Esprix, tilting at strawmen again

[AncientHumanoid]

Oh my gawd, Vanilla!
That was funny!

[vanilla]

thank you
thank you
(my birthdya is tomorrow dont forget)

I always try to look for a straight line.
It just seemed funny.
Esprix is a great guy.
So is NoClueBoy(um, are you straight NCB?)

[AncientHumanoid]

>a straight line<

More humor!

Yes, I’m straight. My Dad is gay.

[vanilla]

thats not funny.

My son’s father was gay
so There!!

[RedFury]

I maybe going out on a limb here, but I’d say that this pitting hasn’t exactly worked-out as well as the OP must have had in mind when he wrote it.

Sometimes I even manage to astonish myslef with my amazing powers of observation – can a Psychic Hot Line be far behind?

[RedFury]

I maybe going out on a limb here, but I’d say that this pitting hasn’t exactly worked-out as well as the OP must have had in mind when he wrote it.

Sometimes I even manage to astonish myslef with my amazing powers of observation – can a Psychic Hot Line be far behind? Never mind. I already know the answer to that one

[AncientHumanoid]

Hmmm… That brings up a question:

Is “Straight” an offensive term to homosexuals?

never thought about it til now and I don’t want to tax the Dope server by searching for a previous thread (it’s acting all goofy for me right now) . Anyone remember one?

[Esprix]

Posting on the SDMB rarely works out the way The Ryan thinks it will.

Esprix

[Guinastasia]

The Ryan THINKS?

[AntaresJB]

*Originally posted by NoClueBoy *
**Hmmm… That brings up a question:

Is “Straight” an offensive term to homosexuals?
never thought about it til now and I don’t want to tax the Dope server by searching for a previous thread (it’s acting all goofy for me right now) . Anyone remember one? **

[hijack] My best friend has a rather flamboyantly gay friend and whenever he’s in the car and she’s giving me directions somewhere, we never go “straight,” it’s always “Go gaily forward at the next light.” [/hijack]

[Denis]

The Ryan is still spewing drivel about homosexuality and pedophilia?

I participated in a thread with him and others around the time of the priest/child abuse scandals. Getting him to concede a point, any point, no matter how well it was cited (with cross references and everything!) was like stuffing a pig through a knothole.

So, The Ryan, what “strawmen” do Esprix go after? So far as I’ve read of his posting, none. Do tell. Please. At length. With cites. And links.

Esprix and The Ryan, I could loan you my foils (you’d have to remove the safety tips and sharpen them) if you’d rather duel with swords.

[The_Ryan]

This is silly, even for you guys. Most of these responses can be summed up in a single sentence. (“Your schtick has been done before, BTW” is especially ironic, considering the originality of these responses).
We have:

Mr.Visible, implying that since people have trouble understanding me, it’s okay to make up whatever they want as my position.
Desmostylus, who has nothing of his own to contribute, and so wastes space with copyrighted material which has nothing to do with the OP.
SPOOFE, apparently trying to refute the claim that I am the least comprehensible being, posts what appears to be an attempt at Socratic argument, but in fact is simply a non sequitor and/or attempt to hijack the thread.
Hamlet, echoing the post of Guinastasia in the original thread, responds to the statement that I have been falsely accused of equating homosexuality/bisexuality with pedophilia by discussing a completely different issue. I suspect that, like her, he will not respond to the questions I asked: ”Are you saying that because I am missing some important subtlety, it is appropriate to misrepresent my position? Or are you saying that as a consequence of the subtlety which I am missing, I am in fact saying that “gay” and “pedophile” are synonyms?”
And then Mr.Visible again, who apparently thinks that “[Ryan believes]Attraction to either gender means they are bisexual. By that argument, all bisexuals are pedophiles” is a “rational, coherent argument”, and that pitting someone for making up positions is somehow telling them how to interpret a post.

[The_Ryan]

Now for the more complicated posts:
Mrsam

Esprix seems to have captured your logic perfectly on the second page to me.

So can you explain to me how my logic leads to the conclusion that all bisexuals are pedophiles?

You pretend to be holding some tenable position by never actually stating your position, merely referring to some mystical important concept you understand which we don’t.

I really don’t see where you’re getting this, other than your imagination. What references to a “mystical concept” do you see? When have I pretended to have a position without stating one?

Tell us your position clearly so we can’t misunderstand you.

You want me to review all of my views on homosexuality, bisexuality, and pedophilia and explain them so clearly that it is completely safe from the prodigious ability of posters to misunderstand? Isn’t it more reasonable for Esprix to actually support his statements?

Lord Ashtar

I’m quite sure there’s a bit of a difference between the “gay rights” and “left-wing” points of view. There may be some overlapping, but that’s to be expected.

When I used the term “gay rights”, lissener insinuated that I was homophobic. So I tried to find a term less susceptible to misinterpretation. And I’m sure that this will be spun as more “nitpicking”, but I did not say that “gay rights” is the same as left-wing, I said that the so-called “gay rights” to which I was referring were left-wing. You seem to be thinking in a manner similar to Esprix: he thinks that me saying that there are pedophiles which are homosexual means that I think “pedophile” and “homosexual” are the same thing. You think that because I say that some so-called “gay rights” are left-wing, I think “gay rights” and “left-wing” are the same thing.

And by the way, you’re the one who brought up pedophilia in the other thread, not Esprix.

And….?
Is there some rule that it’s okay to misrepresent someone’s position, as long as it’s on an issue that person brought up?

Denis

I participated in a thread with him and others around the time of the priest/child abuse scandals. Getting him to concede a point, any point, no matter how well it was cited (with cross references and everything!) was like stuffing a pig through a knothole.

Okay, can you present ONE EXAMPLE of someone in that thread:
Quoting something I said with which they disagree
Presenting a cite
And explaining how that cite shows that I am wrong?

So, The Ryan, what “strawmen” do Esprix go after? So far as I’ve read of his posting, none. Do tell. Please. At length. With cites. And links.

Are you being sarcastic?

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
** Most of these responses can be summed up in a single sentence. **

So where’s the single sentence, and what is it, you fucking idiot?

[Desmostylus]

Actually, I think I answered my own question.

“So where’s the single sentence, and what is it, you fucking idiot?”, is probably the single sentence that summarises the responses.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by RedFury *
I maybe going out on a limb here, but I’d say that this pitting hasn’t exactly worked-out as well as the OP must have had in mind when he wrote it.

Yes, it still amazes me how people will disagree with me no matter how ridiculous the other side is.

If you (you in the general sense) really think I’m in the wrong, then I think you should come right out and say so. So everyone who thinks I’m wrong, I want you say "I don’t see anything illogical about this quote:

But we all already know your thought process:

Children can be either gender
Pedophiles are attracted to children of either gender
Attraction to either gender means they are bisexual

By that argument, all bisexuals are pedophiles.

"

How can anyone possibly say that with a straight face?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Desmostylus *
**So where’s the single sentence, and what is it, you fucking idiot? **

I meant that for most posts, there’s a single sentence that summarizes that post, not that there’s a single sentence that summarizes most posts. I suppose you consider your inability to understand such a simple concept to be my fault?

[Denis]

Actually, The Ryan, I can present many examples from that thread: Quoting something you said with which they disagree
Presenting a cite
And explaining how that cite shows that you are wrong.
The problem is: It would be a waste of time and hamster energy. As others in this thread (and many others) have noted, you quibble and fuck around with the meaning of things to the point where the original meaning is lost in the interminable parsing. It’s a complete loss to anyone but a lurker who may think, “Well, now I see how not to defend my position. Thank you, The Ryan, for showing me how not to debate a point!”
As far as you asking if I’m being sarcastic, I have a question for you: Do you honestly think Esprix is not being sarcastic in many of his posts? Do you seriously not understand that he uses hyperbole and sarcasm (quite well, IMO) to make many of his points? Are you really that fucking dense?

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**I meant that for most posts, there’s a single sentence that summarizes that post, not that there’s a single sentence that summarizes most posts. I suppose you consider your inability to understand such a simple concept to be my fault? **

There’s glory for you!

[SPOOFE]

SPOOFE, apparently trying to refute the claim that I am the least comprehensible being, posts what appears to be an attempt at Socratic argument, but in fact is simply a non sequitor and/or attempt to hijack the thread.

So you admit to having the intelligence of a shitlog?