Objection! I haven’t claimed Libertarian is mentally ill. I’ve claimed he’s an attention-whoring pseudo-intellectual whose ability to parrot philosophical arguments far outstrips his capacity to understand them.
There is a significant difference. Unless, of course, being an attention-whoring pseudo-intellectual whose ability to parrot philosophical arguments far outstrips his capacity to understand them is introduced to the DSM, and we all pray it will.
Okay, if I identified to a considerable degree with this description, where could I go to get my bubble burst?
Coz that’d take care of you, too.
A noble attempt, Robert, but missing the point.
Can you convince me (or even yourself) that such a discussion would fly for any arbitrary group of nutjobs? In the thread where Lynn admonished Dogface for “hate speech”, he bore his rebuke on account of overlapping thuggery with Islam.
I have referenced the neo-Nazi Stormfront boards as an example because there, there are numerous ongoing discussions about how stupid, pathetic, and nutjobbish people are. As it happens, stupid overlaps with liberals, Jews, blacks, Muslims, and gays. Religion is a forbidden topic there.
The thread is saying let’s look at people of faith and, from that group, showcase those who merit the most ridicule. Only a twisted rationale would allow that that is not bigotry against a particular class of people.
Why not have a discussion about the overlap of stupidity with wherever the chips fall? But as it is, even if your nominee is the stupidest person on earth, he will not qualify for nomination unless he is religious.
Desmo
I cannot help in which thread you staked your claim. You say here:
You said there:
Therefore, you are lying either here or there.
If you are asking for a specific example, I think the way he dealt with this knobhead was truly masterful.
I think it’s quite clear that Libertarian is suffering from an acute case of demonic possesion. And, as we all know – or should, anyway. It’s important. – Satan’s immune to antibiotics.
So, Lib, should contact the fine folk at The Vatican, who have, coincidentally, recently updated their exorcism erm…therapy? Presumably, spinning heads and green vomit are a thing of the past.
Best of luck.
What’s the problem with having the thread open to religious nutjobs as well as non-religious nutjobs?
Can’t we have a little equal opportunity nutjob jabs?
On the contrary, it’s not taunting; you are, as usual, misrepresenting your opponents. I don’t think you’re bonkers. I think you’re making a rational, deliberate choice to be a deceitful, hijacking jerk. However, given other people’s concerns, I decided to offer you the opportunity to give us another explanation for your execrable behavior. Reread my OP.
One swallow does not make a spring, Libertarian. You are more consistently wed to intellectually bankrupt arguments than just about anyone else on these boards, in my experience. The difference between you and most other people is that you’re adept at couching your stubborness in abstruse language, inflating your appearance of intellectualism.
This is a lie, frankly; several people have made several reasonable arguments, and you’ve ignored them. Except for one time, when you said, may I quote,
But in case you read only every third post or something, and missed all the ones making this point, I’ll refer you to my post above, responding to Minty Green, in which I lay out my reasons for believing it’s okay to make fun of people who are nutjobs because of their religious beliefs and actions – in other words, religious nutjobs.
It’s obviously not the same as making fun of “black nutjobs,” since being black is neither a belief nor an action. Same thing with “Jewish nutjobs”, although a thread about (for example) the kinds of Jews who would assassinate Yitzak Rabin would be perfectly fine by my standard – that’s a particular subset of nutjobbery and as such is worthy of discussion. As I stated before, discussion of gay nutjobs might be reasonable, as long as you were talking about people whose nutjobbery were particularly related to their gayness – a guy, for example, who believed they had a divine mission to fuck as many straight boys as possible. A thread on “straight nutjobs”, dealing with straight guys who thought that gay men eat feces and human blood, wouldn’t bother me in the least.
I slightly disagree with people who refer you to Venn diagrams: it’s not enough that there be an overlap between two groups for such a thread to be appropriate. If that was enough, a thread on black nutjobs would be appropriate. What’s required is that the adjective describe the nature of the nutjobbery.
A person who is both a nutjob and left-handed is not particularly remarkable, and if you bring up their left-handedness in discussing their craziness, I’m gonna suspect that you’ve got something against southpaws. But if this guy is convinced that left-handed people are God’s Chosen Children and has started a cult dedicated to rounding up and imprisoning all right-handed people, please feel free to start a thread called “Left-handed nutjob.”
Surely if you squint you can see the difference.
Your argument IS really bizarre. Near as I can tell, you’re just being an asshole. I’d love for you to show me otherwise.
Daniel
Incidentally, Lib, I’m not obsessed with you in the least. Don’t flatter yourself, and quit lying about me. As Gyrate pointed out, I started this thread to try to quit your hijack in the other thread, after all my other attempts to get you to quit your hijack failed. What I am is perfectly fed up with your desperate desire to be a martyr in every situation possible, with your obnoxious, incoherent, tilting-at-windmills crusade to uncover religious bigotry where no such bigotry exists.
Meatros, do you see the “New Thread” button at the top of your screen? If you click on it, you can create a new thread devoted entirely to non-religious nutjobs, or to nutjobs whose nutjobbery is unrelated to their faith. It’s fun and easy!
Equal opportunity indeed. Is a thread on Hamas bigoted because it precludes discussion of the IRA?
Daniel
Let me set out explicitly which threads I’m talking about, and the sequence of events in each of them.
From the thread manhattan & Gaudere sitting on a tree. . .
Now, of course, when I said “that thread”, I was referring to Hate speech and the SDMB, in which I said:
Later in that same thread, Lynn said:
I ain’t lying. And there really seems to be something wrong with you.
Huh. I was asking a question out of concern, and did not imply that you were out of your mind, or anything of the sort. But I guess I can’t stop you if you want to think of me as an asshole.
Well, some are.
Coldie
I don’t think you’re an asshole, so don’t attempt to pin that on me, please. I think you’re not on my side, certainly. And I think that, by your participation, you’ve given tacit consent to bash people of faith in other threads and, with your latest post, more fuel for the Lib bashers in this thread. But that in and of itself does not make you an asshole.
The question you asked was whether I was all right, and that you had noticed that my posts were strange lately. That is indeed an implication of the sort.
If I opened a thread on atheist nutjobs, would you come in and participate with witty one-liners that indicate your tolerance of and pleasure with the topic? If someone challenged me for doing so, would you make it a point to ask them publically if they’re all right? And if I pitted the challenger, would you drop into my thread to further fuel the pile-on from a few snitty Christians?
Desmo
So then, you did in fact proudly proclaim that you started the take-your-meds debacle:
Thanks for doing the research.
Nonsense. My ability to parrot philosophical arguments is well within my understanding of them.
Seriously, I was shocked (and faintly pleased) to see that Libertarian had actually contributed some useful links in a few threads over the past few weeks. My opinion of him was actually beginning to rise a bit.
Then he posted to the Nutjob thread, and it crashed right back down.
Lib, do you genuinely believe I would have a problem with a thread on atheist nutjobs? Yes or no, please. Near as I can tell, you’re continuing to ignore any arguments against your point, so that you can claim no such arguments are being made. Despicable.
Daniel
Lib, I read that four times, and I still don’t get it. I’m certainly not “on your side” with regard to your comments in the Religious Nutjob thread, but my question was caused by genuine concern. And when I note your posts as of late have been strange, it obviously means “out of character”, not “insane”.
I’ve given “tacit consent to bash people of faith in other threads”? What, other than the Religious Nutjob one, where the bashees had to be nutjobs and religious? Where else do I show “tacit consent” to bashing people of faith?
Lib, I submit that you might be a tad too sensitive when it comes to people making fun of obvious fruitloops who happen to be of the Christian variety. We bash idiots all the time here at the Straight Dope, from moon hoax conspiracy nuts, to foaming-at-the-mouth Bush-haters, to extreme right-wing militant assholes. The mere fact that one thread tried to comprise all of the bashfests directed at Fred Phelps and the like, doesn’t mean that the only nutjobs being bashed at the SDMB are Christian ones.
Time to step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath or two, methinks.
Coldie
This thread, where you posted a drive-by witty one-liner, is nothing more than a spawn of the other one. And what, exactly, is it that you’re concerned about? What is my ordinary character that you believe I was out of?
Daniel
Ignoring your arguments? I’m in your thread! 
Did you see my post on page 1?
I’m an atheist, and I started a thread on what a nutjob Madalyn Murray O’Hair was. Of course, according to you, all I ever do is bash religion . . .
Actually, Eve, my question to Coldie wasn’t about whom you’ve bashed. But thanks for stopping by to express your admiration for people of faith.
Yes, Lib, I saw your post on page one. It consisted of:
What was noticeably absent was any response to the arguments put forward. That’s one example of your deceit in this matter.
Daniel
Lib: I give up. There is obviously no point to carry this any further, as you don’t see my motivations as benign.