From what I’ve read of TheRyan’s posts, he doesn’t just chop logic - he drops it in a blender set to “liquify.”
He is also the Supreme Arbiter of What is a Cite, as well as Lexicographer Extrodanaire. “Avast, ye scrofulous swine!” spews he, “I do not accept your measly ‘cite’ because it contains facts! Yeah verily! It contains facts that gainsay mine own lofty Opinion! Bow down and accept my views on what a righteous cite is! Nay! I will eschew the ‘professional opinions’ of so-called ‘experts’ in a given field if they contradict my Holy Dictionary.com! AAAAhahahahaha! So it is written! So it is!”
Disclaimer: For the humor impaired, the above is a satirical take on TheRyan’s “debating” style, as illistrated by him in the above referenced thread, among others. Do not try this at home, or in front of a live audience: it could get you a black eye or at the very least, some weird looks. Carry on.
I always figured that when a cite was asked for, it was to be understood that it would be a cite that backs up the askee’s claims, not just for a cite of any random fact that might happen to be of interest. Then again, you do seem to have a habit of purposely misinterpreting other people’s words. That, of course, is merely an un-citeable personal impression I have.
Learn to read, asshole. Reread Shayna’s comment, quoted below for your convenience, taking special note of what exactly the word “all” is modifying. Relevant section is bolded.
And I don’t see what complaint you would have if you were complaining that some people were inadequate in their explication of what their cites said exactly, if Shayna had already posted it clearly. Were you expecting everyone to rephrase her post for your convenience? Does everyone need to repeat what has already been sufficiently explained?
Incidentally, shortly after Shayna and iampunha (in this post) post relevant and well documented support from the DSM-IV and the UC Davis School of Psychology, carefully explaining their positions and quoting liberally, you post (in a post two below iampunha’s):
and
So, obviously, after those two posts, you still seemed to think that no one had provided such cites. Now you seem to be claiming not only that you never said that, but that you actually found Shayna’s post to be an adequate example of citation. (Yes, I now that you never explicitly said that about her post, but when she used her post as an example, you made sure to note that you never said that all cites in the thread were inadequate, so I surmise that you were inferring that you agreed that her post was an acceptable citation.)
The Ryan is arguing that male-male molestation is inarguably homosexual conduct. It seems at first that he is sneakily trying to distinguish between conduct and sexual orientation (i.e. homosexual conduct doesn’t necessarily equal homosexuality), which might (might, but I doubt it) get him out of losing this bet. But here’s the kicker (found again here), where he shows his belief that conduct and orientation are identical:
And further support of this theory (that The Ryan believes conduct and orientation to be identical) is to be found here, debating Esprix’ and Polycarp’s arguments that male-male child molestation is not necessarily homosexuality and that ‘normal homosexuality’ is consensual where child molestation is not:
And one more, from this post, where he characterizes the following as a ‘fact,’
So. The Ryan’s syllogism:
claim #1: male-male molestation is ‘clearly homosexual conduct.’
claim #2: orientation is defined by conduct.
Conclusion: male-male molesation is homosexuality. Or, in other words, “male-male molestation is always committed by homosexuals.”
I fully expect to see some attempts to weasel out of this, possibly including, but not limited to:
[li] Attacks on the logic in this post[sup]1[/sup];[/li][li] Arguments based on his use of the word ‘always’ (I would contend that the logic in the syllogism is so airtight that male-male molestation is necessarily committed by homosexuals, since only homosexuals engage in homosexual behavior, so that logically excludes heterosexuals from engaging in homosexual behavior, which logically excludes heterosexuals from male-male molestation, ergo, only homosexuals can commit male-male molestations, and therefore, male-male molestation is only and always committed by homosexuals. Whew.);[/li][li] Other semantic nitpicks (possibly along the lines of arguing that I was unable to find a quote where The Ryan actually says the very words ‘male-male molestation is always committed by homosexuals’);[/li][li] Requests for cites (I tried my hardest to cite everything[sup]2[/sup] to specific posts to make it easier to find the quoted sections. A little scrolling might be involved, since most of The Ryan’s posts are long, but there’s no way to get any closer than this);[/li][li] Presentation of quotes of some of his later statements that muddy the issue (without addressing the argument I make here); and[/li][li] Completely ignoring this post.[/li]So, The Ryan, hoping to see that new sig in your next post.[sup]3[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup] I know that [li] doesn’t make bullets any more. But I still like it. Maybe one day it’ll work again.[/li][sup]2[/sup] I cited all quotes to links to specific posts. I can’t help it if nobody wants to click on the links to verify that they all go to the posts that contain the quote that I present. I double-checked and verified them all. There’s really nothing else I can do. I would provide a link to this post itself, in case anyone asks for a cite proving that I proved my point, but I can’t figure out any way to do that right now.
[sup]3[/sup] I believe I have made a pretty solid case here to prove that The Ryan made the argument that male-male molestation is always committed by homosexuals. I haven’t posted to this thread (or the other one) until now, and I don’t plan on posting again, unless someone attacks a specific claim that I have made here. I only make one claim (that The Ryan did in fact make the argument that male-male molestation is always committed by homosexuals), and as I said I believe this claim to be solidly presented in this post, so hopefully I’m done here. I didn’t want to roil the waters, just wanted to be helpful, since no one had addressed this issue as of yet, and I wanted to see that sig.
Your statement that the inflammatory reading was “at odds with the meaning” of the phrase has been disproven by a demonstration that the reading in question conforms to common grammatical structures.
Here’s another.
Your statement that you would have said “okay” if somoen had expressed concerns about the phrase “homosexual conduct” and suggested an alternative terminology is proven false by direct demonstration. Of course, even after having this pointed out, you insist upon both using the phrase and trying to weasel out of your clear statement. The first brands you a liar. The second is simply pathetic.
By the way, a bit later you posted: *And a connotation of “connotation” is that it is the feelings that people in general have about the word, not what one person in particular feels about it. * This, of course, directly contradicts your attempt to weasel out of “bad connotations” by pretending it meant "[my own] feelings were the main issue. Like I said, pathetic.
"If I mean conduct that is done by homosexuals, I will use the term “conduct of homosexuals”. I will not allow my vocabulary to be dictated by other people’s insistence on reading my statements in a manner completely at odds with their meaning. "
“If all you wanted me to do is to change my word choice, I could have dealt with that.”
So you can deal with word choice, but you will not allow your word choice (word choice/vocabulary) to be dictated by others’ understanding of the … forget it. I don’t care. This is giving me a headache.
Great post White Lightning (better by far than I could have done) but you missed one possible response. What Waverly over here cleverly called “Vivisection by vB code”
could be Ryaned into:
I
You use the word “I”. Please define who you mean by “I”. Pronouns need anteceedents.
fully
100% Fully MEANS 100%. Every molecule of your body feels this way?
expect
Expect isn’t the word you’re looking for. You hate me so you anticipate. Expect implies neutrality.
to
Cite?
see
“see” as opposed to “read”? Explain yourself.
some
Some? Some is less than half. If it’s only ‘some’ then why are you even discussing it.
attempts
I resent the use of that word.
to
Again. Cite?
weasel
Are you sure? I suspect you’re thinking of an aardvark or a coatamundi
etc.
What’s funny/sad is that this thread had (or was about to) drop off page one and was well on it’s way to being forgotten…until TheRyan ressurected it, in honor of Easter, no doubt.
The things some people do for attention.
The Amazing Fenris Predicts: TheRyan will now demand that I cite were he’s done this exact thing.
