Author Topic: Rule talk  (Read 17479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline niam2023

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4167
  • Gender: Male
  • The Forum Chad
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #75 on: June 28, 2019, 05:19:27 am »
And now apparently accusing you of being Ultimate Paragon equates somehow to being accused of being a molester or war criminal.

You take all this shit sooooooooo incredibly seriously.
Living Life, Lifting, Waiting for Summer

Offline fluffyDbringer

  • Neonate
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #76 on: June 28, 2019, 07:01:42 am »
so when you come back next time could you bring back some nachos
"However, intelligent people can see the same issues, evidence, and inferences, and reach different conclusions. That is the human experience."
- The Queen

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10630
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #77 on: June 28, 2019, 09:57:33 am »
Oh goody he's threatening to leave again.

Ironbite-when he comes back, can he pick up my laundry?

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1840
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #78 on: June 28, 2019, 07:22:16 pm »
The fact that you, ironbite, Queen, Tol, dave, fluffy, and niam (and possibly some others I forgot) are all acting like dicks to me based on unfounded accusations and your own political extremism is not my fault.

As the modern philosopher Samoa Joe once said, “when you say my name, say it with respect.”
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline SCarpelan

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1084
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #79 on: June 28, 2019, 08:19:59 pm »
Yadda yadda yadda.

There was a time when I thought I had you figured out well enough to have good faith debates with you despite you being a proven liar. The obvious purpose of the first lies was to try and increase your social capital in the forum and spend it to defend ideological issues like Gamergate. When you proved that you didn't argue in good faith about those either there was no reason to trust anything about you anymore.

When it is doubtful how honest you are about your centrist positions it is impossible to trust that your argumentation flaws are a result of naivety instead of dishonesty. Arguing with a gullible useful fool for the alt-right can produce constructive results, arguing with a concern troll who is hiding his power level is just waste of my limited energy. You keep showing that there is a good reason to suspect the latter (the latest example being your defense of Trump's statements about Charlottesville).

And no, I don't need to give you a tl;dr level logical proof for anything since I don't give a fuck what you think and you have zero credibility to demand anything. For someone who is arguing in good faith and has a problem with what I have said I can go through the effort to provide evidence since in that case there is an actual constructive goal to be achieved.

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1840
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #80 on: June 28, 2019, 10:05:47 pm »
Yadda yadda yadda.

There was a time when I thought I had you figured out well enough to have good faith debates with you despite you being a proven liar. The obvious purpose of the first lies was to try and increase your social capital in the forum and spend it to defend ideological issues like Gamergate. When you proved that you didn't argue in good faith about those either there was no reason to trust anything about you anymore.

When it is doubtful how honest you are about your centrist positions it is impossible to trust that your argumentation flaws are a result of naivety instead of dishonesty. Arguing with a gullible useful fool for the alt-right can produce constructive results, arguing with a concern troll who is hiding his power level is just waste of my limited energy. You keep showing that there is a good reason to suspect the latter (the latest example being your defense of Trump's statements about Charlottesville).

And no, I don't need to give you a tl;dr level logical proof for anything since I don't give a fuck what you think and you have zero credibility to demand anything. For someone who is arguing in good faith and has a problem with what I have said I can go through the effort to provide evidence since in that case there is an actual constructive goal to be achieved.

And that really is the crux of it all: most people you can talk with, explain your position and the flaws in their position, listen to them, and reach some sort of understanding or agreement to disagree. In fact, I kind of have a history of being the dissenter in several instances. The difference is I stated my positions and argued them in good faith, as many others here have done.

Just about everything I see Dynamic Paragon of the Chaotic Reverse Anal arguing is more about scoring points than actually learning a deeper truth. Restated, it’s pure sophism and obviously in bad faith.

Also, Chaos, why the hell are threatening to leave when you have a history dating back more than six years of creating sock puppet accounts to dodge bans? I mean, I would believe a threat to leave from anyone else, but not someone who comes back after being shown the door four times.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 10:07:51 pm by The_Queen »
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline Chaos Undivided

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • Death to the False Emperor!
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #81 on: June 28, 2019, 10:21:33 pm »
Yadda yadda yadda.

There was a time when I thought I had you figured out well enough to have good faith debates with you despite you being a proven liar. The obvious purpose of the first lies was to try and increase your social capital in the forum and spend it to defend ideological issues like Gamergate. When you proved that you didn't argue in good faith about those either there was no reason to trust anything about you anymore.

How about you stop making all these negative assumptions about me? Because unless you present evidence, I have to presume that's all they are: assumptions.

Why should I believe you were ever seriously interested in good-faith debates with me when you called me a "pigheaded centrist" and refused to talk to me only two weeks after I'd joined?

You calling me a "proven liar" is rich when you refuse to show this alleged proof. Like I said earlier, if you had evidence of wrongdoing on my part, you would've presented it by now. If I aggravate you so much and you're not going to defend your own position, why don't you just block me? Seriously, am I that interesting to you, do you think blocking me would be cowardly, or do you just get some kind of pleasure from this?

When it is doubtful how honest you are about your centrist positions it is impossible to trust that your argumentation flaws are a result of naivety instead of dishonesty. Arguing with a gullible useful fool for the alt-right can produce constructive results, arguing with a concern troll who is hiding his power level is just waste of my limited energy. You keep showing that there is a good reason to suspect the latter (the latest example being your defense of Trump's statements about Charlottesville).

OK, first off, I'm not a "centrist", and I never claimed to be. I'm center-left. Second, why are you so cynical about my positions? Are you hiding your powerlevel and projecting that onto me? Since you admitted you're arrogant and assumed I am too, the projection theory is looking pretty likely.

Now, about the Trump thing, you're again making negative assumptions. That wasn't a "defense", it was pointing out that Trump wasn't calling white supremacists "very fine people". If I point out that there's no evidence that Stalin actually said "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic", that's not automatically "defending" him. Or was Politifact "defending" Trump when they wrote this?

And no, I don't need to give you a tl;dr level logical proof for anything since I don't give a fuck what you think and you have zero credibility to demand anything. For someone who is arguing in good faith and has a problem with what I have said I can go through the effort to provide evidence since in that case there is an actual constructive goal to be achieved.

The idea that I have "zero credibility to demand anything" is only your opinion. Granted, that opinion is probably shared by some of your buddies, but your opinions aren't automatically fact. Since you closed your mind to good-faith discussion with me almost from the very beginning (you called me a "pigheaded centrist" only two weeks after I joined), your claims that your opinions of me are based on "inductive reasoning" don't hold any water. When one of your earliest comments to me is explicitly saying you think you're better than me and won't bother giving me the time of day, you cannot seriously expect me to believe you're not just interpreting things I've said in a negative light due to your own biases.

Yadda yadda yadda.

There was a time when I thought I had you figured out well enough to have good faith debates with you despite you being a proven liar. The obvious purpose of the first lies was to try and increase your social capital in the forum and spend it to defend ideological issues like Gamergate. When you proved that you didn't argue in good faith about those either there was no reason to trust anything about you anymore.

When it is doubtful how honest you are about your centrist positions it is impossible to trust that your argumentation flaws are a result of naivety instead of dishonesty. Arguing with a gullible useful fool for the alt-right can produce constructive results, arguing with a concern troll who is hiding his power level is just waste of my limited energy. You keep showing that there is a good reason to suspect the latter (the latest example being your defense of Trump's statements about Charlottesville).

And no, I don't need to give you a tl;dr level logical proof for anything since I don't give a fuck what you think and you have zero credibility to demand anything. For someone who is arguing in good faith and has a problem with what I have said I can go through the effort to provide evidence since in that case there is an actual constructive goal to be achieved.

And that really is the crux of it all: most people you can talk with, explain your position and the flaws in their position, listen to them, and reach some sort of understanding or agreement to disagree. In fact, I kind of have a history of being the dissenter in several instances. The difference is I stated my positions and argued them in good faith, as many others here have done.

Just about everything I see Dynamic Paragon of the Chaotic Reverse Anal arguing is more about scoring points than actually learning a deeper truth. Restated, it’s pure sophism and obviously in bad faith.

Also, Chaos, why the hell are threatening to leave when you have a history dating back more than six years of creating sock puppet accounts to dodge bans? I mean, I would believe a threat to leave from anyone else, but not someone who comes back after being shown the door four times.

Again, mods: why are accusations of ban-dodging not backed up by any evidence allowed?
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 10:23:43 pm by Chaos Undivided »
Anti-authoritarian, anti-extremist, anti-bullshit.

Offline niam2023

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4167
  • Gender: Male
  • The Forum Chad
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #82 on: June 29, 2019, 12:17:50 am »
Okay then, if your political opinions are such a sore spot, then why don't you just go ahead and lay out your exact political opinions.
Living Life, Lifting, Waiting for Summer

Offline fluffyDbringer

  • Neonate
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #83 on: June 29, 2019, 09:08:42 am »
who would win:
- similar debate style
- similar rhetorical errors
- using discussions years before his signup date as arguments
- the mods never telling people to stop saying he's a ban-dodging dynamic/ultimate/reverse

vs
- one "where's your proof" boi

"However, intelligent people can see the same issues, evidence, and inferences, and reach different conclusions. That is the human experience."
- The Queen

Offline Eiki-mun

  • der Löwe aus Mitternacht
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1473
  • Gender: Male
  • On the fields of Breitenfeld.
    • Main Personal Blog
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #84 on: June 29, 2019, 08:47:01 pm »
Again, mods: why are accusations of ban-dodging not backed up by any evidence allowed?

Minor point before I go back into the ether; the accusations are in fact backed up by evidence. Circumstantial evidence, like an extremely similar posting style, similar views, knowledge of things that happened a long time ago and things like that are in fact evidence. You'd have more of a point if you said that they aren't backed up by proof, but then most people don't rely on 100% proof for most things anyway. A preponderance of the evidence, metaphorically speaking, is more than enough to sway most, and one has to admit that for a longtime observer, there is definitely more evidence for or against.

That is all.
There is no plague more evil and vile to watch spread than the plague that is the Von Habsburg dynasty.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3668
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #85 on: June 29, 2019, 10:06:02 pm »
OK, first off, I'm not a "centrist", and I never claimed to be. I'm center-left. Second, why are you so cynical about my positions? Are you hiding your powerlevel and projecting that onto me?
This is an excellent reason not to judge someone's political position by what they do rather than what they say. If someone claims to be "centre left" but spends most of their energy defending the Right, the rest of us can fill in the gaps.

"Centre left", this will filed and used at a later date. I will be merciless.

Offline SCarpelan

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1084
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #86 on: June 30, 2019, 12:08:26 am »
OK, first off, I'm not a "centrist", and I never claimed to be. I'm center-left. Second, why are you so cynical about my positions? Are you hiding your powerlevel and projecting that onto me?
This is an excellent reason not to judge someone's political position by what they do rather than what they say. If someone claims to be "centre left" but spends most of their energy defending the Right, the rest of us can fill in the gaps.

"Centre left", this will filed and used at a later date. I will be merciless.
But that's just because the forum is too left-leaning so he needs to defend the poor right wingers because balance is everything, all sides do everything equally and sticking to the golden mean is the epitome of intellectual honesty.

By the way, I didn't even notice that he tried to blame me for hiding my power level since I just skimmed through his post. I am pretty sure nobody has any illusions about me being one of the more leftist members here and very much anti-capitalist. Any vagueness is just because I don't subscribe to any political faction which is a result of lack of energy to study theory enough to be comfortable with endorsing any of them.

Offline Chaos Undivided

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • Death to the False Emperor!
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #87 on: June 30, 2019, 02:06:33 am »
Okay then, if your political opinions are such a sore spot, then why don't you just go ahead and lay out your exact political opinions.

Fair enough. I guess you deserve a summation of my positions. But you're gonna have to wait, since it's gonna take a while and I'm tired. You'll have it tomorrow.

Again, mods: why are accusations of ban-dodging not backed up by any evidence allowed?

Minor point before I go back into the ether; the accusations are in fact backed up by evidence. Circumstantial evidence, like an extremely similar posting style, similar views, knowledge of things that happened a long time ago and things like that are in fact evidence. You'd have more of a point if you said that they aren't backed up by proof, but then most people don't rely on 100% proof for most things anyway. A preponderance of the evidence, metaphorically speaking, is more than enough to sway most, and one has to admit that for a longtime observer, there is definitely more evidence for or against.

That is all.

OK, lemme take a look at this. First off, you haven't proved that this "circumstantial evidence" objectively exists, but I can roll with that. So I'm gonna go over the examples you cite.

1. You say I have a similar writing style to this banned user. I believe you believe it, and for all I know, it might be true. But if it is true, so what? There are plenty of other explanations than me secretly being him. As evidence, I'd like to submit this database of authors with similar writing styles. I doubt anyone suspects Anthony Bourdain was the real author of Fight Club.

2. Again, I don't know how accurate this claim is, but I can believe it. On the other hand, I don't really consider this "evidence", because plenty of people have similar political views.

3. Of course I know about things that happened long ago. Why is that considered evidence? None of it is secret, and I'm able to look it up whenever I want. Remember how I disappeared for a few days? That was me doing research.

OK, first off, I'm not a "centrist", and I never claimed to be. I'm center-left. Second, why are you so cynical about my positions? Are you hiding your powerlevel and projecting that onto me?
This is an excellent reason not to judge someone's political position by what they do rather than what they say. If someone claims to be "centre left" but spends most of their energy defending the Right, the rest of us can fill in the gaps.

"Centre left", this will filed and used at a later date. I will be merciless.

I resent that, not least because I've spent far more energy defending myself than "the Right". Don't bother "filing this away for later", you can come at me right now.

OK, first off, I'm not a "centrist", and I never claimed to be. I'm center-left. Second, why are you so cynical about my positions? Are you hiding your powerlevel and projecting that onto me?
This is an excellent reason not to judge someone's political position by what they do rather than what they say. If someone claims to be "centre left" but spends most of their energy defending the Right, the rest of us can fill in the gaps.

"Centre left", this will filed and used at a later date. I will be merciless.
But that's just because the forum is too left-leaning so he needs to defend the poor right wingers because balance is everything, all sides do everything equally and sticking to the golden mean is the epitome of intellectual honesty.

Well, you'd know a lot about that, wouldn't you? After all, instead of either having a good-faith debate with me or just ignoring me, you're taking the middle ground of attacking a strawman version of me.
Anti-authoritarian, anti-extremist, anti-bullshit.

Offline SCarpelan

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1084
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #88 on: June 30, 2019, 02:28:14 am »
A caricature, not a strawman. I am not making any serious arguments, I'm mocking you.

Edit: To be more precise, I am still implying that you are using dishonest debating methods to try to move people more to the right which in this forum means more towards the center. So, there is a repetition of my earlier position implied in addition the mockery.

I had to expand my post with this edit for honesty. I wouldn't want anyone to think I am being dishonest and desceptive, after all.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2019, 02:54:31 am by SCarpelan »

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3453
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #89 on: June 30, 2019, 10:15:33 pm »
This is all bullshit when considering how fucking disingenuous you are. Everyone knows you are someone who has been here before. Unless you confront that, it rings very hollow to accuse anyone of self-righteousness, hypocrisy or bad faith.

In fact, it's a fucking joke cracker. Which is why you kept getting laughed at.

No, I'm not. You have no evidence for that. And as I've said before, any claim that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You might as well say I'm a dog that somehow learned to type.

Direct question: how would you feel about somebody accusing you of being a child molester or a war criminal without any kind of evidence beyond personal opinion?

The real difference between now and the old days wasn't the rules being enforced, but rather the rules were enforced which made everything boring.

When I joined there were several posters who would be categorised as 'chew toys'. In fact there was so much chewing that chew toys used to chew on each other. I mean there was Mr Mannnn, Skyfire and a couple of others who I've forgotten and then there was the 'Moby Dick', the great white whale, the greatest interactive nutjob of them all Nautical999, who never got tired and was in equal measures slimy and insane, so much so that it was just fucking riveting. His appearance was the great bright flare on this forum...

Even if that's true, the fact remains quite a few former users have left the forums and not come back because they considered them toxic. I posted multiple testimonials to that effect on the previous page. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that maybe being openly arrogant and hostile towards people with different opinions isn't helping your forum grow?

.

To your direct question, cracker: It may well depend on whose accusing me. If it were you I would laugh my arse off. Because I don't give a fuck what you think. In much the same way I didn't care when you called me a racist.  Now if it were my kids or my relatives calling me a child molester I would be very upset. But that wouldn't happen because I'm not. Probably would feel the same about being called a war criminal. If it were you I would laugh. If it were anyone else I would be puzzled, as I'm only armed with my cock.

As an aside you do take this shit really seriously.

To your second point, why the fuck do you care what happens to the forum.

Why don't you simply tell us who you are...