I don’t think that’s quite how it works, The Ryan. What many people do is read and listen to different knowledgeable and insightful views, weigh the merits and, hopefully, question again the position they hold in the light of additional valid information. I suspect, in this comment, you have reflected your own philosophy and not that of the majority on this board.
Ever since your offensive comments in the Hillsborough thread, I have assumed , until now, you are arrogant, ignorant and just not terribly bright and have, on that basis, ignored everything you’ve written. In addition, you combined in that thread all of those unhelpful qualities with a ‘response’ style that was evasive and convoluted. Reading this thread confirms for me that I’m happy to ignore your particular brand of knowledge and insight and that if I want to be agitated by reading tosh, I’ll buy a tabloid. That’s not why I come to this board.
IMHO, I wish you’d find another board on which to share your views because rather than contribute anything meaningful here, you detract from the quality of debate. However, you are, of course, entitled to stay and I hope you continue to read and learn. Just don’t expect this:
“As I have said many times before, and of course been ignored many times before …”
“God, shut the fuck up. You started an entire thread on the definition of “assumption”? Fuck off. You wasted perfectly good electrons.”
Who’s the wastrel…the one who uses up billions of tiny pieces of energy posting the thread, or the one who feels it necessary to point this out in the same thread, wasting even MORE of them?
We’re gonna run out of electrons, and man, are YOU gonna be sorry.
Coldfire, do you have any idea how many electrons had to die for you to tell us that your head hurts.
Well, I don’t either, but I bet it was a lot.
If you have ever seen the inside of an electron slaughter house, you would not have such an easygoing attitude towards their consumption. It’s a travesty.
This board should switch to using only free range electrons, NOW!
It’s a reasonable assumption, and an assumption not needing evidence to back it up by it’s very reasonableness is therefore a priori, ad hoc, en toto, duly acceptable, and reasonable to boot.
An assumption without cite is an unciteable assumption and therefore unquestionable in it’s veracity.
For example: Ducks are not child molesters. Ducks being strictly pastoral waterfowl do not abuse electrons (the static electricity they gain in flight is considered a “fair use” statute.)
One need only consider the sexual proclivities of the notoriously technophile waterfowl; the goose to see the unassailable truth of this rationale.
How is it? Rather misleading, that’s how it is. Here’s the full quote:
From the context, it is clear that “most abusers” was shorthand for “most men who abuse boys”. You see, when people are writing to what they expect to be an audience of perceptive readers, they often avoid extremely unwieldy phrases by relying on their readership’s ability to retain memory of what has been said in the previous sentence. Did I overestimate your reading comprehension skills? If so, here is the sentence in its complete glory:
FYI, I’m writing this in Word, and the preceding sentence is underlined in green. Do you know why? It’s because even a machine running a Microsoft program can figure out that that is an absurdly unwieldy sentence, and it’s recommending that I simplify it somehow. But I guess I can’t do that without you misunderstanding what I’m saying.
Let’s review. I said that it is reasonable to assume that most men that molest boys are homosexual. You disagreed. Do you really not see where you said that assuming that someone who engages in homosexual intercourse is gay is ridiculous?
If you were objecting solely on the basis of common sense, then this might be a valid point. But you said that not just common sense, but that “the premise is or may be faulty”, lead you to reject the argument. And when I call you on it, you go back to “common sense”. Nice little weaseling attempt there. Here’s a little analogy for you: suppose I were to say that since the suspect is black, he must have committed the crime. You reply that this is a bigoted statement. I come back with “Well, 12 impartial witnesses all saw him do it, he was captured on three different cameras, and he confessed to the crime. Your refusal to believe that he did it is unreasonable”. Do you see how silly this is? If you object to my concluding that he’s guilty because he’s black, it is invalid for me to bring in other evidence, because I wasn’t claiming to have made my judgement on the basis of that evidence. Similarly, when I object to your dismissing an argument because its premise “may” be faulty, it is invalid for you to bring in other evidence, because you were not claiming to have based your decision solely on that evidence.
Yet again you drop words when convenient. I said it “borders on censorship”. You know, censorship, as in “to supervise the manners or morality of others”. The original thread was an attempt to censure someone for his manners/morality. Included was an implication that it is simply not acceptable to think that most SS abusers are homosexual. I then pointed out that this is a valid assumption. You said that it was not a valid assumption, and that anyone who made it deserves to be “roasted” (i.e. the proper behavior of posters is to punish people for taking this position). When I pursued this issue, half a dozen people piled on me. So: an unpopular position leads to widespread censure. Is the “bordering on censorship” comment clear now?
Complaining when people argue against a point I’m not even making is a “semantic game”? Why is it that people think that this is a valid counterargument? It is only a slightly more sophisticated version of “I’m rubber, you’re glue”. Unless someone is actually playing semantic games, making this accusation is just as much an admission of defeat as calling them a Nazi.
To say that something is an “assumption” is to imply that it is not supported by facts.
London_Calling
See! This is exactly what I’m talking about! Disagreeing with someone is “offensive”.
“Evasive and convoluted”? I went out of my way to answer questions, even when I knew the person asking them was not at all interested in my position and was just planning on using my answer to jump on me (which he did). And then at the end, people said that I was being “unreasonable” and refused to discuss the matter further, and then proceeded to hijack other threads to talk about it. Kind of like what you’re doing now.
I see. So if you don’t like someone, it’s perfectly fine to ignore what they’re saying, and argue against what they specifically said they aren’t claiming? It’s one thing to completely ignore someone and just not post. But if you’re going to respond to what someone said, I think that it’s rather rude to not actually read what they wrote.
And the purpose of determining that most child molesters are or are not homosexual would be … ?
If we were somehow able to determine that the molestors of male children were, indeed, homosexuals, do we then round up all homosexuals as threats to our little boys?
If you want to stop child molestation, it’s going to take a lot more effort that flipping a switch on your finely tuned gaydar.
Purpose for determining that most child molesters are homosexual: “Proving” the evil of homosexuals, and justifying hatred against them.
Purpose for determining that most child molesters are not homosexual: Showing that the notion is just another piece of anti-gay propaganda, based on Ignorance.
Okay Coldie, I am very upset over that Hello Kitty thing…I loved that stuff as a kid. It helped me be the woman I am today. I hate you, you big poopy head, may Hello Kitty haunt your dreams tonight.
