Are we just ignoring Der Trihs (This isn't a Pitting, but I don't know where else to put it.)

[Godinama]

I like the guy :eek:

Randy and ol’ Silverstreak Wonder, on the other hand…

[adhay]

@mswas

My problem is Der Trihs’s irrational propensity for calling his personal opinion a fact.

Totally agree. His opinion that the Dems are “pussies” for not standing up to the Pubs and making good on Obama’s campaign promises is just a regurgitation of the Corporate Party Line which is Pay your taxes and blame your favorite pol while we hoover the Treasury, destroy the planet and deny decent living standards to everyone not in our pocket.

It is a fact that the Dems and Pubs are complicit and collusive in greasing the slippery slope to Earth Inc. How do I know? (cite:cool:)

[suranyi]

@Indistinguishable

It’s already been covered, but:

Der Trihs was far from the only person in that thread posting positions they consider clearly true with respect to what is moral, ethical, good, etc. So, yes, I don’t consider him out of line in any way. Perhaps you don’t agree with what he said? Perhaps you think some of what he said was inaccurate? Well, whoop-di-doo. That’s the whole fucking point of the thread.

Sure. That’s the stated purpose of the thread. If you don’t like it, your problem’s with the OP who started that thread and the mods who’ve enforced the prohibition on debate within it, not with Der Trihs.

I don’t agree with everything he said. But, as I said above, his posts in that thread were not in any way anomalous.

This may be a hijack, but I thought that thread was a train wreck from the very first sentence. It’s bunch of people saying: “I’m right, everyone who disagrees is wrong!” with no context or discussion.

[Indistinguishable]

Yes, the outcome was predictable, and I’m surprised the mods chose to let it run the way they did. But, as you note, that’s got nothing to do with Der Trihs.

[billfish678]

@suranyi

“I’m right, everyone who disagrees is wrong!” with no context or discussion.

There’s a French word for that. I’m sure I’ve heard it somewhere before.

[adhay]

@adhay

Totally agree. His opinion that the Dems are “pussies” for not standing up to the Pubs and making good on Obama’s campaign promises is just a regurgitation of the Corporate Party Line which is Pay your taxes and blame your favorite pol while we hoover the Treasury, destroy the planet and deny decent living standards to everyone not in our pocket.

It is a fact that the Dems and Pubs are complicit and collusive in greasing the slippery slope to Earth Inc. How do I know? (cite:cool:)

Please comment, mswas.

[Rand_Rover]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Since I’m pretty sure only I will say it…

Rand! Welcome back, dude!

Thanks man.

[adhay]

@Rand_Rover

Thanks man.

Count me in as well.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@adhay

Count me in as well.

Now they’ll turn against all three of us.

Ah well.

[SenorBeef]

Yeah he’s made a great showing by opening up with the “Barack HUSSEIN Obama” shit. We certainly needed more of that.

[Ichini_Sanshigo]

Give it time. I noticed right before he left his posts were declining in originality and entertainment value. Maybe he needs a grace period to get back in the swing of things.

[foolsguinea]

I actually agree with Der Trihs on some things & think he’s mistaken on others. I don’t follow him around, but sometimes we’re on the same side.

[elfkin477]

@John_Mace

I pretty much stopped responding to his posts awhile back. No point, really. There are probably at least half a dozen posters I treat the same way. A few on the right, a few on the left.

Of course we stopped responding to him. How do you respond to constant insistances that due to your political beliefs you’re evil, immoral, and hate women (even if you are one) and babies (which is neat, I’d rather them not be dead so I hate them. hmm.), anyway? Wild-eyed loonacy is only fun to respond to for a while, then it wears you down.

[Cardinal]

@mswas

He’s not mentally ill, he has Aspergers, which I think explains a lot of his ideas. People with aspergers in my experience fixate on the most simple answer. Which is often true if one isn’t trying to understand subtle variations. It’s a blocky, boxy, simple way to view reality.

Is that verified? If it is, I’m inclined to ignore the junk posts with more of a forgiving heart.

[Bamboo_Boy]

I like the guy. He might be heavy-handed at times, but I think his main “crime” is to NOT treat the religious with kid gloves and a free pass on rationality.

A lot of religious people are offended when confronted by people who don’t cower under social pressure to treat their extremely irrational views as normal or reasonable.

I back DT up completely in the realm of religion. I agree with nearly everything he has to say on the issue (but don’t hold me to it, I can’t be sure I’ve read every last word he has posted on the subject).

I don’t agree with all of his views- we might diverge on politics (but not by all THAT much- it’s more a question of magnitude, typically), fx. But in the realm of religion, he just tells it like it is, and that pisses a lot of people off.

All this may have been said before in some a similar way, shape, or form- I just wanted to chime on DT- I really like reading his posts, and I endorse his view on religion. Keep up the good fight, DT! I’m behind you!!!

Just my 2¢,

-BB

[SenorBeef]

No, his main “crime” is living in a world of ridiculous absolutes, where anyone who holds any portion of various particular set of beliefs becomes pure puppy-stomping evil.

If his only “crime” was his uncompromising view of religion, I’d like the guy a lot more, because he has that one completely right. There are few times when such an absolute world view is justified, and that’s when debunking superstitious nonsense - there’s no “middle position” on the issue and religion should not be treated with kid gloves as if its social status somehow makes believing in fairies reasonable. However, he’s more or less right by coincidence - it’s just that this particular topic justifies his behavior. He applies it the same aggressive, unflinching view towards things which are not so unambiguous and it’s just obnoxious.

[Miller]

Closed zombie thread.

[Miller]

On second thought, this is fresh enough to hang around for a bit longer.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@elfkin477

Of course we stopped responding to him. How do you respond to constant insistances that due to your political beliefs you’re evil, immoral, and hate women (even if you are one) and babies (which is neat, I’d rather them not be dead so I hate them. hmm.), anyway? Wild-eyed loonacy is only fun to respond to for a while, then it wears you down.

The three I remember off the top of my head are

1. Libraries are essential because the government must provide us with news. Newspapers and free-market outlets like the Internet can’t be trusted to provide news or information. The government provides us with choices. Those other outlets do not give us any choices.

2. Consumer product safety laws are required, otherwise lawnmower company executives would plot to deliberately loosen the blades on lawnmowers, which would then kill their customers. The motivation for doing so was unclear.

3. If someone was industrious and entreprenurial enough to risk importing generators into hurricane-ravaged areas like New Orleans, they should sell them at a price the government determines. If they attempt to sell for more, it is justifiable to kill them.

Hence, ignore.

[Der_Trihs]

I don’t normally bother to post in pile-on threads, but outright lies like this bother me. Not that I expect honesty or any other virtue from a libertarian like IdahoMauleMan.

@IdahoMauleMan

The three I remember off the top of my head are

1. Libraries are essential because the government must provide us with news. Newspapers and free-market outlets like the Internet can’t be trusted to provide news or information. The government provides us with choices. Those other outlets do not give us any choices.

I have no idea what you are even talking about here. Sounds like your standard “government bad!” nonsense though.

@IdahoMauleMan

2. Consumer product safety laws are required, otherwise lawnmower company executives would plot to deliberately loosen the blades on lawnmowers, which would then kill their customers. The motivation for doing so was unclear.

No, I said that without safety regulations, and penalties for violating them they wouldn’t bother building lawnmowers well enough that the blades wouldn’t fall off. I know this because that corporate disdain for human life is exactly why the government stepped in in the first place.

@IdahoMauleMan

3. If someone was industrious and entreprenurial enough to risk importing generators into hurricane-ravaged areas like New Orleans, they should sell them at a price the government determines. If they attempt to sell for more, it is justifiable to kill them.

No, I said that if someone went into a disaster area and sold such things at an extortionate price because the alternative was death, that the people faced with death because they couldn’t pay would be in right to kill the extortionist and take what they need to live.