Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-26-2016, 06:59 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,535

I'm here to help, Velocity


Hey, Velocity, how's it going, bud? Have a seat. I know this is a bit late in coming but it's been a busy couple of weeks, and I've only just now seen my way clear to very quickly glancing over some of the words in the 31,000 threads you've started. Many thanks to you for mostly keeping the posting at a minimum once you've stapled those OPs to the ol' telephone pole. Anyway, I'm here now. And you know what?

After yet another in a long string of abortive gotcha attempts on a small handful of subjects, essentially all of which boil down to "aren't you liberals pretty stupid idiots? Haven't I savagely struck a dolorous blow at your hollow intellectual core with this thing I thought about for a second? Hmmmm?", I've realized that the fault here is really on the rest of us, who haven't been answering the question you've really been asking all along. People keep responding to you with some song and dance like "oh, actually, you're using those terms in a misleading way" or "actually, nobody ever said the thing you're saying they said, and that resolves this whole paradox" or "that doesn't make any sense" or "nearly everything you have said is factually not the right thing." Every thread people are saying this stuff to you! Embarrassing. Nobody's hearing you.

So here I am, and here it is: shut up. No; shut up. That's not a good point, that isn't incisive, you haven't exposed anything, the obvious answer to your should've-been-rhetorical question is the correct answer, and next time, instead of starting a thread on a trash fire of a premise only to be immediately corrected and never own it, here's what you can do. Shut the fuck up, just for like a little while.
  #2  
Old 07-26-2016, 07:08 PM
Stringbean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,829
Will you post the premise of each thread and provide the obvious, inarguable correct answer to each one?
  #3  
Old 07-26-2016, 07:21 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,855
Nothing is "inarguable" to those determined to argue.
  #4  
Old 07-26-2016, 07:26 PM
Batfish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Nothing is "inarguable" to those determined to argue.
I disagree.
  #5  
Old 07-26-2016, 07:35 PM
Drunky Smurf's Avatar
Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 11,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
Hey, Velocity, how's it going, bud? Have a seat. I know this is a bit late in coming but it's been a busy couple of weeks, and I've only just now seen my way clear to very quickly glancing over some of the words in the 31,000 threads you've started. Many thanks to you for mostly keeping the posting at a minimum once you've stapled those OPs to the ol' telephone pole. Anyway, I'm here now. And you know what?

After yet another in a long string of abortive gotcha attempts on a small handful of subjects, essentially all of which boil down to "aren't you liberals pretty stupid idiots? Haven't I savagely struck a dolorous blow at your hollow intellectual core with this thing I thought about for a second? Hmmmm?", I've realized that the fault here is really on the rest of us, who haven't been answering the question you've really been asking all along. People keep responding to you with some song and dance like "oh, actually, you're using those terms in a misleading way" or "actually, nobody ever said the thing you're saying they said, and that resolves this whole paradox" or "that doesn't make any sense" or "nearly everything you have said is factually not the right thing." Every thread people are saying this stuff to you! Embarrassing. Nobody's hearing you.

So here I am, and here it is: shut up. No; shut up. That's not a good point, that isn't incisive, you haven't exposed anything, the obvious answer to your should've-been-rhetorical question is the correct answer, and next time, instead of starting a thread on a trash fire of a premise only to be immediately corrected and never own it, here's what you can do. Shut the fuck up, just for like a little while.
Could we get a summary of the links? I don't have time to read through them, Family Feud is on.

Thank you.
  #6  
Old 07-26-2016, 07:57 PM
Ethilrist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,987
Just a quick skim of the OP's and a few of the responses, because I'm certainly not going to read all those threads:

Long: Is abortion a complicated moral subject?
String: If we all have human DNA, how come we all have different skin color?
Abortive: Would liberals still want to have abortions if they knew their baby was human?
Gotcha: Really, do black lives matter? I mean, they kill each other, too, don't they?
Attempts: (tl;dr OP, good god) If everybody does this one thing that I think is right-wing, does that mean that everybody is really right-wing?
Small: When is it okay to be a prejudicial bigot?
Handful: How do abortionists feel about when someone else hires an incompetent to perform their abortion?
Subjects: Those Native Americans are a bunch of whiners because white imperialists stole their land.
All: How do we properly scale the SATs so that people from the dumb races get just as high a score as one of the smart ones?
Which: Even if people don't like the ideal of profiling, I still think we should be able to discriminate against people if we think we're upholding the law.
Boil: I have not read Slaughterhouse Five.
Down: Cops killing people is totally the same as soldiers in wartime, right?
To: Should science be based on facts or feelings?
  #7  
Old 07-26-2016, 09:41 PM
mistymage's Avatar
mistymage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Just a quick skim of the OP's and a few of the responses, because I'm certainly not going to read all those threads: (snipped)
Nice summaries! May I subscribe to your newsletter?



(Seriously, you took one for the team by scanning so many of the threads, thank you.)
  #8  
Old 07-26-2016, 10:05 PM
Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringbean View Post
Will you post the premise of each thread and provide the obvious, inarguable correct answer to each one?
Jimmy Chitwood already did that. The premise of Velocity's threads is always, "I'm an idiot and I'm here to criticize something I don't understand." The obvious, inarguable, correct answer, is, "Oh, just shut up, already."

Last edited by Merneith; 07-26-2016 at 10:06 PM.
  #9  
Old 07-27-2016, 09:17 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,947
I've not gotten a strong impression of Velocity, one way or the other.

Jimmy Chitwood, on the other hand makes a more distinctive impression, as a guy full of over-the-top invective based on very little (if any) substance. Much like the OP of this thread. You've seen that, you've seen it all - there goes good old Jimmy Chitwood, doing his one trick.
  #10  
Old 07-27-2016, 09:32 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batfish View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB
Nothing is "inarguable" to those determined to argue.
I disagree.
No, you don't.

Regards,
Shodan
  #11  
Old 07-27-2016, 10:15 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Velocity will more often return to his own threads (although not always), but other than that, he's pretty much just another boffking. Exhibit A.

Last edited by John Mace; 07-27-2016 at 10:17 AM.
  #12  
Old 07-27-2016, 10:35 AM
Spice Weasel is offline
Guest
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Just a quick skim of the OP's and a few of the responses, because I'm certainly not going to read all those threads:

Long: Is abortion a complicated moral subject?
String: If we all have human DNA, how come we all have different skin color?
Abortive: Would liberals still want to have abortions if they knew their baby was human?
Gotcha: Really, do black lives matter? I mean, they kill each other, too, don't they?
Attempts: (tl;dr OP, good god) If everybody does this one thing that I think is right-wing, does that mean that everybody is really right-wing?
Small: When is it okay to be a prejudicial bigot?
Handful: How do abortionists feel about when someone else hires an incompetent to perform their abortion?
Subjects: Those Native Americans are a bunch of whiners because white imperialists stole their land.
All: How do we properly scale the SATs so that people from the dumb races get just as high a score as one of the smart ones?
Which: Even if people don't like the ideal of profiling, I still think we should be able to discriminate against people if we think we're upholding the law.
Boil: I have not read Slaughterhouse Five.
Down: Cops killing people is totally the same as soldiers in wartime, right?
To: Should science be based on facts or feelings?
Holy shit, that's a lot of strawmen.
  #13  
Old 07-27-2016, 11:09 AM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Nothing is "inarguable" to those determined to argue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batfish View Post
I disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, you don't ... [snip]
You are so wrong.
  #14  
Old 07-27-2016, 02:22 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Just a quick skim of the OP's and a few of the responses, because I'm certainly not going to read all those threads:

Long: Is abortion a complicated moral subject?
String: If we all have human DNA, how come we all have different skin color?
Abortive: Would liberals still want to have abortions if they knew their baby was human?
Gotcha: Really, do black lives matter? I mean, they kill each other, too, don't they?
Attempts: (tl;dr OP, good god) If everybody does this one thing that I think is right-wing, does that mean that everybody is really right-wing?
Small: When is it okay to be a prejudicial bigot?
Handful: How do abortionists feel about when someone else hires an incompetent to perform their abortion?
Subjects: Those Native Americans are a bunch of whiners because white imperialists stole their land.
All: How do we properly scale the SATs so that people from the dumb races get just as high a score as one of the smart ones?
Which: Even if people don't like the ideal of profiling, I still think we should be able to discriminate against people if we think we're upholding the law.
Boil: I have not read Slaughterhouse Five.
Down: Cops killing people is totally the same as soldiers in wartime, right?
To: Should science be based on facts or feelings?
Holy shit balls. I say we ding him for the volume AND the content. That's one unattractive look at the human psyche right there.
  #15  
Old 07-27-2016, 02:25 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
Could we get a summary of the links? I don't have time to read through them, Family Feud is on.

Thank you.
Well, Ethririst did a good job of providing some details, but perhaps you were so lazy in your excitement to watch Steve Harvey roll his eyes that you didn't quite reach this sentence in the OP:

Quote:
...essentially all of which boil down to "aren't you liberals pretty stupid idiots?
I think that's a pretty useful summary of all the threads.
  #16  
Old 07-27-2016, 02:31 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
Holy shit, that's a lot of strawmen.
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean that Ethilrist provided a distorted interpretation of what Velocity wrote, then you're certainly correct. If you mean that Velocity's OPs were strawmen, then you're probably not (and probably didn't read the actual OPs that were linked in the OP of this thread).

I can't speak to all of them because I didn't read them all, but starting in reverse order, the last one was most definitely not "Should science be based on facts or feelings?", and the penultimate was not "Cops killing people is totally the same as soldiers in wartime, right?". I assume Ethilrist was equally "accurate" in the rest of his summaries.

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 07-27-2016 at 02:32 PM.
  #17  
Old 07-27-2016, 03:16 PM
Spice Weasel is offline
Guest
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean that Ethilrist provided a distorted interpretation of what Velocity wrote, then you're certainly correct. If you mean that Velocity's OPs were strawmen, then you're probably not (and probably didn't read the actual OPs that were linked in the OP of this thread).
I think a fair number of the OPs contained strawmen (I read the first post in each.) Some were eyeroll-worthy but others just seemed sincerely inquisitive.

I think Velocity is not a troll and is probably being picked on because he skews politically right. There is a patronizing undertone to some of his questions that are particularly grating, especially because Velocity does not seem to clearly understand the opposing viewpoint he is critiquing (that was especially striking on the ''race is a social construct'' OP.)

Despite all that, I actually find Velocity's presentation of his views thought-provoking. They leave room for discussion and that's the important thing.

Also, Jimmy Chitwood is my motherfucking hero and if he's pissed off about something it's probably for good reason.

Last edited by Spice Weasel; 07-27-2016 at 03:17 PM.
  #18  
Old 07-27-2016, 03:23 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I've not gotten a strong impression of Velocity, one way or the other.

Jimmy Chitwood, on the other hand makes a more distinctive impression, as a guy full of over-the-top invective based on very little (if any) substance. Much like the OP of this thread. You've seen that, you've seen it all - there goes good old Jimmy Chitwood, doing his one trick.
Your politics appears to be severely distorting your perception. And I do mean severely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean that Ethilrist provided a distorted interpretation of what Velocity wrote, then you're certainly correct. If you mean that Velocity's OPs were strawmen, then you're probably not (and probably didn't read the actual OPs that were linked in the OP of this thread).

I can't speak to all of them because I didn't read them all, but starting in reverse order, the last one was most definitely not "Should science be based on facts or feelings?", and the penultimate was not "Cops killing people is totally the same as soldiers in wartime, right?". I assume Ethilrist was equally "accurate" in the rest of his summaries.
I haven't looked at all of them, either, but your analysis is flawed. Ethilrist's summaries may be sarcastically worded but the ones I've looked at are accurate. The last one suggests that because certain facts carry emotional baggage that the science should be conducted entirely differently from how science is actually conducted! It basically says that it's OK to publish new findings about quantum mechanics based on strong evidence, but science must shut up about findings that might upset some people even when those findings are based on equivalently strong evidence. This is gibbering nonsense.

The penultimate one was misstated by both of you -- it's capital punishment vs. combat killing, but again it seeks to make a ridiculous comparison.

I never paid much attention to Velocity but yesterday I was readying one of Velocity's latest screeds and now I'm seeing the pattern that Jimmy Chitwood was talking about. Velocity's OP there was sufficiently annoying that I was going to reply but never got around to it. Basically it says, "hey, here's a brain fart I just had and spent a whole 12 seconds thinking about before posting: if you liberals think that a woman has rights over her own body, then you should be in favor of abortion right up until the moment of birth. Do you pro-choice liberals realize how stupid and inconsistent you are, based on my 12 seconds of incompetent incoherent analysis?". And it turns out that this is actually pretty typical of many of his threads.

Seems to me that Jimmy Chitwood and Ethilrist are both spot on.
  #19  
Old 07-27-2016, 03:29 PM
Spice Weasel is offline
Guest
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I never paid much attention to Velocity but yesterday I was readying one of Velocity's latest screeds and now I'm seeing the pattern that Jimmy Chitwood was talking about. Velocity's OP there was sufficiently annoying that I was going to reply but never got around to it. Basically it says, "hey, here's a brain fart I just had and spent a whole 12 seconds thinking about before posting: if you liberals think that a woman has rights over her own body, then you should be in favor of abortion right up until the moment of birth. Do you pro-choice liberals realize how stupid and inconsistent you are, based on my 12 seconds of incompetent incoherent analysis?". And it turns out that this is actually pretty typical of many of his threads.

Seems to me that Jimmy Chitwood and Ethilrist are both spot on.
Yeah, there's this element of him posing these questions like he has some vague understanding of what liberals believe but only like what he's overheard from his drunk uncle and not based on any actual interaction with liberals.

To be fair, we do that all the time to conservatives on this board.
  #20  
Old 07-27-2016, 03:42 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
There is a patronizing undertone to some of his questions that are particularly grating, especially because Velocity does not seem to clearly understand the opposing viewpoint he is critiquing (that was especially striking on the ''race is a social construct'' OP.)
FWIW, I agree that that was a silly OP. But it was not "If we all have human DNA, how come we all have different skin color?", as Ethilrist presented it.

A lot of people say silly things on occasion. Velocity doesn't seem to stand out one way or the other, best as I can tell. But the thing is that many people have no patience to read through a bunch of links, and this leaves opportunity for people like Ethilrist to distort the words of other posters and be cheered on by like-minded partisans. Truth is that I myself also don't have the patience to read through all of them either, but I picked a random sample, and every one of them was seriously distorted, so I assume the rest are too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Your politics appears to be severely distorting your perception. And I do mean severely.
I am not familiar with his politics, though my vague impression is that he's somewhat middle-of-the-road.

But if he's in fact a right-winger then you might want to consider the possibility that your politics - and that of the other liberals posting here - is distorting your perception.

Quote:
The last one suggests that because certain facts carry emotional baggage that the science should be conducted entirely differently from how science is actually conducted! It basically says that it's OK to publish new findings about quantum mechanics based on strong evidence, but science must shut up about findings that might upset some people even when those findings are based on equivalently strong evidence. This is gibbering nonsense.
If you pay more attention to that OP, you'll see that he did not actually take that position, but raised the question as to whether it's appropriate; he seemed to be attributing that particular position to other people and questioning whether it was logical.

But beyond that, there's a substantive difference between questioning whether science should demand a higher level of proof on matters that are "highly emotional, sensitive or potentially offensive nature" and saying "Should science be based on facts or feelings?"

Quote:
The penultimate one was misstated by both of you -- it's capital punishment vs. combat killing, but again it seeks to make a ridiculous comparison.
What do you mean by "misstated by both of you"? All I did was directly quote Ethilrist and assert that this was incorrect. What misstatement are you attributing to me here?

As to the point itself, it's not a completely compelling position but far from "ridiculous". It successfully established that you cannot take an absolutist position against taking human life and use that as the basis for your opposition to the death penalty, which makes opposition to the death penalty need to stand on other grounds. Which isn't to say that it can't, but there are people who feel that the government has no right to take any human life ever, and it would be a counter-argument to that specific position.

Certainly it's much less of a ridiculous position than those who say "you can't oppose abortion and support the death penalty", which is very frequently trotted out around here by people who don't get Pitted over it.

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 07-27-2016 at 03:44 PM.
  #21  
Old 07-27-2016, 04:03 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup;19510669[B
Velocity[/B]...Velocity's OP there was sufficiently annoying that I was going to reply but never got around to it. Basically it says, "hey, here's a brain fart I just had and spent a whole 12 seconds thinking about before posting...
Yep. That's exactly it. (I purposely left off the political part because I hadn't even noticed that.)
  #22  
Old 07-27-2016, 04:15 PM
Spice Weasel is offline
Guest
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
As to the point itself, it's not a completely compelling position but far from "ridiculous". It successfully established that you cannot take an absolutist position against taking human life and use that as the basis for your opposition to the death penalty...
This is the straw man I see, though. The vast majority of people against the death penalty don't take an absolutist position against taking human life. People's views on when killing is justified tend to be quite complex. All you have to do is talk to someone who is anti-death penalty to learn this, which is maybe what Velocity is trying to do with his OPs, but in this case he's very much begging the question. (This works for pro-life folks, too, as you've pointed out...with the added complication that pro-life folks tend to be religiously motivated, in which case I can acknowledge the complexity of When Killing Is Acceptable but cannot reconcile it with the absolutist moral framework of many organized religions.) So I find the former inherently more ridiculous and strawman-y than the latter.

Last edited by Spice Weasel; 07-27-2016 at 04:16 PM.
  #23  
Old 07-27-2016, 04:36 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
This is the straw man I see, though. The vast majority of people against the death penalty don't take an absolutist position against taking human life. People's views on when killing is justified tend to be quite complex. All you have to do is talk to someone who is anti-death penalty to learn this, which is maybe what Velocity is trying to do with his OPs, but in this case he's very much begging the question.
Hard to say what "the vast majority" think, but there certainly seem to be quite a lot of opponents whose opposition is based on some sort of simple absolutist position. A couple of random examples here and here. Enough, IMO, to make that point worthy of consideration.
  #24  
Old 07-27-2016, 04:51 PM
Ethilrist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I can't speak to all of them because I didn't read them all, but starting in reverse order, the last one was most definitely not "Should science be based on facts or feelings?", and the penultimate was not "Cops killing people is totally the same as soldiers in wartime, right?". I assume Ethilrist was equally "accurate" in the rest of his summaries.
mmmkay, fine. Your turn. Condense each of his OP's linked in the, well, OP, down to a one-sentence question.

Go!
  #25  
Old 07-27-2016, 05:06 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,947
That sounds like something my teachers might have made me do back in elementary school. Fortunately I've risen past that by now.
  #26  
Old 07-27-2016, 05:38 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,439
But not past the "I could do it much better than you, I just don't want to!" phase of child development.
  #27  
Old 07-27-2016, 05:50 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,947
I plead guilty to that. Though I don't consider it a "phase of child development".

Neither do you, of course. You're just saying it to be cute, as with everything else you say. Fortunately for you, you actually are cute, so you get a pass, I guess.
  #28  
Old 07-27-2016, 06:11 PM
Spice Weasel is offline
Guest
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I plead guilty to that. Though I don't consider it a "phase of child development".

Neither do you, of course. You're just saying it to be cute, as with everything else you say. Fortunately for you, you actually are cute, so you get a pass, I guess.
Vinyl Turnip is the cutest.
  #29  
Old 07-27-2016, 06:13 PM
Ethilrist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,987
Given that the point of this pitting is to say that somebody has a tendency to start threads with a ridiculous OP and then deny any attempts to point out how he's being ridiculous, looks like you'll fit right in.

Somebody asked for a summary, I gave a summary. You pissed on it because I couldn't be bothered to dredge my way through all of his horrific OP's while admitting that you hadn't either.

Put up or shut up. Tell us what perfectly reasonable questions he's asking in these threads.
  #30  
Old 07-27-2016, 06:24 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
FWIW, I thought your survey was excellent. Plenty of (well dissevered) sarcasm, but not so much as to distort the facts beyond reasonableness. A+

Please advance to the head of the class!

Last edited by John Mace; 07-27-2016 at 06:25 PM.
  #31  
Old 07-27-2016, 06:27 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,969
Seconded. Griping about how Ethilrist's analysis was wrong without be willing to provide your versions is inane. It also completely undermines any credibility you might have. For the record, however, I think you have none.
  #32  
Old 07-27-2016, 06:44 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Plus, now the SDMB has a go-to guy for whenever such surveys are needed!!

Ethilrist for Lord of the Surveys!! (It's a life-long appointment )

Last edited by John Mace; 07-27-2016 at 06:44 PM.
  #33  
Old 07-27-2016, 06:45 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
Vinyl Turnip is the cutest.
Thanks. You don't think the ringlet curls and giant lollipop are a bit de trop?
  #34  
Old 07-27-2016, 07:34 PM
Spice Weasel is offline
Guest
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Plus, now the SDMB has a go-to guy for whenever such surveys are needed!!

Ethilrist for Lord of the Surveys!! (It's a life-long appointment )
Oh my God. I know this is the Pit, but this is just cruel.
  #35  
Old 07-28-2016, 09:09 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
Vinyl Turnip is the cutest.
Can't really argue with that. Problem is a lot of wannabes who share the same lack of substance with unsuccessful attempts at being funny. But VT generally pulls it off, and is an asset to the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Somebody asked for a summary, I gave a summary. You pissed on it because I couldn't be bothered to dredge my way through all of his horrific OP's while admitting that you hadn't either.

Put up or shut up. Tell us what perfectly reasonable questions he's asking in these threads.
So you're admitting that you yourself didn't even read through the very OPs that you were summarizing? That's remarkable.

I didn't feel the need to read through all the OPs, having read through the complete OPs of the few that I commented on. But I wasn't purporting to offer a summary of those threads, as you were, and that's not something I'm interesting in taking on.

If I noticed some people taking the National Enquirer at face value, I might inform them that the NE has a reputation for not being accurate. That doesn't mean I would feel some obligation to put out a competing version of the NE, with a more accurate take on all their stories. I doubt if you would do any different. Most likely you would neither put up nor shut up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
FWIW, I thought your survey was excellent. Plenty of (well dissevered) sarcasm, but not so much as to distort the facts beyond reasonableness. A+
Sarcasm has a place as a rhetorical device, when the actual facts are known. A sarcastic presentation of the facts can't replace the actual facts, and people not inclined to wade through a lot of info can't properly rely on a sarcastic version of it as genuine.

I did not comment on Ethilrist's post when he first made it, but when it appeared that people were taking it seriously I thought it worthwhile to point out that he did not seem to be striving for the highest degree of accuracy, if you'll permit a bit of an understatement.

What's interesting about your approach here is the juxtaposition of this with your attitude in a concurrent ATMB thread. There, you are the main voice arguing for an extreme (and ridiculous, IMO) position opposing the use of inserting bracketed explanations into quoted remarks, based on the notion that someone could possibly misinterpret the quotee's position, even though this would only be possible if the reader missed the entire meaning of the post and context of the conversation. This seems strikingly at odds with your attitude here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddsun View Post
Griping about how Ethilrist's analysis was wrong without be willing to provide your versions is inane. It also completely undermines any credibility you might have. For the record, however, I think you have none.
What's the relevance of "credibility" here? (Are you sure you know what credibility means?)
  #36  
Old 07-28-2016, 09:12 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Has anyone invited the Man of Honor to this thread?
  #37  
Old 07-28-2016, 11:32 AM
Askthepizzaguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,910
I looked in Great Debates today, and skimming just the titles of threads from the top of the page to the bottom, without scrolling down, I noticed 4 threads which seemed questionable based on their titles.

Specifically:

"Race doesn't exist" and affirmative action: Can't have cake and eat it too
What do people claim was the reason for a Benghazi "stand down" order?
Why abortions would/wouldn't be legal all the way up to childbirth
The frequently-used "Blacks kill blacks, and it's overlooked" argument (Black Lives Matter)

Each one of these appears to be built on a really unsound premise.

I thought this person was spam trolling and JAQing off, like a Glenn Beck acolyte, so I clicked them all and read up.

The first one was debunked immediately, as soon as the thread opened. OP wanted to say it's illogical to point out that race is more a social construct than a scientific fact, while also addressing the impact of racism in our society. The premise is, if race doesn't exist, then racists don't exist and societal problems caused by racists don't exist. That premise is absurd on the face of it, but, if you have a skewed view of society which says that people advocating for equality are all lunatics, and that either racist ideas are okay, or addressing racism is folly, then you've got a motive for making such a silly comparison. It's a pretty bad premise.

The second one appears to perpetuate myths about the Benghazi thing, which have already been debunked, and it is phrased as Just Asking Questions. The OP isn't that bad, since it actually seems to be questioning the mindset one would have to have to think that Clinton deliberately ordered no response to the attack. It's one thing to believe career liar Hillary would have lied, I absolutely believe she'd say anything to serve her own self-interest, especially if she did something wrong, but here's a case where she didn't do anything wrong, and it's also that there's no self-interest being served by the narrative spun by her opponents. It doesn't even make self-serving logical sense. On closer inspection, I am not sure this thread is even JAQing off. Seems okay.

The third one attempts to put the question to proponents of legal abortion by suggesting that it's illogical to do anything but to ban abortions altogether or to allow them all the way up to childbirth, which essentially makes the argument that if one is squeamish about killing a fully-developed fetus during a partial birth abortion, then they should also have similar qualms about aborting when the cells are just an undifferentiated microscopic lump. There's really no other reason to open up the topic. That suggests an ignorance of the opposing position, willful or otherwise. But it's fine to question the reasoning or policies of one's opponents. Other than having a misunderstanding of his apparent opposition, I am not sure I care that this thread exists.

The fourth one seems to suggest that black people shouldn't be upset about illegal and unethical and unwarranted killings of black people who are unarmed and cooperating with police, or armed but cooperating and fully informing the officer that they were armed and made no attempt to reach for the gun, or unarmed people who are resisting arrest who are killed in situations where, if it were a white person, probably would have made it home alive. The reason they shouldn't be upset about this is because they already live in high crime neighborhoods infested with drugs where they are likelier to be murdered than they would be in a less impoverished area, and that their murderer is likely to be from that area, and since the area is a ghetto where minorities on the margins are gathered together, the shooter might look like them in terms of skin color. It's kind of like someone arguing that they shouldn't be upset that they got punched in the face by one person, because they got kicked in the gut by another person. Obviously the two should cancel each other out, if the assailants are different skin colors. Or what logic are we even using here? As someone in this thread said, why aren't they protesting and fighting against cancer instead? Cancer also kills black people. Since Black Lives Matter isn't a group of cancer fighting scientists, they're nothing but hypocrites. They can't advocate for one cause affecting the group, they must advocate for all causes simultaneously or else it's hypocrisy.

This line of thinking, and many others, is not stated outright, but it's what I'm picking up on: That liberals base policies on their bad orthodoxy and if they could just wake up, they'd see the light. So all it takes is a really insightful bit of rhetoric and they'll come around. It's just that the Velocity threads are ripe with bad assumptions or poorly argued or not argued at all, and it's up to the readers to even figure out what point Velocity is trying to make without saying it directly.

So their main crime is that they're ineffective.


In fact, you click on these threads and you see that the OPs themselves aren't objectionable other than the really bad premises they're built on. But there's a lot of fallacious thinking involved and poor reasoning in general. There's certainly some JAQing off involved here. Particularly if this person has made so many threads.

Not all of them are bad, though.

So I was thinking if I should pit this person, and after reading all four, I felt like... no... this person has committed the crime of being apparently conservative and is using faulty premises. Some of this person's thought patterns might make me look at them like they're crazy, to me, but they're otherwise not causing trouble. Then I looked to see if they were being a dick to the people they apparently disagree with, and I didn't see that.

I saw this thread and looked at their history cited, and yeah, it seems like they create a larger number of threads than I was even aware of which begin with a poorly constructed house of cards, and it's possible the underlying motivations for these many threads are questionable. Is it possible they're just spamming crap threads to bait and troll the opposition? If so, it's too subtle to be effective. It could be useful to go higher on substance and lower on the thread creation frequency, one or the other or both would be fine.

All I can see is that he apparently doesn't understand his opponent's reasoning very well, and has built up a lot of assumptions which are faulty. And I wonder what's going wrong in this person's head that could cause them to be so off-base. But if the question is one of character, it's not a character flaw to have an opposing viewpoint. I actually kind of wonder if this person is Just Asking Questions on purpose, or they're actually trying to create an actual debate by questioning liberal orthodoxy and they're simply bringing some very poor assumptions to the table. Is this borderline behavior salvageable, or is it a waste of time to engage?

I don't know, and don't care enough to really find out. But as to the points made by Jimmy Chitwood- yeah, makes a lot of threads and doesn't necessarily engage too much after making them. And the premises are often very poor from where I sit.

So, to Velocity, I suggest actually having a conversation at length with your political opponents as opposed to playing a gotcha game with your thread spamming. Given that you otherwise don't seem like a dick, that might be a thread I'd like to read.

And since I'm in the pit, I'll jazz this post up with some insults: Donald Trump is a bullshit artist and a terrible human being in general, and Hillary Clinton is a career liar who represents only the establishment and the status quo. One is worse than the other, but let's not polish any turds.
  #38  
Old 07-28-2016, 11:34 AM
Askthepizzaguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Has anyone invited the Man of Honor to this thread?
I just pinged him via PM just in case it hasnt been done yet
  #39  
Old 07-28-2016, 11:35 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy View Post
I looked in Great Debates today, and skimming just the titles of threads from the top of the page to the bottom, without scrolling down, I noticed 4 threads which seemed questionable based on their titles.

Specifically:

"Race doesn't exist" and affirmative action: Can't have cake and eat it too
What do people claim was the reason for a Benghazi "stand down" order?
Why abortions would/wouldn't be legal all the way up to childbirth
The frequently-used "Blacks kill blacks, and it's overlooked" argument (Black Lives Matter)

Each one of these appears to be built on a really unsound premise.

I thought this person was spam trolling and JAQing off, like a Glenn Beck acolyte, so I clicked them all and read up.

The first one was debunked immediately, as soon as the thread opened. OP wanted to say it's illogical to point out that race is more a social construct than a scientific fact, while also addressing the impact of racism in our society. The premise is, if race doesn't exist, then racists don't exist and societal problems caused by racists don't exist. That premise is absurd on the face of it, but, if you have a skewed view of society which says that people advocating for equality are all lunatics, and that either racist ideas are okay, or addressing racism is folly, then you've got a motive for making such a silly comparison. It's a pretty bad premise.

The second one appears to perpetuate myths about the Benghazi thing, which have already been debunked, and it is phrased as Just Asking Questions. The OP isn't that bad, since it actually seems to be questioning the mindset one would have to have to think that Clinton deliberately ordered no response to the attack. It's one thing to believe career liar Hillary would have lied, I absolutely believe she'd say anything to serve her own self-interest, especially if she did something wrong, but here's a case where she didn't do anything wrong, and it's also that there's no self-interest being served by the narrative spun by her opponents. It doesn't even make self-serving logical sense. On closer inspection, I am not sure this thread is even JAQing off. Seems okay.

The third one attempts to put the question to proponents of legal abortion by suggesting that it's illogical to do anything but to ban abortions altogether or to allow them all the way up to childbirth, which essentially makes the argument that if one is squeamish about killing a fully-developed fetus during a partial birth abortion, then they should also have similar qualms about aborting when the cells are just an undifferentiated microscopic lump. There's really no other reason to open up the topic. That suggests an ignorance of the opposing position, willful or otherwise. But it's fine to question the reasoning or policies of one's opponents. Other than having a misunderstanding of his apparent opposition, I am not sure I care that this thread exists.

The fourth one seems to suggest that black people shouldn't be upset about illegal and unethical and unwarranted killings of black people who are unarmed and cooperating with police, or armed but cooperating and fully informing the officer that they were armed and made no attempt to reach for the gun, or unarmed people who are resisting arrest who are killed in situations where, if it were a white person, probably would have made it home alive. The reason they shouldn't be upset about this is because they already live in high crime neighborhoods infested with drugs where they are likelier to be murdered than they would be in a less impoverished area, and that their murderer is likely to be from that area, and since the area is a ghetto where minorities on the margins are gathered together, the shooter might look like them in terms of skin color. It's kind of like someone arguing that they shouldn't be upset that they got punched in the face by one person, because they got kicked in the gut by another person. Obviously the two should cancel each other out, if the assailants are different skin colors. Or what logic are we even using here? As someone in this thread said, why aren't they protesting and fighting against cancer instead? Cancer also kills black people. Since Black Lives Matter isn't a group of cancer fighting scientists, they're nothing but hypocrites. They can't advocate for one cause affecting the group, they must advocate for all causes simultaneously or else it's hypocrisy.

This line of thinking, and many others, is not stated outright, but it's what I'm picking up on: That liberals base policies on their bad orthodoxy and if they could just wake up, they'd see the light. So all it takes is a really insightful bit of rhetoric and they'll come around. It's just that the Velocity threads are ripe with bad assumptions or poorly argued or not argued at all, and it's up to the readers to even figure out what point Velocity is trying to make without saying it directly.

So their main crime is that they're ineffective.


In fact, you click on these threads and you see that the OPs themselves aren't objectionable other than the really bad premises they're built on. But there's a lot of fallacious thinking involved and poor reasoning in general. There's certainly some JAQing off involved here. Particularly if this person has made so many threads.

Not all of them are bad, though.

So I was thinking if I should pit this person, and after reading all four, I felt like... no... this person has committed the crime of being apparently conservative and is using faulty premises. Some of this person's thought patterns might make me look at them like they're crazy, to me, but they're otherwise not causing trouble. Then I looked to see if they were being a dick to the people they apparently disagree with, and I didn't see that.

I saw this thread and looked at their history cited, and yeah, it seems like they create a larger number of threads than I was even aware of which begin with a poorly constructed house of cards, and it's possible the underlying motivations for these many threads are questionable. Is it possible they're just spamming crap threads to bait and troll the opposition? If so, it's too subtle to be effective. It could be useful to go higher on substance and lower on the thread creation frequency, one or the other or both would be fine.

All I can see is that he apparently doesn't understand his opponent's reasoning very well, and has built up a lot of assumptions which are faulty. And I wonder what's going wrong in this person's head that could cause them to be so off-base. But if the question is one of character, it's not a character flaw to have an opposing viewpoint. I actually kind of wonder if this person is Just Asking Questions on purpose, or they're actually trying to create an actual debate by questioning liberal orthodoxy and they're simply bringing some very poor assumptions to the table. Is this borderline behavior salvageable, or is it a waste of time to engage?

I don't know, and don't care enough to really find out. But as to the points made by Jimmy Chitwood- yeah, makes a lot of threads and doesn't necessarily engage too much after making them. And the premises are often very poor from where I sit.

So, to Velocity, I suggest actually having a conversation at length with your political opponents as opposed to playing a gotcha game with your thread spamming. Given that you otherwise don't seem like a dick, that might be a thread I'd like to read.

And since I'm in the pit, I'll jazz this post up with some insults: Donald Trump is a bullshit artist and a terrible human being in general, and Hillary Clinton is a career liar who represents only the establishment and the status quo. One is worse than the other, but let's not polish any turds.
Could you make this at least three times longer? I almost gave into the temptation to read it.

TIA.

Regards,
Shodan
  #40  
Old 07-28-2016, 11:58 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Don't discount the possibility that Velocity is sincere and is learning a thing or two in the process.

I know, I know...

But for real. In my experience, the way people change their minds (myself included) in these kind of message board interactions is that they disagree and give no quarter in the actual thread, but then three weeks later the next time the issue comes up, they've moved a little bit. Something subtle, maybe even subconscious, chews on the issue long after the thread is dead.

There are some people whose political identity is so much more about their own signaling and status than about reasoning or what happens in real life that their opinions never really move with debate. But people with heterodox opinions like Velocity tend not to be that way, in my opinion.
  #41  
Old 07-28-2016, 12:25 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Don't discount the possibility that Velocity is sincere and is learning a thing or two in the process.

I know, I know...

But for real. In my experience, the way people change their minds (myself included) in these kind of message board interactions is that they disagree and give no quarter in the actual thread, but then three weeks later the next time the issue comes up, they've moved a little bit. Something subtle, maybe even subconscious, chews on the issue long after the thread is dead.

There are some people whose political identity is so much more about their own signaling and status than about reasoning or what happens in real life that their opinions never really move with debate. But people with heterodox opinions like Velocity tend not to be that way, in my opinion.
As I said earlier, I haven't even noticed his politics. He could do himself a favor by slowing down the "velocity" with which he creates new threads. Concentrate on 1 or 2 per week instead of a dozen or more-- that seems never to turn out well. Quality, not quantity.

Last edited by John Mace; 07-28-2016 at 12:26 PM.
  #42  
Old 07-28-2016, 04:33 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Could you make this at least three times longer? I almost gave into the temptation to read it.

TIA.

Regards,
Shodan
Pizzaguy's post only come "with all the toppings". None of this picking and choosing bullshit.
  #43  
Old 07-28-2016, 04:49 PM
Kimballkid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,883
He could skip the anchovies though.
  #44  
Old 07-29-2016, 01:07 AM
Spice Weasel is offline
Guest
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Don't discount the possibility that Velocity is sincere and is learning a thing or two in the process.

I know, I know...

But for real. In my experience, the way people change their minds (myself included) in these kind of message board interactions is that they disagree and give no quarter in the actual thread, but then three weeks later the next time the issue comes up, they've moved a little bit. Something subtle, maybe even subconscious, chews on the issue long after the thread is dead.
This is my interpretation also.

For the record, Ethilrist and Fotheringay, it took me less than 10 minutes to click those links and read the OPs of each, which is probably less time than you've spent arguiing with each other.

Askthepizzaguy, please post more often.

Last edited by Spice Weasel; 07-29-2016 at 01:07 AM.
  #45  
Old 07-29-2016, 11:32 AM
Drunky Smurf's Avatar
Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 11,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy View Post
I looked in Great Debates today, and skimming just the titles of threads from the top of the page to the bottom, without scrolling down, I noticed 4 threads which seemed questionable based on their titles.

Specifically:

"Race doesn't exist" and affirmative action: Can't have cake and eat it too
What do people claim was the reason for a Benghazi "stand down" order?
Why abortions would/wouldn't be legal all the way up to childbirth
The frequently-used "Blacks kill blacks, and it's overlooked" argument (Black Lives Matter)

Each one of these appears to be built on a really unsound premise.

I thought this person was spam trolling and JAQing off, like a Glenn Beck acolyte, so I clicked them all and read up.

The first one was debunked immediately, as soon as the thread opened. OP wanted to say it's illogical to point out that race is more a social construct than a scientific fact, while also addressing the impact of racism in our society. The premise is, if race doesn't exist, then racists don't exist and societal problems caused by racists don't exist. That premise is absurd on the face of it, but, if you have a skewed view of society which says that people advocating for equality are all lunatics, and that either racist ideas are okay, or addressing racism is folly, then you've got a motive for making such a silly comparison. It's a pretty bad premise.

The second one appears to perpetuate myths about the Benghazi thing, which have already been debunked, and it is phrased as Just Asking Questions. The OP isn't that bad, since it actually seems to be questioning the mindset one would have to have to think that Clinton deliberately ordered no response to the attack. It's one thing to believe career liar Hillary would have lied, I absolutely believe she'd say anything to serve her own self-interest, especially if she did something wrong, but here's a case where she didn't do anything wrong, and it's also that there's no self-interest being served by the narrative spun by her opponents. It doesn't even make self-serving logical sense. On closer inspection, I am not sure this thread is even JAQing off. Seems okay.

The third one attempts to put the question to proponents of legal abortion by suggesting that it's illogical to do anything but to ban abortions altogether or to allow them all the way up to childbirth, which essentially makes the argument that if one is squeamish about killing a fully-developed fetus during a partial birth abortion, then they should also have similar qualms about aborting when the cells are just an undifferentiated microscopic lump. There's really no other reason to open up the topic. That suggests an ignorance of the opposing position, willful or otherwise. But it's fine to question the reasoning or policies of one's opponents. Other than having a misunderstanding of his apparent opposition, I am not sure I care that this thread exists.

The fourth one seems to suggest that black people shouldn't be upset about illegal and unethical and unwarranted killings of black people who are unarmed and cooperating with police, or armed but cooperating and fully informing the officer that they were armed and made no attempt to reach for the gun, or unarmed people who are resisting arrest who are killed in situations where, if it were a white person, probably would have made it home alive. The reason they shouldn't be upset about this is because they already live in high crime neighborhoods infested with drugs where they are likelier to be murdered than they would be in a less impoverished area, and that their murderer is likely to be from that area, and since the area is a ghetto where minorities on the margins are gathered together, the shooter might look like them in terms of skin color. It's kind of like someone arguing that they shouldn't be upset that they got punched in the face by one person, because they got kicked in the gut by another person. Obviously the two should cancel each other out, if the assailants are different skin colors. Or what logic are we even using here? As someone in this thread said, why aren't they protesting and fighting against cancer instead? Cancer also kills black people. Since Black Lives Matter isn't a group of cancer fighting scientists, they're nothing but hypocrites. They can't advocate for one cause affecting the group, they must advocate for all causes simultaneously or else it's hypocrisy.

This line of thinking, and many others, is not stated outright, but it's what I'm picking up on: That liberals base policies on their bad orthodoxy and if they could just wake up, they'd see the light. So all it takes is a really insightful bit of rhetoric and they'll come around. It's just that the Velocity threads are ripe with bad assumptions or poorly argued or not argued at all, and it's up to the readers to even figure out what point Velocity is trying to make without saying it directly.

So their main crime is that they're ineffective.


In fact, you click on these threads and you see that the OPs themselves aren't objectionable other than the really bad premises they're built on. But there's a lot of fallacious thinking involved and poor reasoning in general. There's certainly some JAQing off involved here. Particularly if this person has made so many threads.

Not all of them are bad, though.

So I was thinking if I should pit this person, and after reading all four, I felt like... no... this person has committed the crime of being apparently conservative and is using faulty premises. Some of this person's thought patterns might make me look at them like they're crazy, to me, but they're otherwise not causing trouble. Then I looked to see if they were being a dick to the people they apparently disagree with, and I didn't see that.

I saw this thread and looked at their history cited, and yeah, it seems like they create a larger number of threads than I was even aware of which begin with a poorly constructed house of cards, and it's possible the underlying motivations for these many threads are questionable. Is it possible they're just spamming crap threads to bait and troll the opposition? If so, it's too subtle to be effective. It could be useful to go higher on substance and lower on the thread creation frequency, one or the other or both would be fine.

All I can see is that he apparently doesn't understand his opponent's reasoning very well, and has built up a lot of assumptions which are faulty. And I wonder what's going wrong in this person's head that could cause them to be so off-base. But if the question is one of character, it's not a character flaw to have an opposing viewpoint. I actually kind of wonder if this person is Just Asking Questions on purpose, or they're actually trying to create an actual debate by questioning liberal orthodoxy and they're simply bringing some very poor assumptions to the table. Is this borderline behavior salvageable, or is it a waste of time to engage?

I don't know, and don't care enough to really find out. But as to the points made by Jimmy Chitwood- yeah, makes a lot of threads and doesn't necessarily engage too much after making them. And the premises are often very poor from where I sit.

So, to Velocity, I suggest actually having a conversation at length with your political opponents as opposed to playing a gotcha game with your thread spamming. Given that you otherwise don't seem like a dick, that might be a thread I'd like to read.

And since I'm in the pit, I'll jazz this post up with some insults: Donald Trump is a bullshit artist and a terrible human being in general, and Hillary Clinton is a career liar who represents only the establishment and the status quo. One is worse than the other, but let's not polish any turds.
Since this is the Dope I have to point out that you missed a coma or two in there.
  #46  
Old 07-30-2016, 03:46 AM
The Librarian's Avatar
The Librarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Delft
Posts: 1,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
Since this is the Dope I have to point out that you missed a coma or two in there.
Mmmmmm
  #47  
Old 07-30-2016, 03:54 AM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Librarian View Post
Mmmmmm
You misspelled "Oook."
  #48  
Old 07-30-2016, 03:36 PM
Askthepizzaguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,910
Just so you understand, readers, he meant to say coma, not comma, because I type too damned much and it frequently induces comas.

:P

I'm aware.
  #49  
Old 07-30-2016, 04:04 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy View Post
I looked in Great Debates today, and skimming just the titles of threads from the top of the page to the bottom, without scrolling down, I noticed 4 threads which seemed questionable based on their titles ...

<snip>

... All I can see is that he apparently doesn't understand his opponent's reasoning very well, and has built up a lot of assumptions which are faulty. And I wonder what's going wrong in this person's head that could cause them to be so off-base. But if the question is one of character, it's not a character flaw to have an opposing viewpoint. I actually kind of wonder if this person is Just Asking Questions on purpose, or they're actually trying to create an actual debate by questioning liberal orthodoxy and they're simply bringing some very poor assumptions to the table. Is this borderline behavior salvageable, or is it a waste of time to engage?

I don't know, and don't care enough to really find out. But as to the points made by Jimmy Chitwood- yeah, makes a lot of threads and doesn't necessarily engage too much after making them. And the premises are often very poor from where I sit ...
So basically you're agreeing with the OP: Velocity posts ill-thought-out brain farts that make little sense, and he posts them far too often.
  #50  
Old 07-30-2016, 04:28 PM
Askthepizzaguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,910
If it's okay to not have a binary position, I'd lean more towards agreement than disagreement, yes.

But, I've seen much worse.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017