Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

Saap right now

_118283916_b19c5a1f-162b-410b-8169-f58f0d153752.jpg

:D
 
Jer said:
By Ariana’s “logic”, since your comments above are in reference to a comment made by a man and you didn’t explicitly state that you would draw this conclusion regardless of the gender of the subject, I would be justified in calling your comment sexist. Be honest with yourself — if I tried to insist that this comment of yours was sexist, would you think that you had misspoken and apologize to me, or would you think I was drawing a ridiculous conclusion that wasn’t supported by what you said? What if I continued to insist it was sexist after you’d already clarified your position multiple times? You already know the answer.

I’m sorry if you couldn’t see the proof. It’s basic logic. If I say “this ottoman is beige”, it doesn’t imply that I’m saying that anything that isn’t an ottoman must not be beige. That would be an incorrect inference, and that’s very easy to prove to yourself by just adding a beige couch into the same scenario and seeing if the argument holds up.

What riles me up is bad arguments. Not heated ones, but “bad” in the sense of being illogical or poorly constructed. If you want an animated response from me, yes, all you have to do is make a really bad argument, which she did. That has nothing to do with the merit of my counterargument, though.


Why wouldn’t you characterize it as her attacking me as being sexist, after I’d already clarified the point multiple times and pointed out that her inference was objectively wrong? Again, be honest with yourself — if my role and hers were reversed, you would almost certainly be slamming me for unfairly insisting she was sexist and being too prideful to admit I was wrong.

Why? Because this isn’t about the relative merit of our arguments. Ariana is part of the “nice” tribe and I’m part of the “mean” tribe, so when there’s a conflict, the “nice” people rally around each other and oppose the “mean” people. It doesn’t matter that her argument was objectively flawed or that she was the one casting aspersions — the tribal forces are what appear to matter most here, at least for some.

The funny thing is, regardless of how I respond, the “nice” tribe will paint it in a negative light. If I take apart a bad argument point by point, then I’m a logorrheaic bore who’s wildly overreacting to what was said, and Mosh will eventually show up with the stupendous boredom award. If I offer a short summary response, then I’m glossing over the expertly crafted details of the person’s original comments. And if I turn the other cheek and ignore the nonsense, then it’s taken as implied agreement that the other person’s comments were valid. The content of my argument is irrelevant, I’m just a Bad Person who’s in conflict with a Good Person, so I’m automatically in the wrong. It’s transparent and absurd.

I’ve put you in your place a few times when you’ve made bad arguments. You didn’t like this and you’ve remembered it, so you’re always looking for opportunities to try to get in a potshot, or catch me in some supposed hypocrisy, or try to show that you’re right and I’m wrong so you can act condescendingly, because you want to return the favor and undermine my credibility somehow. But you’re a little too eager to do it, because you’ll try to make those associations when they don’t fit. Someday I’m sure you’ll legitimately catch me in one because I’m only human, but you should at least take a look at your motivations and be honest about them.


Totally not true. If the transmitted content is accurate, and a malfunction on the receiving end causes it to be misinterpreted, the transmitter isn’t to blame. Are there things a transmitter could do to make malfunctioning receivers less likely to misinterpret the message? Yes. But that still doesn’t make the transmitter at fault if it doesn’t employ those measures, because it’s the receiver that’s introducing the error.


If by “bulldozing” you mean quickly showing how they’re objectively invalid, how is that in any way bad or unfair or off-topic?

If someone misinterprets my words based on a mistake in reading comprehension or logic on their end, and not based on a misuse of words on my end, how is that in any way my fault?


And she could have acknowledged at any point that what I said was in fact not sexist, and that she had made a mistake, and apologized for it. Why aren’t you taking her to task for that when her logic was objectively flawed? What transgression did I commit, exactly, that would merit an apology? Again, the “nice” people get a pass while the “mean” people are assumed to be in the wrong.


Only one person in this disagreement stated provable falsehoods and refused to waver from them after being shown to be objectively wrong. That’s Trump’s M.O.

And to be clear, I don’t give two shits which tribe people want to put me in, or whether random people think I’m nice or a jerk. I’m comfortable with who I am, and their approval or disapproval is irrelevant. But if you choose to ignore valid arguments and start valuing loyalty over merit, you’re only doing yourself a disservice while putting it on public display.
Click to expand...
For someone talking big game against reading between the lines, you sure make a lot of assumptions of my motives here. But I'm no hypocrite - so I'm sorry if it comes across as me constantly trying to catch you in a slip up because you 'put me in my place' and now I'm coming after you. That's certainly not my intention. I really couldn't care less right now if you 'put me in my place' in the past. There's a lot I dislike about younger me and a lot of stuff I wouldn't repeat.

If I was coming after you because of spats we had, I should also be going after LC, Perun, Knick, and even Ariana... but I'm not, because I recognize that I've said a lot of dumb shit in the past and I don't want to repeat it. A longstanding grudge against you because of your Blaze and Janick comments is the last thing on my mind. There's too little time in the day for it. So again, I apologize if this is the way it comes across to you. It's certainly not my intention, but I can see how it can be misinterpreted.

At the same time, I will call out what I feel needs calling out. And since you said you appreciated bluntness, I figured it would be best to be blunt here. Guess not. (Personal note: I gotta sign up for Bullshit Logic 101 next semester, can't wait to learn how to use the word 'objective' in any context to instantly appear correct.)
 
Diesel 11 said:
For someone talking big game against reading between the lines, you sure make a lot of assumptions of my motives here.
Click to expand...
Offer another credible explanation for your behavior and I’ll be happy to listen.

Diesel 11 said:
I gotta sign up for Bullshit Logic 101 next semester, can't wait to learn how to use the word 'objective' in any context to instantly appear correct.
Click to expand...
See, it’s this kind of lazy, bad faith “argument” that makes me think it’s pointless to try to discuss anything like this with you. I literally pointed out the exact logical flaw in her “reasoning” and explained it in terms that a small child could understand. There wasn’t anything in my actual words that was sexist, either. You could use a dictionary and prove it to yourself. But here you are, ignoring the actual evidence and logic involved and just throwing your poop at me like a monkey.

Look up what “objective” means. Look up what “a priori” means. Maybe sign up for an actual logic class instead, and then come back and contribute something worthwhile. At this point you’re obviously not interested in actually paying attention to anything I wrote, so what’s the point in responding further?
 
Jeer, stop talking about me as if I'm not here and would never read what you wrote.

The only objectively flawed logic in this entire conversation was in your head. If I wanted to waste more time on this, I could explain in details how the false accusations you keep crying about are not accusations in the first place at all, because as mentioned a million times already, my comment referred to absolutely nothing other than how that statement came across. However, you are a completely lost cause and I don't even know why @Diesel 11 bothers to try to lead any sort of constructive conversation with you. Over and over again you have proved you are incapable not only of trying to understand what anyone else is telling you, but also that you don't have a clue about basic interaction, at least online.

Now go ahead and write 3000 meaningless words which are not going to change absolutely anything.

Edit: Yes, this time I am attacking your personality and I am so doing it in full awareness because your behaviour is over the top.
 
Last edited:
Ariana said:
Now go ahead and write 3000 meaningless words which are not going to change absolutely anything.
Click to expand...
I think you and Diesel already have the market cornered on meaningless words.

It’s been clear since your second response that your only interest in this conversation is to needle me. Unfortunately for you, the only way to accomplish that is by saying abjectly foolish things. If that tradeoff is still worth it to you, then by all means, continue.
 
What in the flying fuck has been happening here?

You know what? Here goes.

I judge sex. Sex is the deepest physical declaration of love. It is mystical, it is grand, it is one of the ways to control a person, even. It should be done only with the person you intend to create a relationship with and stay with.
I don't judge the people according to the number of their sexual partners, I judge just the number. Hate the sin, love the sinner and all that.

So I guess at least Loosey and Yax can now go hating on me, with Ariana I don't know, since I don't differentiate there between men and women (or at least not much), I'm probably less of a sexist, but I feel I'm gonna draw ire anyway.

Jer, I don't know if your comment was truly sexist (it didn't really imply by itself that you would held one sex as superior, at least methinks), but it was definitely in bad taste and Ariana, as a woman, had a right to be offended.


The "debate" is not a debate, just lazy shouts and sophistry. It hurts eyes to read.


So now would you all kindly go complain about me first, as the most annoying person of them all and then change the subject altogether? Thank you.


EDIT: oh, why the fuck not. Our past indiscretions before we met have hurt both mine and my wife's soul in a deep, significant way, but we both think it was more hurtful for her. So yes, I guess we both kinda agree "sluttiness" is wrong for both sexes, but it hurts the women more, due to their nature. (which BTW was Tolkien's belief as well, there's a long letter to his kids on precisely that)
Which makes us probably sexist as well, so come, Ariana, smite me with all your might.
 
I don't have time for a longer post, but I really wouldn't want to see anyone go or be banned. Or be judged/misunderstood because of their personality rather than words or deeds. :( (Okay, they can be part of expressing the personality but I hope you see what I mean)
 
And as usual, these types of questionnaires / analyses are confused about me

chart.png

See that? As a reactionary monarchist, socially conservative curmudgeon and a religious fanatic, I certainly didn't expect getting that.

I guess that this is what you get from "hates capitalism and socialism equally" and "is a patriot, but not jingoistic".
 
JudasMyGuide said:
I guess that this is what you get from "hates capitalism and socialism equally" and "is a patriot, but not jingoistic".
Click to expand...

The chart is right-wing biased.
Use a set of answers that yields the dead center result, in European context that policies will belong to conservative parties.

There is no concept of schools making their own standards and there is no concept of unregulated corporations, among others. So when you put these questions in you're artificially mangling the spectrum.

Also heavy regulation of corporations and insistence to put societal goals beyond profit, heavy fines and jail sentences enabled, isn't socialism or very left, it's just Japan. Or Iceland. Or a number of countries that just use these mechanisms inside normal market democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top