of dehumanization.
• Fear-mongering: Dehumanization thrives on fear. When people are portrayed as a threat or danger, it's easier to justify discriminatory actions against them.

jimmychauck

回覆 86# beebeechan

本末倒置嘅係你，我冇怪罪過其他人非人化黃絲，我只要求你跟我討論時停止該行為，已點明乜野文明嘅標準，而你認為你自己嘅行為可以接受，無動於衷。

你覺得自己啱又好，點又好，乜都好，你嘅文明水準唔夠格同我傾呢啲事情。

共產黨為事件始作俑者嘅來龍去脈，我喺基督教宣揚殉道，支持黑暴一帖323開始已同guest124交待得非常清楚，你冇回應過我講過嘅內容，又唔夠格同我討論，我無需要再浪費我時間同你喺你迴避問題上面糾纏。

回覆 87# beebeechan
咁你咪清楚說明左我地係唔同宗教啦，冇事行開啲。
繼續迴避啦，同你喺[教會報憂] 菲天主教徒 5成教堂外成婚時嘅表現一樣

jimmychauck

回覆 89# beebeechan

犀利喎，將某啲人物化完可以當自己無事無辜偉大光明正確。
你問得我，即係你冇我資料我做過乜啦。
即係如果我滿足某啲條件你就可以物化我啦？
所以你冇資格要求我同你平等討論，唔好嘥我時間。

回覆 90# beebeechan
當日同你討論一個由共產黨為始作嘅問題，你就一路扯到我同樣留意到你物化人，而你拒絶收回物化言論。
可見你都係無法直接回應我討論嘅核心而要轉視線將人物化。

jimmychauck

回覆 94# beebeechan

most of what you said in #94 is wrong.

https://exchristian.hk/forum/vie ... =0&page=6#pid176811

if you can't read, you can't read. No point I  try to teach you anything else.

jimmychauck

回覆 96# beebeechan

Such an incompetent person.

You can't comprehend nor reason.

And yes, most of your #94 is wrong, you have 48 hours to figure them out, before I tell you the answer and conclusively prove there is no need for me to elaborate my answer to you in the future.

jimmychauck

回覆 98# beebeechan

speaking as someone who can't comprehend nor reason

jimmychauck

回覆 94# beebeechan

TLDR;
You endorse unacceptable discriminatory behaviour and exhibit it during heated discussion and argument. Your civilization standard is not up for a debate with me.
I had given you 48 hours to think, reflect and review upon what is incorrect in #94, you showed that you were either not interested in or capable of it. As this is not the first time of you unable to comprehend your own simple logical error, it extrapolates to me in the future you are likely to continue such trend and there is little need for me to provide much information to you as where you might have got things wrong.


Hereby showing you once and for all, where you have gotten things wrong in #94, hence extrapolates for me I should no longer need to provide you with detailed elaborations of your future errors.
1. you have made multiple attempts to fudge up my explicit claim of "dehumanization" by confusing it with other English translations of the Chinese word "物化" , attempting to white paint it as "metaphor"
I have already made clear the definition of "dehumanization" many times, the constitution requires projection of negative protration and a hostile intention. All of the examples you have provided does not meet these requirements.
2. on top of that the bible did not encourage you to "人物化, 動物化", it only used it as a metaphor at that time to bring certain messages, and none of them were demeaning.
3. Bible refers to Israel as a fig tree, not Israelites.
4. Jesus never metaphored or referred to Pharasiees as fig tree nor call them fig tree
5. Jesus did not refer to the women as dog, he told a story of how people treat dogs

Notwithstanding howsoever the bible had or had not, encouraged or encouraged not you to dehumanize any one. Dehumanizing speech has no place in modern society. If you believe you are entitled to publically dehumanize anyone because they have different political view, you are just a biggot not worthy to discuss anything with.

There is not much I share with ass Spectator, apart from the fact that we usually disagree with you. If you can see no difference between me and him, it shows that you are the one "仲霸道過各安法".

jimmychauck

回覆 105# leefeng

jimmychauck

回覆 107# leefeng

jimmychauck

回覆 109# leefeng

勁喎，仲加埋無中生有。

jimmychauck

回覆 111# leefeng

回覆  leefeng

我唔該你，舉啦。
jimmychauck 發表於 2024/7/4 16:17