This is topic Abortion debate (from the other side) in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=047254

Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
Criticisms of Empire (and another rant; sorry!)

If everyone is sick of this, just let it die. I'll oblige.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
It's not the abortion debate that's played out, oddly enough. It's the ignorant generalities thrown about in the conservative/liberal debate that are.

You claim that people who dismiss your "wisdom" so quickly are stubborn and closed-minded, when the reality is that we've been debating this topic around here for as long as I can remember and most people have formed sound, logical opinions, which, unsurprisingly, are way different from yours.

If you were less abrasive and pushy (and admittedly uncaring about others) about everything else, you'd find that the majority around here agree with you on abortion (even atheist-types, like Tom and me), which seemed a minor point in your original rant.

Fortunately for those who disagree with you on everything else, debates on Hatrack are extremely helpful to some who have yet to form concrete opinions on subjects. All you're doing is ensuring that whether or not you're right, people will shy away from agreeing with you. Way to go.

And to bring up one of your less obviously inaccurate statements--what do you find strange about people putting away stray shopping carts in parking lots? Okay, so they pay someone to do it. Did it occur to you that if it became (once again) common courtesy to return that which does not belong to you to its proper location, then the need for a "shopping cart returner" position would be nil, and the company could spend that money elsewhere? Do you feel the same way about littering, since there are people paid to clean up after us?

In summation, the only portion of your posts many people are going to agree with is your stance on abortion, but as long as you insist on playing the poor oppressed minority (when in reality there was, what, one pro-abortion poster in that thread?), you're not going to get any backup--just dumb looks.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
My abrasive tone aside, I still find it interesting that people use that as an excuse to latch on to something other than my arguments. For a brief period I made a concerted effort to make my tone less caustic, but it made it difficult to write. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to sound as offensive as I do, it just comes out that way. But if it gives people an excuse to not engage me honestly, then I'm glad I could help.

And I don't know what was innaccurate about calling something strange, since it is rather accurate of me to state my opinion of the strangeness of of the matter, since it is my opinion. But I do realize that I left out that OSC was talking about returning shopping carts that he didn't use. That's what I find strange. You're right, though; at least he's trying.

Anyway, I don't litter, and I return my shopping carts to their racks.

And to samprimary's last post on the other thread: My point was just that accusing me of being closed-minded for not changing my mind, especially in the face of such stunning arguments like "you're an idiot" makes as much sense as you changing your mind because I said you're brainwashed and delusional. Although at least I explained why I think you and JT are brainwashed and delusional. The best you guys could come up with as to why I was an idiot was because I don't know what I'm talking about. And as far as I can figure, that's because I'm an idiot. Anyway, I don't think I'm dealing with Hatrack's best with this one. I hope someone else comes along and gives me a run for my money.
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
Everyone is sick of this.
 
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Wait, you're calling people brainwashed and delusional, and yet you still expect people to want to discuss things with you? How does that work?
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
They usually start being insulting toward me because they find some of my sweeping generalizations, as they've been called, personally insulting first. My point is, I don't care what people think of my opinions. I mean that I don't think these debates matter, and even if they did matter somehow, and maybe they do, then I wouldn't care about the results (of which there are mostly none< aside from people getting annoyed.)

It's an irony. If everyone would simply admit I was right and that they were hopelessly wrong, then I wouldn't piss everyone off! But then I wouldn't bother posting, either. That's just a joke, but it might be telling. I'm basically posting to get a reaction. I may be condemned for that, but hey, this is a public forum, and no one is required to respond to me!

quote:
Anyway, I don't think I'm dealing with Hatrack's best with this one. I hope someone else comes along and gives me a run for my money.
Yeah, until you're willing to put as much thought into any sort of discussion as you're expecting from Hatrack, you're going to be disappointed.

You say you're posting to get a reaction...well, you've got one from me--indifference. The most I can work up is "Well, his beliefs are vague and not well thought out, but at least he's not getting them across clearly."

Personally, I really only get agitated about opposing viewpoints when they're presented in a manner which might actually sway someone to their cause, which you've failed at with flying colors.

Search for some past abortion debates--I'm reasonably sure not all of them have turned into virtual fistfights. Maybe they'll give you clues on how to phrase sensitive comments without making even people who agree with you cringe.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
My little brother is always saying that people should listen to what he's saying instead of how he's saying it. I try to point out that there comes a point when how you say something bothers people so much that they really are unable to take what you say the way you might have intended it, and that it's not their fault for expecting to be treated with the dignity deserved by all human beings and a little common courtesy, but rather the fault probably lies on the communicating end because there's so much interference on the line, so to speak, that they can't hear the words for the "static."

He usually ignores me. Or yells.

Unsurprisingly, he has very few friends.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisco:
Yeah, until you're willing to put as much thought into any sort of discussion as you're expecting from Hatrack, you're going to be disappointed.

Yep. That about sums it up.

Thanks, Frisco.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Remember that bit about how people who act obnoxiously while about views that align with my own leading to embarassment and frustration?

Case in point.

("Align with my own" applies only to the desired political outcome on the abortion issue. I'm not even spending time thinking about anything else he said.)

P.S., that topic has been deleted, now. Does anyone remember who started it so I can remember not to waste my time in their threads?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Reshpecto started it himself, and it was some really blatant trolling.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
My abrasive tone aside, I still find it interesting that people use that as an excuse to latch on to something other than my arguments.
Here's a good plan for you if you're genuinely interested in a conversation about this (to be clear, that's not one person enlightening the ignorant masses): instead of insisting everyone set aside your behaving like an ass and giving careful consideration to your arguments, why not simply refrain from acting like an ass and give people no option but give careful consideration to your arguments, if they wish to be taken seriously?

That's if you're actually concerned about a conversation about this. Seems pretty clear to me (and for that matter, to others) that you aren't. So in addition to addressing you on that basis, another tip: it's better not to act like an ass, even if you are one. You'll have a more pleasant life, more people will like being around you, and you'll be happier in general.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
My abrasive tone aside, I still find it interesting that people use that as an excuse to latch on to something other than my arguments. For a brief period I made a concerted effort to make my tone less caustic, but it made it difficult to write.
If you aren't willing to put forth the effort to treat your fellow posters with civility and respect, I'm certainly not going to put forth the effort to discuss anything with you.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
P.S., that topic has been deleted, now. Does anyone remember who started it so I can remember not to waste my time in their threads?
The one Resh linked to up top? It's still there.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
No, the one about the state of the union where I made the comments to which I referred.
 
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Naked Valkyrie started that one.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
For a brief period I made a concerted effort to make my tone less caustic, but it made it difficult to write. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to sound as offensive as I do, it just comes out that way.

Consider it a useful exercise in becoming a civilized human being.
 
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
quote:
Naked Valkyrie started that one.
I think I offended her. [Dont Know]
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
I should have saved a copy of that thread. I put more energy into it than I have anything here at Hatrack in a long time, and I remember at the time thinking that Naked Valkyrie seemed like the thread deleting type.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quidscribis:
Wait, you're calling people brainwashed and delusional, and yet you still expect people to want to discuss things with you? How does that work?

Well, y'know, it tends to work for me, somehow. Then again, I rarely come right out and call people brain-washed in so many words, although I certainly imply it.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
You use those so many words, and the continued tolerance for you is a testament to the kindness and tolerance of Hatrackers. You certainly do not earn it.

I love this place, and part of it's charm is that everyone short of pedophiles and murderers will find sympathy.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
quote:
I love this place, and part of it's charm is that everyone short of pedophiles and murderers will find sympathy.
And even they usually receive at least a little compassion.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
I'm with TL. Or maybe I'm just really sick (which I am. Hit me late last night and I feel like I'm gonna die.) Really, I'm just super bored with it. Big waste of time. Kinda fun, though; had it's moments. I'm gonna find other things to talk about.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Hey hey keep your spiteful bickering on the side of the forum where it originated!

[Mad]
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
No...this is the correct side of the forum for spiteful bickering, as I recall. I'm rather puzzled as to why Card would choose to have a forum dominated by spiteful bickering and mindless fluff in the first place, but this is definitely that forum.

Actually, I take that back. I think that originally there wasn't supposed to be spiteful bickering or mindless fluff anywhere, but once it started they decided to try and contain it here. So he didn't choose to have that kind of forum in the first place, and I understand the motivation for having it.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
KoM,

quote:
Well, y'know, it tends to work for me, somehow. Then again, I rarely come right out and call people brain-washed in so many words, although I certainly imply it.
Sure, it works sometimes. There are also a substantial number of people who avoid speaking with you on the topics which you call any number of names. As has been said, it's an example of a substantial level of tolerence on HR, not the effectiveness of your approach.
 
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
Well, on the original linked topic

I am against abortion because I see it as murder. I have just seen to much about the ability of preterm infants' ability to survive relatively early in the pregnancy to feel comfortable with allowing the termination of pregnancies. I just don't think anyone should have the power to end a life like that...even a parent. I personally, don't see it as a religious issue. Other than the broad "thou shalt not kill line" its not something that is covered by religion. I do think that there should be more support for those who wish to pursue adoption. There also needs to be more sex education, and access to contraceptives. As a Christian, I do think abstinence is the best solution, but I also realize that it is not a realistic solution for everyone. Abstinence only education simply will not cut it. People need to be educated about the need for protection, and how to get access to it.

I see the death penalty the same way. Overall, you can make arguments that the death penalty can be accepted within Christianity, but I can't accept it in my own personal morality. I don't think the government has the right to decide to kill a person like that when keeping them in jail would serve the need of protecting society from that person just as well.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
There was an incident in Detroit recently where a rape victim went to report her rape to the police. She was arrested, because of an outstanding warrant from when she was a teenager and put in jail. While in jail, she requested a morning after pill from the prison nurse and the nurse told her no, because it was against her personal beliefs, even though the nurse's action was against the policy of the facility.

Just a story for the heck of it.
 
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 
Wow, that's crazy, and I would think illegal. Aren't police required to provide medical attention (beyond a city jail nurse)? I would think that taking her to the hospital would be legally required.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Survivor:
No...this is the correct side of the forum for spiteful bickering, as I recall. I'm rather puzzled as to why Card would choose to have a forum dominated by spiteful bickering and mindless fluff in the first place, but this is definitely that forum.

Actually, I take that back. I think that originally there wasn't supposed to be spiteful bickering or mindless fluff anywhere, but once it started they decided to try and contain it here. So he didn't choose to have that kind of forum in the first place, and I understand the motivation for having it.

They haven't booted you yet, so I wouldn't complain.


Any site run the way you seem to want it run would by default ban you, so....
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
I'm with TL. Or maybe I'm just really sick (which I am. Hit me late last night and I feel like I'm gonna die.) Really, I'm just super bored with it. Big waste of time. Kinda fun, though; had it's moments. I'm gonna find other things to talk about.

Feel free...I am prepared to be underwhelmed yet again by both your manners and your intellect.


In other words....business as usual.

[ January 31, 2007, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
quote:
I'm with TL
Man, you can distort anything.

*laugh*
 
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
 
Here's the story, but it happened in Tampa, not Detroit.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
My bad. The story was on the news here earlier and I assumed it happened here.
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
Well, my bickering is never spiteful. And I don't post meaningless fluff. I did get banned from a forum one time, though.
 
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
though I saw another article (on cnn I believe...but I can't find it now) that had an interview with the nurse who said it had nothing to do with religion. She said religion didn't come up. She said she didn't give the pills to the woman because there is some policy against giving drugs without prior approval, and at that point it was not approved.

It is still terrible though. A person should not let bureaucracy get in the way of doing the right thing.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
That story is disturbing...but I don't want to cry out against the jail nurse until we have more information.

A nurse cannot prescribe medication, and I'm sure a jail nurse has specific rules about what can and can't be given to inmates and if the drug the girl wanted wasn't prescribed by a doctor and couldn't be approved or verified, I can see where the nurse might not have the power to act.

The whole thing sounds like a breakdown in the system, not the fault of one individual. They did say in that article they have a policy not to arrest people wanted for misdemeanors if they've been a victim of a violent crime, but this girl was wanted on felony charges. I'm unsure that I would want police departments to insitute a policy whereby people wanted for felonies shouldn't be arrested.

It's a tough case, and I feel sympathy for the girl. I actually am a proponent of morning after pills being available to rape victims, even though I'm pro-life. I can see the concern that this may prevent some people from coming forward, but again, I don't like the idea of making a policy decision that leads to not arresting people wanted on felonies. Would we feel differently if the girl were wanted for murder?
 
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
 
Survivor,

Be one with the ooze.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Survivor:
Well, my bickering is never spiteful. And I don't post meaningless fluff.

Your entire persona is meaningless fluff.
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
Which neatly accounts for my saying that it isn't [Wink]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Survivor:
Which neatly accounts for my saying that it isn't [Wink]

lol


Good point.... [Wink]
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
I'm with TL. Or maybe I'm just really sick (which I am. Hit me late last night and I feel like I'm gonna die.) Really, I'm just super bored with it. Big waste of time. Kinda fun, though; had it's moments. I'm gonna find other things to talk about.

Feel free...I am prepared to be underwhelmed yet again by both your manners and your intellect.


In other words....business as usual.

Are you just being a jerk, or are you serious(or both?) With comments like that, I wouldn;t be so quick to criticize anyone's manners. And I don't recall having my intellect challenged by any argments more forceful than "you're an idiot, and I know because you say things that are stupid." Talk about underwhelming.

Anyway, it seems the debate has survived on the original thread, so I'm going back over there.

"Who's coming with me?!?"


I know, lame Jerry Maguire reference. But I got plenty other things that need apologzing for before I get to that one.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
I'm with TL. Or maybe I'm just really sick (which I am. Hit me late last night and I feel like I'm gonna die.) Really, I'm just super bored with it. Big waste of time. Kinda fun, though; had it's moments. I'm gonna find other things to talk about.

Feel free...I am prepared to be underwhelmed yet again by both your manners and your intellect.


In other words....business as usual.

Are you just being a jerk, or are you serious(or both?) With comments like that, I wouldn;t be so quick to criticize anyone's manners. And I don't recall having my intellect challenged by any argments more forceful than "you're an idiot, and I know because you say things that are stupid." Talk about underwhelming.

Anyway, it seems the debate has survived on the original thread, so I'm going back over there.

"Who's coming with me?!?"


I know, lame Jerry Maguire reference. But I got plenty other things that need apologzing for before I get to that one.

You haven't said anything that merits any original thought, or any further effort.


Find an example of me being rude to someone who wasn't a pain in the a$$ first and I will apologizes (to them)...but until then, expect to reap what you sow. I don't know who you think you are, but I know who I see you as....


No one.


No one I care to listen to. No one who has been kind, or friendly, or intelligent. No one who has mattered, even a little, to me here on Hatrack. No one I would care to meet....and I have gone out of my way on many occasions to meet Jatraquero's I had talked to once.


And no one I like here disagrees with me, as far as I know.

In order for your intellect to be challenge you first have to demonstrate some. All I have seen is arrogance, poorly thought out attempts to rehash old debates, and a willingness to insult and demean others based solely on personal opinion.


How's it feel to be on the receiving side?


Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you are worth listening to, and can make intelligent arguments without using straw men arguments, without insulting others who don't agree with you. Perhaps you are a great guy, and I would be making a mistake not getting to know you better.


All I know is that you don't seem like any of that right now, and you are hardly new here.


If you don't want to be seen as an a$$, perhaps you should think about how you have been acting, and making your points.


Or you could just blame me....it sure is a lot easier. [Smile]
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
Dude, you got issues.

Let me ask you this: Since it seems that many people who like to engage in debates on these forums pride themselve in their ability to make strong, logical arguments, why don't you give it a shot? Prove that any of the things you said weren't just the ramblings of someone who is just trying to make himself feel better by trying to be demeaning to someone else. For instance, show me a straw man argument that I have made, or some post where I have exhibited poor intellegence. I'm sure you can find some, but in the process of looking and reading my posts, you might find that you are basing your opinion of me more on the consensus view of someone who, perhaps too bluntly, makes very challenging arguments that people feel threatened by and therefore feel compelled to attack me. I'm a regular Bill O'Reilly in that sense. It's true! People don't attack someone who is not a threat.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
Oh, yeah, and I love the smiley face at the end of super offensive posts. It's the iconic equivalent of "bless his heart." I talked about this awhile ago.

"You suck, I hate you, you are worthless, idiot, no one likes you!"


[Smile]

Look, a smiley face!! All those things he just said about me were ok!
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Dude, you got issues.

Let me ask you this: Since it seems that many people who like to engage in debates on these forums pride themselve in their ability to make strong, logical arguments, why don't you give it a shot? Prove that any of the things you said weren't just the ramblings of someone who is just trying to make himself feel better by trying to be demeaning to someone else. For instance, show me a straw man argument that I have made, or some post where I have exhibited poor intellegence. I'm sure you can find some, but in the process of looking and reading my posts, you might find that you are basing your opinion of me more on the consensus view of someone who, perhaps too bluntly, makes very challenging arguments that people feel threatened by and therefore feel compelled to attack me. I'm a regular Bill O'Reilly in that sense. It's true! People don't attack someone who is not a threat.

You? Make me think? By posting a bunch of half-thoughts that others have use in at least 20 thread in the time I have been here.


You...challenging?


[Laugh]


You aren't worth the effort...and if you knew me at all, you would realize that I don't particularly follow any consensus...here, or elsewhere.


Quite frankly, you aren't worth the effort I spent typing this reply. Find some concern for what others think, some couth, and a basic understanding or human nature, and try me then.

Until then, why in the world would I bother? I have more edifying conversations with my 3 year old niece.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
you might find that you are basing your opinion of me more on the consensus view of someone who, perhaps too bluntly, makes very challenging arguments that people feel threatened by and therefore feel compelled to attack me.
Reshpeckobiggle, you don't make very challenging arguments, especially on this topic.

I find you threatening only in the sense that you make my advocacy on behalf of the unborn more difficult when you tell those who disagree with us that they must have been brainwashed.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
For instance, show me a straw man argument that I have made, or some post where I have exhibited poor intellegence.
Certainly. Consider:

quote:
But look at how bad things are getting. An increasing inability to defend ourselves from aggressors and to protect our national interests. The normalization of deviancy, to include homosexuality and pedophilia. Young girls becoming more and more violent and promiscuous, bringing themselves down to the level of men, all for the sake of trying to attain the same rights as men to have to suffer in work and society the way we've always had to. The slow death of marriage and the restriction and persecution of religion, with the exaltation of athiesm.
Defense: Compare the situation now to that in 1988 and see how badly off you think American national interests are. Non-factual.
Homosexuality: Only bad if you consider it a bad thing. Circular.
Pedophilia: No such widespread movement exists, outside the more extreme rantings of conservatives. Nonfactual.
Young girls: Just as horny as they ever were. Nonfactual.
Death of marriage: So people aren't living their lives in accordance with your high standards? Oh well. Irrelevant.
Restriction and persecution of religion: Oh, right. In a nation where it is impossible to get elected dog-catcher without being Christian; where the President believes he talks to Jesus; where the religious right is a decisive factor in every election - yep, you're persecuted, right enough. Poor babies. I'm going to have to give you that one. Even a stopped clock, and all that.
Exaltation of atheism: Go on, find me an example of this. Nonfactual, unfortunately.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
Good job, KoM. I just wanted to see if Kwea was just a rambler or was actually worth his salt. Apparently not; just a bunch of big talk. You actually have something to say. Everything you said, I find debatable, but that's the point.

Dagonee, I said later that delusional would have been a more appropriate word than brainwashed, but I don't think that would change your point. And I wont argue your point of view, but at least I back up my opinion with reasons, unlike some of the others who are so quick to criticize me and my intellegence. And my opinions (about the deluded nature of pro-choicers, and what-not) may be wrong, but my reasons for having those opinions have not been adquately challenged yet. That is my ultimate point. Someone like Kwea coming along and telling me I'm an idiot and not worth his time in a post that obviously TOOK time to write, well, that's borderline pathetic.

[Smile] (haha!)

Well, I'm off! Big weekend, see ya's after the superbowl!
 
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
 
quote:
The normalization of deviancy, to include homosexuality and pedophilia. Young girls becoming more and more violent and promiscuous, bringing themselves down to the level of men, all for the sake of trying to attain the same rights as men to have to suffer in work and society the way we've always had to.
Oh, dear sir, you're a veritable treasure trove of nuggets of laughter. [Smile]

Yep, how dare those stupid queers try and become human? Sheesh, don't they know their place? It should go back to the good old days: arrest those darn fags when they make love in their bedrooms, continue to dismiss queerbashing as "boys being boys," and making sure they're seen by society as unfit to raise children. Screw the message of the Bible of tolerance and love, even for "enemies"! Leviticus clearly states that being gay is wrong. Time to legislate our morality, and then say we're being persecuted when we can't!

And then of course, there are those darn feminists! Wanting to be equal to men, sheesh! Next they'll be wanting to vote! The nerve Everyone knows their place is in the kitchen and laundry room, being sexually pure and altruistically innocent. They should remain protected by men from the evils of men. Don't let 'em make their own choices, let's make them for 'em!

Who's with me? I've got my "God Hates Fags" signs all made up and ready!
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Oh, wow. Did he actually say that? *checks*

Yup, he sure did. Man. Well, I'll just work with the one quote there since I have neither the patience nor the tolerance for the kind of openly expressed bigotry, sexism, and xenophobia to do so for very long.

What link is there between pedophilia and homosexuality, Reshpeckobiggle? Why do you lump them together? I challenge you to find a single bit of evidence that has more support for it than just you saying it's self-evidently logical and rational.

I'm not remotely interested in discussing anything else with you until you demonstrate you're worth talking about these things seriously with. Right now, all you're demonstrating is that you're an ego-masturbatory conservative who likes to "tell it how it is".
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
I just wanted to see if Kwea was just a rambler or was actually worth his salt. Apparently not; just a bunch of big talk. You actually have something to say. Everything you said, I find debatable, but that's the point.

Prove it.
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
quote:
And no one I like here disagrees with me, as far as I know.
I think that Kwea said it all right there.

I'm not going to claim that Resh is a genius or anything, and I disagree with him on several particulars concerning this issue. But he really is being treated very poorly. And it is because this forum is not a place that genuinely values diversity.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
But he really is being treated very poorly. And it is because this forum is not a place that genuinely values diversity.
Or he's being treated poorly because his expressed beliefs are sexist and homophobic and bigoted, and he behaves like a jackass. That's also a possibility on a forum that, despite your claims (and really, Survivor, you're your own proof that you're wrong) values diversity.

[ February 03, 2007, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
So much hate.

Well, I suppose that's what I was mentioning, so it should hardly surprise me. I wonder if there was more venom in that post before you edited it. Really, for all the excitement over me, I wonder how you've ever managed to decieve yourselves even when I wasn't around.
 
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Survivor:
But he really is being treated very poorly.

He's being treated poorly because he's been a flippant, pompous, and ego-masturbatory troll. All of the posts I've seen him make have: had flawed logic that is pointed out to be false, attacks and passive-aggressive baiting, snide remarks, claims of being victimized, and saying no one understands him because we're all: stupider, brain-washed, or misinformed.

If he presented his beliefs without purposely trying to get a rise out of people, we wouldn't have any problem with him.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Survivor,

quote:
So much hate.

Well, I suppose that's what I was mentioning, so it should hardly surprise me. I wonder if there was more venom in that post before you edited it. Really, for all the excitement over me, I wonder how you've ever managed to decieve yourselves even when I wasn't around.

I don't hate Reshpeckobiggle, or you, or anyone on Hatrack. I do know what it is, I think, to truly hate someone, though. I believe* I have truly hated someone I know personally, so I've got some perspective to examine the emotion.

There's not even any 'venom' in that post, anyway. I was describing something venomous, so I suppose there was...but the venom wasn't mine. Reshpeckobiggle's statements, until he should choose to clarify himself as to why he links pedophilia and homosexuality together, and his other sexist remarks, are venomous.

Concern and shock =/ 'excitement'. You haven't excited people, Survivor. You've worried or irritated them. That you think it is excitement is yet more of the evidence I was speaking of earlier, that I should not take your unusual claims seriously.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Good job, KoM. I just wanted to see if Kwea was just a rambler or was actually worth his salt. Apparently not; just a bunch of big talk.

First...none of my posts regarding you took long at all. That was the point...you aren't worth the effort.


Second...what ever gave you the idea I care about your opinion of me?

If you approved, I would obviously need to make a few adjustments. [Smile]


Survivor...if by diversity you mean small minded bigots who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag, you are right....we don't care for them at all.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Survivor...get over yourself. If you could perhaps being human would stop being such a bad thing, and you could stop pretending.


Pretending we hate you, pretending this is a horrible place....pretending that everyone who is not liked, even if for the simple reason that he is an a$$, is really being percecuted.....


Pretending you aren't a human yourself....with both the good and the bad of that being a part of you too....


Honestly....you haven't really even made a ripple here, and if people didn't care so much about your sister we probably wouldn't even care at all.


Hate?


....more like extreme apathy.


Then again, that's what you want, right? Makes us easier to "destroy". [Wink]

[ February 03, 2007, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Kwea, cool it. Calling Resh a "small-minded bigot" IS a violation of the User's Agreement, just as his behavior has occasionally been. You've been easily as rude to him as he's been to anyone, and I don't know what that's meant to accomplish.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
Don't worry about it Tom. I'm the LAST person whose going to complain. I wish everyone would lighten up. I mean, this Survivor person seems to deserve the ire of all of you MUCH less than I do. It seems to me that all he's doing is defending me (is he allowed to do that?!?) so apparently he too must now be destroyed!! (I know, I'm being hyperbolic.) Maybe he has a history that has everyone so detestful of him, and maybe I do too, but does everyone have to be so nasty?

Hitoshi and Samprimary, you hide behind your sarcasm. There are better ways to make your point. Though at least Samprimary is funny. Hitoshi, you seem bitter. You probably have very good reasons. Don't take that the wrong way.

Rolainm: Prove what? I'll clarify my post a bit, anyway. "I find your points debatable, and that is the point" just means that I'm not here and no one is engaging me simply so that we can all talk about how we agree on everything. The point is to discuss, debate, all that.

Rakeesh, you (along with Hitoshi)put words in my mouth. I'm not interested in discussing anything whatsoever with you until you can demonstrate that you will debate me honestly and without malice. I don't think that's gonna happen, but I'm willing to give you the chance. Now if you meant what you said about not wanting to discuss anything with me until I fulfill YOUR criteria first, I guess we have nothing further to say to each other.

Kwea: [Smile] [Smile] [Smile] [Smile] [Smile] [Smile] [Smile]

Rakeesh: Ok, I'll make it quick. I equate them together because they are both examples of deviant behavior, in the sense that deviant behavior is that which is outside the norm and not considered acceptable by the society in which it occurs. By the way, I think pedophilia is MUCH worse than homosexuality.

Just because I believe something that has been widely believed for many centuries by most of western Christian civilization doesn't mean I'm right, but it also doesn't mean that I must defend my belief from your assumed position of the moral high ground. You are much more confident in your possesion of that ground than I am, but that doesn't mean you have it.
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
What "assumed moral high ground" are we talking about here? Most of what has been happening recently is simple insult, not any effort to make a moral argument.

Saying "your position is so racist/homophobic/sexist/reactionary/whatever that I don't feel any need to make a reasoned response" doesn't constitute an argument, it's just a way of making a simple insult look like a rational for not engaging the question.

I don't think that "small-minded bigot" necessarily violates the user agreement, but some of the other terms used probably do. I have to laugh, though, at the idea that we're all taking the user agreement seriously at this point in the game. No, real laughter, not Graemlin laughter. Sorry you can't hear it.\

Anyway, the discussion on the other side of the forum is a lot more interesting. Just as much heat, but a good deal more light, or some lame analogy like that.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Funny Tom...I wasn't specifically referring to him.

We have had a plethura of them lately...and most of them really can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag.


And Resh's behavior had been far more than occasionally rude, and usually far less deserved by those who bear the brunt of it.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Reshpeckobiggle,

No, in fact, I didn't. I quoted you. If you don't like my negative interpretations, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully. I think perhaps my interpretations have some truth to them when you say pedophilia is 'much worse' than homosexuality.

Then of course there's the part where you equate growing tolerance of homosexuality in the United States as evidence of the lessening and worsening of our society. Clearly, you find homosexuality wrong and distasteful. It's not just something 'Western society' thinks is distasteful, it's something you think is also.

Oh, and 'much worse' means it's still in the same ballpark as pedophilia, and not just on grounds of what's common and what ain't. I'm not putting words into your mouth when I ask you to defend that characterization, so please do explain yourself.

quote:
You are much more confident in your possesion of that ground than I am, but that doesn't mean you have it.
No, you're pretty clear that you've got the moral high ground-at least your tone is positively laden with that certainty. And it's not just me saying that, either. Ask around. Communication is a two-way street, but if a majority of people are interpreting your words one way, and it's not the way you intended, it's your job to communicate in a way that expresses your meaning.

For example, when I say that I believed you were behaving like a smug jackass, I don't hold malice towards you. You can pick up a handy dictionary to see what I mean. In fact, my words to you have not been any more rude and mean-spirited (and some would argue, quite a bit less) than yours to others in this thread have been.

So, don't talk to me about malice, and don't presume you're out for 'honest and unmalicious' discussion. Your own posts-by widespread judgement, not just me-demonstrate this.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Saying "your position is so racist/homophobic/sexist/reactionary/whatever that I don't feel any need to make a reasoned response" doesn't constitute an argument, it's just a way of making a simple insult look like a rational for not engaging the question.
It's only a simple insult if the position isn't racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. If it is those things, though, it's not an insult-it's the truth.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
Rakeesh:
quote:
...if a majority of people are interpreting your words one way, and it's not the way you intended, it's your job to communicate in a way that expresses your meaning.
What if people are interpreting my words one way, and it's not the way I wrote them? From my perspective, that seems to be the real problem. Well, that and the fact that all my opinions are wrong and that is why I can be insulted and dismissed.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
No...you attitude is why is dismiss you, not your arguments.


You talk to people like as if they don't matter (and are stupid) if they don't agree with you, and that every single person who happens to disagree with you has never considered your points before.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Reshpeckobiggle,

You're not being dismissed because your opinions are wrong. This has been clarified so many times now that your stating so is disingenuous at best...and a further reason you're being dismissed.

You're being dismissed a) because your attitude started out inflammatory and insulting, and the only explanation you offered was 'that's just the way I post, it was actually nice for me'
quote:
b) you begin with the assumption that it is unreasonable and illogical to disagree with you[quote]but I there is a common thread: logic, critical thinking, and an understanding of history. I think that the way the myriad liberal viewpoints are grouped together stems from some different logical basis as well.
c) your rhetoric resonates with homophobia, sexism, and bigotry. To use a previous example, you equated growing tolerance of homosexuality as something that's damaging our country right alongside a growing inability to defend ourselves.

Don't you try to tell me you don't necessarily think homosexuality (and a host of other things) is bad (or even evil)...
quote:
We have some improvements, such as racial equality and environmental awareness. But look at how bad things are getting. An increasing inability to defend ourselves from aggressors and to protect our national interests. The normalization of deviancy, to include homosexuality and pedophilia. Young girls becoming more and more violent and promiscuous, bringing themselves down to the level of men, all for the sake of trying to attain the same rights as men to have to suffer in work and society the way we've always had to. The slow death of marriage and the restriction and persecution of religion, with the exaltation of athiesm. And perhaps the greatest evil in all of human history: legalized abortion.
You're not fooling anyone, Reshpeckobiggle. Except maybe Survivor...and he claims he isn't a human being. It's been made very clear to you, more than once, why exactly you're being dismissed. So continue the show, if you like (truly a one-man show), or actually offer some evidence for your claims aside from "it's obvious".
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I strongly suspect Survivor isn't "fooled," either; he's just using Resh to reinforce his own personal biases about human interaction.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
That story is disturbing...but I don't want to cry out against the jail nurse until we have more information.

A nurse cannot prescribe medication, and I'm sure a jail nurse has specific rules about what can and can't be given to inmates and if the drug the girl wanted wasn't prescribed by a doctor and couldn't be approved or verified, I can see where the nurse might not have the power to act.

The whole thing sounds like a breakdown in the system, not the fault of one individual. They did say in that article they have a policy not to arrest people wanted for misdemeanors if they've been a victim of a violent crime, but this girl was wanted on felony charges. I'm unsure that I would want police departments to insitute a policy whereby people wanted for felonies shouldn't be arrested.

It's a tough case, and I feel sympathy for the girl. I actually am a proponent of morning after pills being available to rape victims, even though I'm pro-life. I can see the concern that this may prevent some people from coming forward, but again, I don't like the idea of making a policy decision that leads to not arresting people wanted on felonies. Would we feel differently if the girl were wanted for murder?

They took her to the clinic where she was given the first dose and given the second dose to take the next day. The second dose was confiscated when she was arrested, and the nurse wouldn't give it to her. I assume they would allow people to take other medications, even if they had to confiscate them.

It was felony "failure to appear" which sounds strange to me.
 
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
 
Damn it! Judging by the title of the thread, I was expecting to read a fetus point of view on the abortion... [Smile]
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
Well, to be fair, most of the posters here were probably fetuses at some point in life...depending on when you think "life" begins, as if it were all that important anyway.

I think that Reshpicklewigglewhatever does have me fooled, despite my first post in response to him. At least, the membername pretty completely defeats me [Wink]

More to the point, if he's doing something that objectively deserves the treatment he's getting, I'm not aware of what it could be.

quote:
It's been made very clear to you, more than once, why exactly you're being dismissed.
By that, I take it you mean his "inflammatory and insulting" attitude. But of course, nothing about the way he's been treated would suggest that there is anything necessarily wrong with such an attitude. I mean, the comments responding to him on this thread have mostly been beyond inflammatory and insulting.

I knew immediately that Reshbeckbiggie would be flamed because of the content of the first post I saw from him, not the attitude. And everything I've seen of his posts suggests that his attitude is reflective of the way he's been treated here in the past, rather than being an unusual character flaw.

We get new members posting caustic and insulting messages all the time, but as long as those insults are directed at Card and his views, they rarely meet any significant challenge on these forums. So I don't buy the assertion that Reshpecko is being dissed because his attitude is inappropriate. It's all about his viewpoint.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
That's for that well-grounded opinion. You are a credit to your species. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
quote:
Just because I believe something that has been widely believed for many centuries by most of western Christian civilization doesn't mean I'm right, but it also doesn't mean that I must defend my belief from your assumed position of the moral high ground.
Sure you do. It's called examining you life for the purposes of becoming a better person. I have no position on abortion, but I've constantly had to defend some of my beliefs, many of which date back to Socrates. I have changed some of my beliefs, become tolerant of some, and gotten into drunken brawls over others, but I do so with the same goal: to understand my place in the world and constantly improve.

As you have constantly called for, I'll give you my position on some of the issues you've brought up so far. (My personal opinion of you being irrelevant)

Abortion: Complex. Yes, I will concede that it kills a living organism, but at what point do we as a human race say that an organism is cognizant? I don't know. I'm not a doctor and I'm not God.

Homosexuality: Not a threat. If two guys want to get their freak on in the privacy of their own home there's not a bloody thing I can do about it.
Is it deviant? Only if you happen to classify humans as animals. I know of no animals that engage in homosexuality, but I also know of no opponents of homosexuality who would classify humans as being purely animal either. And there lies the rub. If humans are not animals, then homosexuality does not go against the rest of nature, if humans are animals, then we have to rewrite the laws of nature to include homosexuality, as it's a scientific impossibility to go against the laws of nature. (I can elaborate on this if you want)

In addition, as I understand it, in most Christian Religions the only marriages that are valid are those recognized by God. Does God officially recognize and ordain the State Registrars Office? Does God recognize Social Security and the right of spouses to share such earthly benefits with each other?

I believe that if two people are consistently getting nookie from one another, than their earthy benefits should be shared, like hospital visitations, income taxes, life insurance etc.

In addition I think that government is not justified in making any law prohibiting a person or persons actions unless said actions infringe upon another's rights to life, liberty and property.

Does Gay marriage infringe on my rights to any of these? Not at all.

Me being brainwashed: By what exactly? My conservative parents? My conservative religion that I was raised in? Utah doesn't really have a liberal media so that can't be it. What else? Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Thoreau, Gandhi, Jefferson, Lincoln? Got to be those ignorant buggers. And before you mention that you didn't mean your brainwashed comment that way: thats the way it's going to get responded to. It is very possible to hold Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative, or even Socialist beliefs based on experience, learning and logic. If you claim that people who believe differently than you are brainwashed, you are going to offend those who have formed our beliefs this way.

Me being wrong: plenty of times just look up some of my previous posts. Try me.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
I know of no animals that engage in homosexuality,
You presumably mean "apart from homo sapiens", but in any case you are wrong.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
No worries, God will clean that up soon enough.

Why do you think he's melting those ice caps so fast?
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
I've never checked on that, it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do with ice, though. Maybe there is some deep, doomsday meaning in it. Perhaps it will dramatically increase the impact of the kinetic bolide?

No, apparently it's mainly just to keep the ice from building up. As the ice gets too thick, it increases stress on the underlying geological strata and increases volcanic activity. Thicker ice, more volcanism to melt it. Rather an elegant solution, compared with some of His work.
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
quote:
You presumably mean "apart from homo sapiens", but in any case you are wrong.
I never knew that KOM. My main intention, however, was to head off a possible argument I've heard many times from opponents of homosexuality which goes along the line of: "there are no animals that engage in homosexuality" I guess I could have been clearer on that.

Thanks though, I now know of a better way to answer that argument.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Epictetus:
quote:
Just because I believe something that has been widely believed for many centuries by most of western Christian civilization doesn't mean I'm right, but it also doesn't mean that I must defend my belief from your assumed position of the moral high ground.
Sure you do. It's called examining you life for the purposes of becoming a better person. I have no position on abortion, but I've constantly had to defend some of my beliefs, many of which date back to Socrates. I have changed some of my beliefs, become tolerant of some, and gotten into drunken brawls over others, but I do so with the same goal: to understand my place in the world and constantly improve.



I couldn't agree with you more. I defend my postion, but not from someone who has assumed the moral high ground simply because my opponent believes his or her side is right and that is all there is to it. No room for argument. This is one of the biggest roadblocks in any debate, and it is often assumed by both sides. I may not be any more able to shed my notion of being on the morally correct side than others, but I try to recognize that and point out when my argument is coming from there. The thing is, I am also careful to specify exactly where my argument is based in the purist logic I am capable of. It has been pointed out to me that I am utterly incapable of logic, but I for one don't accept that. I have at the very least a basic understanding of the rules (I did receive the highest grade in the logic class I took last semester [that would be an Argumentum ad Verecundiam,appeal to authority... I looked it up]), and I know when someone (like myself; re: my appeal to authority) is using an informal fallacy. When I have the audacity to point them out, generally I am told how stupid I am. There is a certain level of entertainment value to it, but it's kinda sad, too.
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
If you agree with me, then why do you feel you don't need to defend your arguments from someone who assumes the moral high ground? If you ask others to entertain the notion that you're correct, it's polite to do the same in return. As I read this thread I couldn't help but feel you were assuming the moral high ground and not considering for a moment that you might be incorrect. I have no problem defending my position from people who think they're morally correct, that was my point in posting.

I think there is room for argument here. If you refuse to argue with someone who thinks they're morally superior to you then you'll never actually learn anything valuable from them or about yourself. You may feel that they're being pompous, but it doesn't mean that they don't have anything valuable to say.

I have no doubt that you're trying your best, but I think a large portion of the reason you didn't receive a warm welcome to your debate is a result of your writing style. If your argument is mired in emotional language and other fallacies, your more likely to get the same in return and no one is going to get anywhere.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
Again, I agree with you. I just do not believe my my arguments are any more mired in emotionality and logical fallacies than anyone else. In fact, I believe I am doing a better job than my opponents (and I mean that word in the most innocuous manner possible.) I do feel the need to defend my position, but from the person's arguments, not the high ground he believes he is standing on. Is that clearer? And yes, I am aware of my own perceived moral superiority. I try not to let it take over my arguments, without total success, let me tell you. But if you get to the meat of what I say, especially concerning abortion, I think an objective observer can see I have made some strong arguments that have not been seriously challenged. Those challenges have mainly been along the lines of "shut up."

You think I am trying my best, but I'm not really. As I said in previous posts (particularly on the other forum), I tried that for a while and it was too tiring, and not as much fun. And since no one else is trying rein in their vitriol (sorry; not "no one," just the ones who are really getting into it with me), I don't see much point in doing the same. I don't think I have a lot of vitriol in the first place; most of the things people take such offense at that I say are made in generalizations. All (or most) of the really focused insults are directed at me.

[ February 06, 2007, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
You think I am trying my best, but I'm not really. As I said in previous posts (particularly on the other forum), I tried that for a while and it was too tiring, and not as much fun. And since no one else is trying rein in their vitriol (sorry; not "no one," just the ones who are really getting into it with me), I don't see much point in doing the same. I don't think I have a lot of vitriol in the first place; most of the things people take such offense at that I say are made in generalizations. All (or most) of the really focused insults are directed at me.
You can keep on saying this as long as you like, but that won't make it true at all. I've gone into thorough detail why the things I said weren't just 'insults', but openly (and justly) critical things said against your bigoted, homophobic sexism, and you persist in pretending otherwise.

Also, nicely done! You've completely neglected to acknowledge you were totally wrong about homosexuality in the animal world, as anyone who'd made a serious study of the issues involved would already know. Good job!
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
And yes, I am aware of my own perceived moral superiority. I try not to let it take over my arguments, without total success, let me tell you.


No need to tell us....we had noticed it.


I recall attacking your attitude regarding this, which is displayed in many other threads as well.


I implied I didn't agree with your arguments, but there are a lot of people who I disagree with here.....it's one of the things I like most about Hatrack, to be honest.


I dislike being called an idiot (although you may not use that specific word, of course) because I see things differently that you. I don't like seeing you berate people for sloppy logic when you are are guilty of the same.


If you can't get your points across in a non-confrontational manner, people won't listen to you very often. That means that despite your possibly strong arguments, and your strong writing skills, your overall lack of communication skills defeat yourself in serious debate.


Before you get all up in arms about what I just said, ask yourself this......if your communication skills are so great, why do so many people have competing views on your attitude and your arguments?


What you think you are saying, and how you think you are saying it, are far different that how most people here perceive it.


JUst because someone has a different opinion than yours does not mean that they haven't considered the same evidence that you have. We all filter things through our own perceptions, and two intelligent, educated people can (and often do) come to two completely different conclusions about the same events/beliefs.


If you could keep that in mind when you write, people might actually care enough to listen. But if you continually insult someone, or their beliefs, don't expect any consideration back yourself.


The true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result.


[Smile] [Smile] [Smile] [ROFL] [Evil] [Blushing] [Kiss]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
The true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result.
As a side note, I've always hated this definition of insanity. For one thing, it's incredibly hubristic to assume that you always know all the variables that factor into your result. I could flip a coin twice, technically doing the "same thing" -- and yet it's not insane to expect the coin to possibly come up tails if it first came up heads.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
A much better one is voting 'Red Dawn' as the best war movie of all time.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
I do feel the need to defend my position, but from the person's arguments,
This being so, how come you're still arguing about argument styles, and not responding at all to my post attacking your statements, apart from noting that you find my points 'debatable'?
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
I don't know, KoM. I guess I just didn't feel like it at the time. I don't feel like it now, either. But you know I would. Maybe we could do it without getting sidetracked into who's losing the debate because of the offensive tone being used. First time for everything, right?

Speaking of... Kwea, you are taking a MUCH different tone with me now than you were earlier. Either that or I'm just in a much different mood. If I go back and re-read your posts, I'll know for sure.

Ok, just did. Your tone is different. To recap, Kwea:

"Feel free...I am prepared to be underwhelmed yet again by both your manners and your intellect."

"You haven't said anything that merits any original thought, or any further effort."

"Quite frankly, you aren't worth the effort I spent typing this reply."

"I have more edifying conversations with my 3 year old niece."

These from one person, this is not an exhaustive list, and you're not even the worst!

Compile a list of my directly insulting comments, why dontcha? Actually, don't do that...

If this is your way of "implying" that you disagree with me, then why don't you just come out and tell me how you really feel?

So anyway, your last post was much nicer. And you're not saying anything that I don't know or agree with. I just don't see why there is a double standard, as Survivor has pointed out. Despite everyone's apparent dislike for him, he has said some true things. He's said things in my defense that I didn't even think of, and he says them much better than I could have.

And thanks, Tom. I always thought there was something wrong with that definition of insanity, and I think you nailed. Not to say that Kwea's use of it doesn't explain why I keep coming back here...
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
I don't know, KoM. I guess I just didn't feel like it at the time. I don't feel like it now, either. But you know I would.
I know nothing of the kind. All I know about you is what I see; and what I see is that you make insulting and factually wrong initial posts, in which you accuse people who disagree with you of doing so from only emotion and inexperience; when this is objected to, you insist that people should respond to your arguments and not your tone; and when that is done, you "don't feel like" responding, but instead continue to argue about who is using worse insults. I must conclude that you are not actually arguing in good faith, but rather seeking to stir up trouble.


Some of the regulars here may find this just a touch ironic coming from me; I have two responses, one humorous, the other serious. First, it takes one to know one; second, I do actually respond when people make arguments against what I say in an insulting post.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I don't know, KoM. I guess I just didn't feel like it at the time. I don't feel like it now, either. But you know I would. Maybe we could do it without getting sidetracked into who's losing the debate because of the offensive tone being used. First time for everything, right?
Ha! This is rich. Put up, or shut up, Reshpeckobiggle. You've got an explicit challenge from KoM in the manner you've been complaining about not getting for days now.

quote:
Some of the regulars here may find this just a touch ironic coming from me; I have two responses, one humorous, the other serious. First, it takes one to know one; second, I do actually respond when people make arguments against what I say in an insulting post.
And since this was at least partially to me...

Yes, you respond with some actual arguments when you make insulting posts. This does not, however, as I've always said, match with your (numerous times in the past) stated intentions of persuading theists away from their brainwashing and into a more sensible atheism.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I'm not, at this time, saying that I argue well. I'm saying that I do argue better than Resh, that is to say, I present some kind of argument, and therefore the charge of hypocrisy which I anticipate does not apply.
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
I would tend to dispute that, from what I've seen of your posts, but then again I haven't seen that many and this isn't really a forum where argument as such is ever really favored.

I think that's part of what contributes to the vile tone and general content of this forum, but the underlying cause has more to do with other factors...namely that the majority of people on this forum have views that can't be substantiated by honest debate because some of those views are fundamentally incompatable with the very concepts of truth and logic, which are important perequisites for "honest debate". If you have a lot of people who simply aren't willing to concede that somethings can be really true and others really false, nor believe that there exists a non-subjective pattern of deduction by which to discover additional truths from established truths, then you aren't going to get very far by arguing.

Which means that there is no point in argument. There's room for study and reflection on what others are saying, certainly. We can all learn a lot about Kwea without bothering to contend the invective. I've learned a lot about you all without much trouble of engaging in anything so pointless as debate. Even if it would be nice to have a forum where argument could be considered seriously as a method of discourse, that isn't what we have here and nobody should be blamed for recognizing that fact.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Resh...I am. I was talking to you earlier in a very similar tone to what you use at times, even if you don't realize it. Perhaps you don't say the exact things I said, but the tone was all you. Notice that the only person who commented on my posts was Tom...and he only said I was as bad as you are at times.


You talk down to people, insult them fairly consistently, and are very dismissive of others thoughts and feeling.


You haven't done so to me, because I don't bother to engage you in debate. It isn't that you aren't smart enough to engage, but that I don't want to bother engaging someone who probably will be rude and dismissive.


I love how Survivor "knows" so much about me already. I don't usually bother getting involved in these type of threads at all....but he feels like he has the key to unraveling my character just from two threads....


I have almost 10000 posts. How many of them involve me calling someone a name? How many people have engaged me in debate, and how many times have I changed my opinion about something serious because of conversations I had with other people here on Hatrack? How many times have I recieved email from other people here thanking me for my insight, or asking me to debate them in private, because they wanted my opinion on somehting that bothered them?


And he feels like he can have an "honest" opinion about "honest debate"...all the while insisting he isn't human himself. He should try being honest with himself first, THEN complain about others for a change.

Survivor:

I don't care is you are insane, or simply stupid...you are possibly the least qualified person on this board to debate honesty or sanity, or be honest.


Just because we don't care for Survivors tone (and what passes for content) doesn't mean he is right. What was the "serious debate" suppose to be? Whether or not he is human?


Give me a frickin break.


I like when people disagree with me, guys. I do...as long as their disagreement doesn't involve calling me names, or implying I am inferior to them.


Didn't feel too good, did it, Resh.


Either way, I am done with this thread. If I feel like debating something else I see you post in, I will...but from this point on you can't say you didn't KNOW how you were coming across.....we have all told you now.


So if you really are as smart as you think you are, and really care to communicate, try treating others with some respect.


Perhaps you will get some in return for a change.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
If you have a lot of people who simply aren't willing to concede that some things can be really true and others really false, nor believe that there exists a non-subjective pattern of deduction by which to discover additional truths from established truths, then you aren't going to get very far by arguing.
Although this is true, I disagree that there are many people on this forum who feel that way. True, you can occasionally get someone to say "naturalism is just one more assumption" or "You can't disprove X (so I'm justified in believing it)" if you back them into a corner, but I don't think they really mean these statements. It is merely a technique for backing out of a conversation when conceding a point would mean a serious re-examination of one's entire lifestyle and identity. Although this is cowardly, it should not be taken as indicating a genuine disbelief in rationality, but merely a disinclination to take the full consequences of that belief.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Rather than being cowardly, KoM, at times it is just that people get tired of being belittled and talked down to.


Saying those things at times (depending on the situation) is just a way of saying you should just agree to disagree.


Let me reiterate.....it is possible for intelligent people to disagree on what something means, even though they both have the same evidence in front of them.


Whenever you get into a discussion about religion, for instance, I don't debate it with you. It isn't because I am afraid of your intellect, or that I am unsure of my own religious convictions.....it is because before the conversation ever begins I know pretty much what you are going to say. You opinion of the matter doesn't mean anything to me....as a matter of fact, your bias against religion is so strong that it makes communicating with you about it impossible.

I know you feel someone who is religious is as wacky as Survivor is, in their own way....I disagree.


Nothing either of us is going to sway the other, and you really aren't going to present much that I have not considered myself, long before you joined this board. Nor will I convert you to my own religion.


We have the same evidence before us, but come to different conclusions.


That's ok.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Saying those things at times (depending on the situation) is just a way of saying you should just agree to disagree.

Let me reiterate.....it is possible for intelligent people to disagree on what something means, even though they both have the same evidence in front of them.

I concede the general principle; I do not feel it necessary to apply it to such statements as "The Earth is round", although there can certainly exist intelligent people who have never been presented with the evidence or thought the question important. Moreover, many of my disagreements with religious people are not strictly about interpreting evidence, but rather about what is evidence; and in such matters there is one way that works to produce truth, many that do not, and some that only produce acrimony and civil wars.
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
Kwea,

It is possible that what I have learned about you isn't representative of who you are as a total individual. I cannot dispute this, since I believe it to be very true. But the fact remains that I have learned quite a bit about you. So has anyone that has bothered to read your posts in response to me.

Back to the discussion, I'm afraid I don't understand the point of "agreeing to disagree". If disagreement exists, then it exists whether or not either party agrees to it. Perhaps you mean "we both agree that the disagreement is less important than other things on which we do agree." If that were truly the case, then wouldn't it be more specific and useful to reference the agreement that you both agree is more significant than the disagreement? One of my sisters is fond of doing this, I find the resulting phrase charming. And meaningful, which is my point.

So what agreement is it that you all agree is more important than your disagreements? I can think of several possibilities, but none of them make me think very highly of any of you [Wink]

That's all right. My opinion of you, one way or another, doesn't matter very much. I think we all agree on that point, even if it is for very different reasons. Your opinion of me matters quite a bit more, though again we agree on this for fundamentally different reasons. Can a nominal agreement that is rooted in almost total disagreement really be called agreement?

Probably not. So I will discard this agreement, since it is virtually nothing more than a play on words, and therefore almost irrelevant, certainly far less important than most of the disagreements we've been able to establish. It's like saying that a person who believes the Earth is dish-shaped agrees with someone who believes that it is spherical, or that a person who believes that the average curve of the Earth's surface can reasonably be used as a flat surface for most human scale activities is in fundamental disagreement with a person who believes it to be an enormous globe.

Is there a non-trivial point of agreement between us?
 
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QB] [QUOTE]I don't know, KoM. I guess I just didn't feel like it at the time. I don't feel like it now, either. But you know I would. Maybe we could do it without getting sidetracked into who's losing the debate because of the offensive tone being used. First time for everything, right?

Ha! This is rich. Put up, or shut up, Reshpeckobiggle. You've got an explicit challenge from KoM in the manner you've been complaining about not getting for days now./QUOTE]

I guess he shut up. [Smile]
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
Ah, how brave of you. I salute your courage and honor.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Thank you. We accept your compliments in the spirit they were given.
 
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
Well, I was speaking specifically to Hitoshi, but I guess I have noticed a lot of others doing similar deeds, so I extend my plaudits to all who deserve them.

Still not sure that includes you, though.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2