Marriott tells desperate evacuees: Eff off, you aren't getting on our boat

[DMC]

I have more than feelings. You can try for a strawman if you want.

It was wrong, in an objective moral sense, to refuse people onto a boat when that refusal puts their lives in direct risk of death or grievous injury.

I have given a definition of "wrong" and "harm", and provided a statement of fact based on that harm. I don't "feel" it is wrong. That is a distortion.

Morality isn't objective. If it is, who made it so? Aren't you atheist?

[Blake]

"similar event"

I know your cuck is stuck but get it loose for this exercise.

Still a fallacy. You're stupid. Sorry.

[Blake]

It's not a fallacy since there was no logical argument to begin with. It's a simple question.

It's a question based on a claim of hypocrisy.

What I did/didn't do is irrelevant to what Marriott did/didn't do.

It's a fallacy. You're stupid.

[DMC]

wah wah.. wah wah waaaaaaah

[DMC]

It's a question based on a claim of hypocrisy.

What I did/didn't do is irrelevant to what Marriott did/didn't do.

It's a fallacy. You're stupid.

You want it to be irrelevant but it's not.

Besides it wasn't Marriott. It was dock security because those other people who could have evacuated days earlier and chose to stay weren't on the manifest.

So sorry, cuck face.

"There were a number of additional people gathered at the dock who were not our guests who also expressed a desire to leave St. Thomas. We very much wanted to assist these other travelers to Puerto Rico, however, the Marriott team on-the-ground was told they had no authorization to board additional passengers who were not on the manifest. This was enforced by dock security," the company said.

[Blake]

You want it to be irrelevant but it's not.

No really, it is. It's why it's a fallacy. You're stupid.

[DMC]

No really, it is. It's why it's a fallacy. You're stupid.

argument by repe ion is a fallacious argument tbh

[Blake]

argument by repe ion is a fallacious argument tbh

It's no argument. You're using a fallacy.

[Blake]

You want it to be irrelevant but it's not.

Besides it wasn't Marriott. It was dock security because those other people who could have evacuated days earlier and chose to stay weren't on the manifest.

So sorry, cuck face.

"There were a number of additional people gathered at the dock who were not our guests who also expressed a desire to leave St. Thomas. We very much wanted to assist these other travelers to Puerto Rico, however, the Marriott team on-the-ground was told they had no authorization to board additional passengers who were not on the manifest. This was enforced by dock security," the company said.

Lol marriott gets an out to leave 30 people behind because they weren't on the list.

"Sorry you might die but rules are rules"

[SnakeBoy]

Lol marriott gets an out to leave 30 people behind because they weren't on the list.

"Sorry you might die but rules are rules"

the Marriott team on-the-ground was told they had no authorization to board additional passengers who were not on the manifest. This was enforced by dock security

[Chucho]

Lol marriott gets an out to leave 30 people behind because they weren't on the list.

"Sorry you might die but rules are rules"

Haven't read much of anything in this -pinch-fest, but saw "morality", "objectivity" and "rules".

The dude doing his job, following the rules, was being objective.
I think that is immoral of him. But, objectively, dude was doing the objective duties he was ordered. he was following the rules.

Morality- if you're Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Blake or DMC is perception-based. Perception is unique to each person/sect, so it is subjective.

[DMC]

Lol marriott gets an out to leave 30 people behind because they weren't on the list.

"Sorry you might die but rules are rules"

Meanwhile you pass countless homeless people on the street daily and probably never helped anyone. They could die.

[Blake]

Meanwhile you pass countless homeless people on the street daily and probably never helped anyone. They could die.

Yes that could happen. And it would be irrelevant to this situation.

I'm really sorry you're too stupid to understand the fallacy.

[DMC]

Yes that could happen. And it would be irrelevant to this situation.

I'm really sorry you're too stupid to understand the fallacy.

So now lives don't matter because bigLodging isn't involved.

[Blake]

So now lives don't matter because bigLodging isn't involved.

Oh. nice goal post move.

[RandomGuy]

It can be objectively determined. Easily so, if you are honest about it.
Is life preferable to death?

Explain how it can be objectively determined without you using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy or circular reasoning.

Okaaay. I can easily be more specific for this really easy question.

Is life generally preferable to death in most cir stances?

[RandomGuy]

Morality isn't objective. If it is, who made it so? Aren't you atheist?

Some aspects of morality can be objectively determined.

The nature of the universe lends itself to naturalistic inquiry.

Yes, I am an atheist.

[RandomGuy]

Haven't read much of anything in this -pinch-fest, but saw "morality", "objectivity" and "rules".

The dude doing his job, following the rules, was being objective.
I think that is immoral of him. But, objectively, dude was doing the objective duties he was ordered. he was following the rules.

Morality- if you're Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Blake or DMC is perception-based. Perception is unique to each person/sect, so it is subjective.

Is life generally preferable to death in most cir stances?

[DMC]

Okaaay. I can easily be more specific for this really easy question.

Is life generally preferable to death in most cir stances?

Why are you asking me? If it's objective then...

Offer your proof.

[DMC]

Some aspects of morality can be objectively determined.

The nature of the universe lends itself to naturalistic inquiry.

Yes, I am an atheist.

In order for morality to be objective it has to exist outside of human subjectivity. That then infers another standard for morality besides human opinion. Name that standard.

[Chucho]

Is life generally preferable to death in most cir stances?

I agree with you, I'm not ready to die.

What I'm saying is, dude fulfilling his objective duties, given to him by his immediate authority supersedes both of our perceptions of morality. He put the objectivity of his livelihood being lost before what we both think would be the moral and decent thing to do.

It's a sad, harsh reality, but being a moral- subjectively "good"- person won't pay the bills. And, you being an Athiest, should understand that self-satisfaction isn't going to pay the bills either. Pats on the back or dollars in the bank? Objectively, we live in a world that is "me before him" and that's what we see here both from the dude and Marriott members vs non-Marriott members.

Is it "RIGHT"? I don't. But who makes those calls and who has the authority? That's more perception.

[Blake]

Is it "RIGHT"? I don't. But who makes those calls and who has the authority? That's more perception.

Do I think they're elitist assholes? Yup.

Will I boycott Marriott over it? Nope. Do I blame anyone if they do? Nope.

That's about it.

[Chucho]

Do I think they're elitist assholes? Yup.

Will I boycott Marriott over it? Nope. Do I blame anyone if they do? Nope.

That's about it.

Pretty much. That's your take. Everyone is en led to feel how they feel.

[RandomGuy]

It can be objectively determined. Easily so, if you are honest about it.
Is life preferable to death?

Explain how it can be objectively determined without you using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy or circular reasoning.

Is life generally preferable to death in most cir stances?

Why are you asking me? If it's objective then...

Offer your proof.

Such an easy question, with such an easy answer. If you are being honest.

Is life generally preferable to death in most cir stances?

[RandomGuy]

Do you have any first hand testimony of any of the actual conspirators [who faked the moon landings, according to your theory]?

Of course I don't. How could I.

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?

Face it. You shills look very silly when you duck the jacket ] issue.

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?

You seem to be confusing the issue of the way the jacket ...

Don't just say it's zero-G without giving any explanation. They wouldn't just laugh you out of the debating hall for that response of yours. They'd throw you out.

...and yet, you keep ignoring my question.

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

The anomalies in the video and still pictures show it was a hoax.

My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no, not "look at my videos".


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?