For god’s sakes people, do you think there’s actually going to be some resolution on his semantic bullshit? He advocated genocide. He’s not going to use that word, no matter whether it’s the right one or not. He doesn’t care about the truth, it’s just a prick waving contest, so just ignore it and go on about your merry way, secure in the knowledge that you’re better than him not for getting him to admit he’s an evil putz, but because you aren’t one.
To elaborate, since your reading comprehension does not seem to be your strongest suit and you seem unacquainted with the dynamics of speech (textual or spoken):
You made several outlandish statements regarding the killing and ethnic cleansing of various people. Despite many elapsed hours and several exchanges of posts, you continually repeat the refrain that we cannot “prove” you meant genocide. You seem to be obsessed with the notion that we cannot “catch” you in a bad statement and are fixated on that idea rather than simply laying out an actual idea and defending it. Even when you post feebles defenses, you resort to saying things such as “what if I . . .” and “Maybe I meant that . . .”
You cannot even lie with a (metaphorical) straight face. Your entire “defense” is a series of evasions, much as my young son uses when he has been caught in a lie.
Since the words and phrases you use are consistent with those of people caught in dishonest speech, attempting to avoid admitting their errors (or falsehoods) by misdirection and claiming hypothetical alternative realities, I can, indeed, identify your tone of voice on this topic.
laigle, it’s only been a day or so since Paul began getting seriously hammered. There is always the possibility that he is not as dumb as he posts and that he can learn something. We have had posters change their ways in the past.
Because he’s got better sense than to get involved in this train wreck?
We’re still trying to figure out what you meant with your post (vs. what you might have meant;)). Right now I’d say it’s a fairly intelligent move for sevastopol not to post here, since you’re the one getting all the attention.
Other opinions differ, as in:
I’m wondering why this standard is being applied so strictly to one side, and not the other.
A Question “Why not eliminate Israel?” makes it clear that eliminating either side is wrong and that killing people is not right. It is a question after all and the answer might lead the person asked to the conclusion that neither side should be eliminated.
The OP’s rabid “kill kill kill” chants and calls for genocide are a different matter though . Who knows, you might turn out to be right about Sevastopol once he does comment in this thread, but until then I’d rather like to see some condemnation about the OP’s fucked up worldview rather than complaining about standards that are applied to only one side. After all, turning a blind eye to what the OP spews here while at the same time tearing into Sevastopol is a double standard too, isn’t it?
I don’t know, I think in a case like this I’d like to see each party come out and explain things a little. Note here, you who might be doing the explaining, that “Well you can’t prove I didn’t mean X/Y” is not explaining, it’s taking an unnecesarily and suspect defensive position. I am more firmly convinced that Paul has something to hide than I am about the purely evil nature of sevastopol’s remarks, but that is significantly due to the fact that Paul has been remarkably evasive in this thread.
~Flame on~
Where do I start? Paul wants to pretty much bomb everyone and purge the world of certain vermin, I take it. “Every last stinking hovel” or something like that. That takes it way out of the area of attacking military targets or known hostiles. Look! There’s towelheads over there! Kill 'em all! That sounds pretty fucking stupid to me. That’s genocide. Add in talk about neutron bombs or any other nukes, and well, I guess you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette, right? I bet Paul has never been, and never will be in any military, never really seen what war is, and has has never really seen anyone die up close either. I’ve never been to war (I was lucky), but I have a good idea what it must be like. Let me make an assumption here. Pauly is a pimply faced little nerd who lives with his momma and in real life is probably a little wuss. He gets his rocks off by saying macho bullshit about what someone else should do, but has no stomach to do himself.
Go get bent Paul.
For Shodan: are you defending him? I have no problem at all, when hearing that a known terrorist has been killed, or blew himself up in his own house while making a bomb. If I had a chance, I’d kill Bin Laden myself and feel damn good about it. But, that is a hell of a step away from wiping out entire towns or entire races just so I can feel righteous. I can understand the want for revenge, but dammit! Take it out on the SOB who deserves it, not some poor bastards who had nothing to do with it.
Up yours too.
I won’t quibble semantics, about the meaning of “is” or “the”. Both of you quit jerking off about the meaning if a word. It just shows you don’t have the guts to stand by what you said.
Genocide is genocide. Anyone who supports it is a sick bastard.
Fuck anyone who even hints at it.
Is that subtle enough for you?
He meant to be sarcastic and he was succesfully sarcastic. For some reason you either a) Can’t see the sarcasm or b) can but are ignoring it to make some stupid point. The intent of sevastopol is very obvious to me anyway.
PaulFitzroy was not being sarcastic he was “straight talking”.
I completely agree with all the criticisms directed at OP.
Still, Sevastople deserves good thrashing for saying hateful things. One still stands in my mind, how shooting down a pregnant Jewish woman and her four(?) daughters by Palestinians was justified. I think Alessan called him on that at the time.
So, if we take a reeaaally-y teeny-tiny Neutron Bomb and drop it just on one single isolated Sevastople, would it still constitute Genocide?
Sorry I forgot to add a very very special Fuck You to Sevastople. Heat of the moment.
Let’s call it a form of Darwinism. BANG! Oopsie, evolution just made a “correction”. Oooooh I know, let’s call it “cleansing the race of a known defect!”, or “selectively improving the gene pool!” 
What’s this all about?
Dude, it’s already happened. You’re busted and exposed-as you were in your last thread.
You know, you remind me of the black knight in Monty Python’s search for the Holy Grail. You’ve had your ‘arms and legs’ cut off yet you still think you can fight.
While it was amusing in the movie, because it was fiction, in real life your attitude is anything but amusing.
It’s time to grow up and take your medicine. It’s been sitting on the counter for a while now and it’s growing warm.
So you want to wipe an entire nation off the map, but you’re not advocating genocide? Okay. Gotcha.
:dubious:
Like I so gently hinted at… no balls.
[Administrator Hat ON]
PaulFitzroy, you have had FIVE moderator warnings across several fora within two and a half months. In addition, we frown upon hate speech, and “let’s kill all the [iraqis/jews/blacks/americans]” most definitely qualifies as such. You are on very thin ice now, and you should consider this a final warning. Any significant offense in the near future will result in the revoking of your posting privileges.
[Administrator Hat OFF]
I’m asking why, in one case, advocating wiping out an entire nation is unmistakably sarcasm. Even though the poster in question gives no indication that this was his intention - not even a smiley. In another case, it cannot possibly be interpreted as anything other than serious, even though the poster denies that this is the case.
I find this frankly bizarre. Wouldn’t the question “why not drop a neutron bomb on Iraq?” make it equally clear that “eliminating either side is wrong and that killing people is not right”?
Same here:
This after sevastopol advocates wiping Israel off the map. But it’s not advocating genocide when he does it. 
Why is it obviously sarcasm when sevastopol does it, but hate speech when PaulFitzroy does the same?
Also interesting that this:
passes unremarked.
I am not defending PaulFitzroy. I am asking why there is such an apparent double standard.
Regards,
Shodan
Because the double standard only exists in your head. Optihut already explained why the two remarks were clearly different. You have to examine context, not simply individual words or sentences. There’s no double standard, and there’s no single standard either. Sorry if this gets a bit hard for the guys who think that they wear white hats to understand.
Desmostylus just explained that it’s all about context. I would find a smiley in conjunction with genocide highly disturbing. Thankfully PaulFitzroy didn’t stoop to this level.
As for the question whether “why not drop a neutron bomb on Iraq?” would be meant as non-serious - that also depends on the context: If we had a person from Iraq who’d say “DAMN, the root of all evil is the USA, let’s wipe it off the map and then all problems would be solved! (P.S. I’m not advocating genocide or anything, so it’s all good - besides all opinions are created equal and therefore I am right)” And then someone would post “Hmmm, why not bomb Iraq instead?” as a retort, then that clearly shows that the poster is appalled by the suggestion to bomb the USA and questions it by giving a different target that the original poster would strongly disagree with. See?
If however George Bush says “Let’s bomb Iraq!” And someone would say “Hey, why not bomb Iran?” then that would be an actual suggestion to do so, as it is also something Bush would seriously consider.
Since PaulFitzroy doesn’t advocate to kill all Israeli’s, it is unlikely that Sevastopol suggested bombing Israel as the next item on PF’s menu, but rather as something near and dear to him to get him to ponder whether bombing people really sets the right message.
I could be wrong though, but I’d rather give someone who spoke once and hasn’t yet clarified a statement the benefit of the doubt, than someone who continuously advocates genocide and then has the audacity to claim “I never advocated genocide.”
Shodan: *Why is it obviously sarcasm when sevastopol does it, but hate speech when PaulFitzroy does the same? *
As I said, I agree that the difference in their remarks as quoted isn’t so obvious to me.
But for one thing, PF came in and actually defended his suggestions in their literal sense. He actually does advocate dropping neutron bombs on Iran and Saudi Arabia and destroying the homes of all Palestinians in the occupied territories. He gets uncomfortable about having it called “genocide”, but he’s defending in all seriousness what he advocated.
If sevastopol were similarly to come in here and say “Yes, we should eliminate Israel” or “Yes, we should kill all the Jews in New York”, then his remarks would be just as loathsome as PF’s. But what he seems to be saying is more along the lines of “Israel is committing genocide and if it continues along these lines it will so aggravate its enemies and alienate its friends that eventually it will be wiped out.” Nowhere did he say that he thought eliminating Israel was desirable, and he specifically disclaimed any support for killing Jews qua Jews:
I’d rather give all posters who seem to be advocating genocide the benefit of the doubt that they might be using sarcasm; as I said, I would also have assumed that PF’s remarks were sarcastic if he had only let me.