Do you have your cigarettes yet, David?

The BBQ Pit
81

I am not sure if you meant to implicate me as one of the posters posting “interchangeable with posts at the WN board.”

If you did I would like to point out that I have made my stance very clear and I will, if needed clarify it again. Factually based debate with them will not lead anywhere. The only thing you can do is to try sway the debate towards what it really is about; their personal life experiences, fears and paranoid delusions.

As I noted at some point in the thread in GD there is a line of demarcation when even this is pointless. Sionnach is quite probably beyond that line. She has settled her life around the ideology she embraces. Due to the somewhat misogynist ‘back to the kitchen’ nature of the White Nationalist ideals, Sionnach isn’t likely to go out and discover the world in such a way as she would need to in order to change her mind.

To boot I see a problem with constantly battering her down with facts. Slowly but surely she is stripped down to the old shtick; “I don’t see what so wrong about opposing immigration. The majority of people are and politicians don’t pay attention. Shouldn’t they pay more attention?” Like a harp tuner she sets a new note playing the songs of the politically exhausted, thereby winning points for all her arguments. In fact she has a point that a majority in the western world are quite ambivalent or even opposed to third world immigration, it’s the last part that makes no sense – since the politicians are paying attention, too much attention IMHO.

When that is the only remaining argument she has she almost starts looking reasonable. It is most unfortunate that she sneaks in the rest of her far more offensive hogwash as part of that argument, but ever so discreetly. In other words; as it is going Sionnach is starting to look reasonable, but in fact she avows herself that she has not in any way changed her opinion, she is just be silenced by the overwhelming voices of her debating opponents. The more reasonable she looks, the more reasonable her whole stance looks. Is that what you want?

Respectfully,

Sparc

82

I think we’re beyond the point of reasonable debate. Now it’s just more fun to try and trip her up on her own twisted logic.

83

Sparc

As a matter of fact, you seemed closer to those who were actually debating than those who were posting WN-type drive-bys.

But you need to understand something. You need to understand that what you are saying, whether you intend it or not, is coming across to me, and possibly others, like this — we cannot win a fair debate with her because her points are too reasonable. That is unacceptable.

I know this will piss some people off who think I am bragging, and I do not mean to detract from your or anyone’s considerable debating skills; however, I am convinced that I could defeat her in a fair debate. I was, in fact, defeating her. But she availed herself of the opportunity to respond to the posts that were snipes and drive-bys, squirming away with the assistance of those who where bullying her.

She was unable to deal with the two points that I had made that I believe effectively defeat her if she is required to face them without distraction:

(1) She believes that she herself should be judged independently from other White Nationalists while she is unwilling to extend the same courtesy to Jews.

(2) She believes that the deviance of homosexuality indicates a genetic defect while she refuses to believe that her own deviancies indicate the same.

If everyone on the debate team would refuse to give her a trap door, and instead hammer her with those two points, proof of which lies in her own words, then she would be forced either to lose the debate or change her position.

Don’t forget that it is the audience that decides who wins the debate. You aren’t necessarily trying to change her mind. And if you are reduced to rock throwing and name calling, then you lose. Moreover, if you are convinced that you cannot win, then it can only be because your position is unsound.

When your premises are correct, and your logic is valid, any person holding an opposing view is defeatable. Period.

84

Eh, Lib, she will simply say:

[White Supremacist Hat ON]

  1. The nastier skinheads are simply the “lunatic fringe” of the WN movement, much like the militant wackos are the lunatic fringe of the Libertarian movement. However, brown people have such a significant portion of ne’er-do-wells that it is acceptable to categorize them as a group of ne’er-do-wells. ::cite various anecdotal crime stories:: Surely if a significant portion of a group act in a manner, it is acceptable to categorize the group as predisoposed towards that behavior? For example, most Christians believe Jesus is God and Man–there’s a few quibbles from JW and others, but generally you could say Christians would believe JC is God and Man. What is wrong with recognizing that predisposition and allowing for it; if we were a part of a group that did not admit that JC was God, we would try to keep Christians out and no one would think it odd, right? It’s eminently reasonable and we can’t vet every Christian to see if they think JC is God. The stakes are even higher when the predispositions of a group could result in great harm towards your group and you can’t exactly just ask every immigrant if they will be lazy and commit crimes and expect them to say yes or no… no one can fault you for being a little overzealous there. If wolf-dog hybrids are predisposed to violence with little or no warning, are you being unreasonable to keep them out of your daycare center while letting the kids pet the Golden Retriever?

  2. There is a difference between minor genetic defect like left-handedness, and major ones like severe mental retardation. Since this defect (homosexuality) would, if prevalent, likely result in the eventual severe underpopulation of humans, this is not at all a “minor” defect. Therefore it is reasonable to put it in the category with severe mental illness and retardation and attempt to reduce its acceptance in society. No one argues that we should accept sterility as a wonderful thing, why should we accept an severe reduction in childbearing as a good thing here? Sure, some homosexuals will have kids, but see 1).

2a) If we accept homosexuality as a good thing and teach acceptance, let’s have furries have their own magazine on every newstand. Let’s teach kids about scat and watersports. Let’s have a scat club in every school. Let’s have books in kidnergarden on bondage, like we have with homosexuality and Heather Has Two Mommies. Do you think every deviant sexual behavior should be embraced and out in view of children?

[White Supremacist Hat OFF]

Of course, these arguments may not have occured to her, but perhaps she is just not as clever as me. :wink: They’re not airtight (few arguments are) but they could probably force an argument to a close without her having to flee the scene, her illogic ignomiously exposed.

Arguments about “real life” are not as tidy and perfect as arguments that take place in the Land of Logic. In the Land of Logic I could never say that lemons were sour unless I had personally sampled every lemon in existence, and then I could not even say whether another person might think them sour. But we don’t live in the Land of Logic, and while you can make stronger and better arguments, there will almost never be a chance to make the sort of absolute refutation you can make in formal logic; there’s just too many variables, guesses, and unspoken axioms. Sooo…be aware that your perfect airtight logical constructs may not win the argument in the eyes of onlookers. And sometimes, a differing approach may have merit.

Me, I’m just the Mod, and don’t advise people how to argue. You won’t often get the argument you want when there’s a lot of people involved, there’s just too many posts and responses. If a point is important to you, keep plugging away at it until you get a response.

85

Lib,

I respectfully disagree. With the same basis as Gaudere and for the reason that we don’t need to provide any trap door for her to dodge any argument and evade into the illogic land of neo-Nazi blanket statements. Whatever argument you serve she has an answer, whatever counter argument you serve she has yet another cite or source that pretends to support her view. When everything else fails she will fall back to dismissing your argument as Leftist propaganda.

Yes it’s the same argumentation style that we fall into when arguing her factually, the only difference is that our sources are better and more solid, and our views are not based on delusional madness, but that doesn’t help, and anyone who leans her way will find her arguments more compelling and just.

That’s why we need to avoid debate based on fact and debate what is the real issue; her fears and paranoia. As soon as you start doing that she starts squirming and saying things that most people have to disagree with based on personal experience. Take her “all immigrants are prone to more violence - 'cause I saw it” argument. It’s much easier to show how biased that argument is than to defeat some bullshit statistical cite about crime levels.

Sparc

86

Sparc

With all due respect, I’m not sure exactly who is afraid and paranoid here. And it certainly isn’t clear from that thread.

Gaudere [as White Nationalist]

You are equally fringe, according to your FAQ. In answering the question, “What is White Nationalism”, there is no mention of claiming the land of my ancestors as your own, stealing the assets of non-whites, and shipping us all to some arbitrary place. (Where would you send me?) Therefore, you are not a legitimate White Nationalist.

There’s quite a difference between not allowing people in your club, and evicting people from their homes. Although here you pretend that your goal is the former, you have consistently stated that it is the latter.

But it cannot be prevalent, since by your own declaration it is deviant. Were it prevalent, heterosexuality would be deviant. Besides, there is no reason that you cannot use the sperm of a homosexual to fertilize your eggs.

In any case, you have once again shown yourself to be on the fringe of White Nationalism, since your FAQ says specifically that there “is no definitive, scientific evidence linking homosexual behavior to genetic factors”. Your assertion, therefore, that it is a genetic defect flies in the face of one of your core beliefs.

I think parents should decide what their children learn about sexual behavior. I might make an exception in your case, though, since you have demonstrated that if your child is homosexual, you will mistreat him, possibly even harm him, and fail to discharge your parental responsibilities toward him.

87

Gimme a break Lib! You must be kidding. The woman is advocating oppression, ethnic cleansing and violation of human rights. She has indicated that she thinks it would be a good idea to nuke Israel or at least that she wouldn’t shed any tears if so was done. There is no reason to suffer from paranoia or have unfounded fears to understand that this is not for the greater good of humanity and needs to be combated. You said yourself in your latest post:

I shall not take issue with your preceding remark to that quote indicating that you agree with voluntary segregation, although I must note that sometimes your respect for everyone’s right to hold to what they believe in, despite its offensiveness to other people’s safety and human rights beggars.

Have you ever had immediate dealings with these people? I would guess not, if you had you would now that they are not just a bunch of ideological poseurs - they mean business, and their business is to opress you and yours personally.

Sparc

88

First of fall, I do not “agree with” voluntary segregation. I myself integrate. The fact is that I do not oppose voluntary segregation, nor voluntary activity of any kind among peaceful honest consenting adults.

Second, let’s not pretend that she is the only person who has a disregard for human life. It just so happens that she has a disregard for ours. I’ve seen equal disregard for the life of Jerry Falwell. Don’t even try to tell me that our lives matter more than his.

I now have her on three inconsistencies, and I intend to hammer them home.

89

This is arrogant nonsense. Of course you think your two questions were the very two questions that would bring her to heel. And other people thought their questions were the more meaningful ones, for which reason they chose to ask them. The reason she has not been “defeated” (if this is defined by the mere fact that she has continued to post - she has indeed been defeated by any other measure) is because she has chosen to ignore any post of any sort that she did not wish to answer. (Among other technique about as honorable).

I don’t see how anyone has assisted her in this - this seems to be her main technique, and I’m sure she has used it before. And the only way to avoid it, if your accusations are true, would be to disallow all posts to the thread other than yours and hers. But I will say that to the extent that anyone is helping her it is you, by repeatedly implying that those posts that she ignores are “taunting” or “drive-bys” or “bullying”. They are not.

90

As I said, I thought it would piss some people off. She now has four and counting. Also, new blood, like You with the face, has joined in to assail her logic. She is already defeated.

91

Hairsplitting. In the Real World the idea that “peaceful, honest [and] consenting” would fit in the same sentence as segration, voluntary or not, is quite absurd.

You’ve lost me. Did someone advocate murdering Falwell who also decried the neo-Nazi bull crap?

I wish you the best of luck. Yet I have to note that over yonder in the GD thread you as well have started questioning her sanity… the next step is to question the sanity of debating her with facts and logic.

Sparc

92

Sparc

Your charge of “hairsplitting” is arbitrary, as is your implication that you have proprietary knowledge of the “Real World”. There is absolutely no reason that a person may not be peaceful and honest while giving or witholding his consent to associate with any particular people.

As to Falwell, if you search, you will find a recent thread that was celebrating the fatwa that had been issued against him. In fact, threads and posts that dehumanize people, particularly religious people, are easy to find here.

Finally, I still don’t think you understand the significance of debate in the context of this board. Once again, it is the observers, and not the participants, who decide who’s winning, who’s losing, and who’s insane.

93

I’ll leave the segregation argument aside only noting that we disagree, but maybe I am the one splitting hairs - our views are closer to another than any of us would ever get to the neo-Nazis.

As for Falwell I can only say that it is sad that some people are just too stupid, but what is the connection to those arguing emotionally against the neo-Nazis?

As for who judges the arguments we here have I am full aware of the dynamics of debate in the respect you bring up. My point was and is that the more you force Sionnach and her ilk to reduce their argument to a point by point base it is likely that they look all the more reasonable. Therefore you have to either attack her whole stand, or attack what it is really about. Logic will not help in that endeavor.

Sparc

94

I think we are showing them FAR too much respect. They only wish to put people down based on the colour of their skin or their religion.

Do you think they afford us the same grace? never.

They are scum and should be dealt as such.

You cannot use logic to argue against someone espousing a position that is based on illogical grounds.

95

I completely disagree. Her two main arguments, on the large scale, are that immigration should cease and that Eurpoean culture should be protected. Neither point is beyond the pale of rational belief. But it’s the details and underlying of the argument that reveal her irrationality and general idiocy. Watching her first describe those points, then flail around helplessly trying to back them up, results in a more thorough debunking of her positions than anything else we could do.

96

TwistofFate wrote:

I think I think I might have seen that exact assertion, complete with grammatical error, on their board.

97

Its not that simple Lib.

They refer to ethnic groups as scum because it suits their white supremacist ideology to do so.

I believe that everyone was created equal, and anyone who tries to tell me that people of other ethnicities are lesser humans deserves to be labelled as scum.

I’m sorry Lib, I just cannot offer them the same priveledge that you afford them. They exist only to exclude minorities. they believe that different = worse.

I have no time for them.

I believe in liberty for all who afford liberty to everyone.

and if you are going to correct my grammar, try not to make mistakes yourself. It kinda puts a dent in your air of superiority.

98

But there’s a huge difference between “You want to kill my 6 year old nephew. You’re a worthless scum” and “You look different, there’s a worthless scum.”

Fenris

99

I invite you to check out my latest response to her in the GD thread. That’s what I mean with overall view. What you quote her on (cultural protectionism, isolationism and anti-immigration) is in my opinion only a facet and a detail. Even in her flailing desperate irrationality she risk manageing to score a point here and there with the non-neo-Nazi protectionist, isolationist ant anti-immigration crowd. My humble opinion is that this is not good since it runs the risk of lending credence to her overall stand… which I have had her outline, with anti-Semitism, cluelessness and all in 11 questions about Jewry, race, nationality and ethnic cleansing.

Maybe we are saying the same thing, but we differ on as how to lure out the truly irrational neo-Nazi beast from its cover of seemingly innocuous reactionary blanket statements.

Sparc

100

It would seem to follow from this line of reasoning (as well as your earlier comments about “becoming the monster”) that whether someone is in fact scum is not even a factor in whether one might refer to them as scum. If this is not the case, your observation is pointless.