The fact that you’re stupid as well as dishonest is your problem, not mine.
I’m not interested in hashing this out with you again. I’ve spent too many hours and too many threads in the past attempting to debate with you as if you were actually interested in honest and forthright discussion. But you are not, so i made clear some time back that i’m not going to engage with you in substantive debate. I’m going to continue that policy.
Still, the pitting has all the elegance of a sow on roller skates. For this style to work, the OP must contain no less than 6 but no more than 8 rhetorical questions, and at least 2 of them should be funny. Sorry, but that’s the rule. 
You’re a blindingly emotional tampon. Wait, that isn’t accurate. You’re an emotional idiot that wants your internet community to be your tampon.
Exactly. And not even poetically done, either. Damn.
And both of them are gonzomax.
There used to be better dishonest debaters, but that was back in the 50’s before the hippies fucked everything up.
He’s an honest Lions fan. We have to cut him some slack.
I will say, though, that ElvisL1ves has a much lesser tendency to completely derail every thread with a discussion of his peculiar beliefs. When I see a thread where the last post is Starving Artist, I can be pretty sure that most of it is taken up with some variation of everyone trying to disprove his idiotic thesis that whatever bad thing happened it’s because of liberal permissiveness since the 60’s. He’s never going to change his mind, and I really doubt he’s going to get a single person to believe him, ever, yet thousands of words are written and dissected on each side.
To some extent, being a conservative on a liberal-leaning board is going to exacerbate the problem. For example, there might not be any saner conservatives that are participating in a debate that doesn’t involving simply railing against hippies. So, the only way to have a debate is to actually engage him, even if it’s the same argument as every other thread he’s in. On the left, I can see gonzomax as having the same effect on threads, but usually they can carry on around his contributions (when they don’t, they pretty much go down the shitter) and he’s mercifully succinct.
I don’t really see what people think is going to happen in a debate with Starving Artist. I’d appreciate it they could just maybe print out his posts, tack it up on a wall and argue with that. Seems about the same to me, and perhaps the discussion that takes place here on the board wouldn’t suffer for iteration 1,054 of how the liberals screwed everything up, and life was great in the 1950s, and kids used to respect their elders.
gonzo is the old coot who blurts out random barely-even-tangential tidbits at the air that people try to politely ignore. “My, this German chocolate cake is lovely.” “The only good Kraut is a dead Kraut!” “It is, isn’t it? Your aunt gave me the recipe.” Starving Artist is the slightly more coherent but no less loopy old man who writes angry letters to the editor about how the world has gone downhill since the good old days.
It might interest you two to know that I was just as contemptuous of liberalism and the effects it was having when I was twenty as I am now. The main difference between then and now is that instead of griping then about what liberalism was causing, I’m griping now because of what it has caused.
More and more I get the feeling I must really have hit a nerve here with that little screed I posted in response to the allegations that conservatism/Republicanism is evil. It must have been the first time in the lives of most of the posters here that they’ve ever been confronted with the harm that liberalism has done and the fact that it’s not the wonderful, touchy-feely, morally and intellectually superior ideology that they always thought it was after all.
And so they react defensively by picking on the least damaging aspect, behaving as though it were laughable (which would be at least a little understandable if there were cultures anywhere else in the world where people acting like ill-mannered, foul-mouthed assholes was considered a good thing), and claiming that I do nothing but rail about that one aspect when in reality other posters bring it up more often than I do.
Further, I’d wager than fewer than five percent of my posts concern civility, hippies, the counter-culture or what have you, and most of the ones that are are in response to things others have said to me about it or in ridicule of it.
So there, stick that in your smipe and poke it!
Liar.
Actually, I’d disagree: he provoked the greatest condemnation here when he posted in gun control threads while obviously barely knowing which end the bullet comes out of, let alone the historical and legal context of the second amendment.
Also, he told what I can only describe as blatant untruths in them… and they were easily caught. On the other hand, he might have been honestly delusional.
On the other hand, I easily agree with your assessment of him, and, in fact, he was the first one I thought of when you stated there were at least two others as bad. Der isn’t as bad, as he is capable of posting without his bete noir popping up.
And yes, Elvis at least has multiple delusional issues.
I’ve debated Starving Artist a bit. That makes this my first pitting! I’m so proud.
I may have to give it up, though. Starving, if I may call you that, I have tried to engage you in good faith. I think the world is a complex place, with many ways of looking at the same issues and billions of things I don’t yet know. I love it when I hear a new perspective on a contentious topic[sup]*[/sup]. I’ve tried to present arguments that may have been outside your worldview; something that you may not have considered. New facts come up all the time, and I try to integrate them into what I already know and to gain some insight into the world. But never once do I remember you saying anything like “I hadn’t thought of that”, or “here’s my take on that.” I’ve just found you incredibly recalcitrant; hammering your ideas and your version of history as if every question was a trap and steadfastness is the greatest virtue of all. It just seems like you’re here only to talk and never to listen.
As an example of a new idea, it has been pointed out that the same senators who think private companies are sacrosanct with regards to health insurance had no problem voting in favor of federal flood insurance. I like to hear smart people address new questions like that, but only if it gets them thinking of new ideas and not repeating old ideas that they try to claim are relevant.
Because you’re a pathetic self-pitying troglodyte with delusions of grandeur.
This.
There are a number of posters, on both sides of the political divide, whom I feel aren’t worth the pixels they’re taking up on my screen. Generally the procedure is: scan briefly, roll eyes, move swiftly on. SA doesn’t do “brief” and tends to make such outrageous claims not based in reality that it triggers my “must debunk bizarre views” reaction and hey presto, a thread derailment. I’m working on not rising to it (ditto Shodan when he’s in “poke the libruls” mode, which seems to be most of the time now) but it’s hard to let deep irrationality go unchallenged.
In fairness I will resolve to pay more attention to what ElvisL1ves says, if only to ensure that I’m giving both sides of the equation equal attention and due disdain.
The education system in 1889 wasn’t much better, I note.
Could we please not make this thread all about Starving Artist?
Oh. Wait. My bad. Sorry. Reflex.
Pretty sure i’d be technically included in the pitting. I don’t really have much to add (other than that I have no intention of not debating with him because of this thread), but I would like to say that it is one thing to disagree and another thing to assume the other side or other person is not just disagreeing but disagreeing malevolently. Every time someone starts on an “Ah, I can fully understand the motives of you, person with whom I disagree with fundamentally who has a totally different mindset to me! You are an open book!” I lose respect for them, whatever side they happen to be on.
This is why it is difficult to take accusations that Starving Artist is dishonest seriously. Staying out of a thread for two hours after saying you have things to do is a lie?
Especially since one encounters the same claims about Bricker and Sam Stone and Scylla. If that’s how you have to stretch to find evidence, it becomes clear that the Pitting has to do with issues other than honesty.
“Dishonest” means the same thing as “troll” - someone who persists in challenging the consensus, and won’t be shouted down. Since this is so heavily liberal, it tends to be the non-liberals who get the most of it.
A board whose members are so quick to call SA names but usually decline to do the same with people like Der Trihs and Diogenes the Cynic and the various other clowns, buffoons, assholes and dolts who drool out of the left side of their mouths is not a board whose judgment needs to be taken with much seriousness.
Regards,
Shodan
…says the man who does nothing but call the left names while ignoring the sins of the right.
Damn. Still working on it.