The person at whom my quoted response was directed certainly did.
FinnAgain did not insult anyone in that thread. By saying this, you are distorting the situation.
Being a strong, tenacious and difficult to flummox poster is not FinnAgain insulting people.
I’m sorry, I don’t see where you are coming from here.
We’re not happy with everything that goes on in GD. I know I’ve tried to cut down on some of the most aggravating things, like the knee-jerk partisanship or low-content slams on ideologies or religions. I’d like to cut that stuff down even further. I know GD isn’t for some people, but that’s true of every forum here. I don’t read it as an indictment of the posting style there.
He insults everyone in the thread by his transparent distortions, derailing and handwaving.
He knew full well that Israel bombed northern lebanon and if he did not he is not qualified to express a view on the subject in GD and should STFU.
He also knows full well Israel does not see itself as the legal occupying power in Gaza and if he did not he is not qualified to express a view on the subject in GD and should STFU.
His only purpose is to deflect criticisms of Israel by any means necessary.
I know there was a lot of activity in that thread and it could easily have been missed, but it was actually FA who started that off.
To paraphrase: Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon! That’s how I see Finn when he’s speaking on this subject anyway.
I didn’t feel insulted, nor did I detect the insult in what he was saying. It was harsh, to be sure, but he wasn’t insulting anyone, except by pointing out that they didn’t know what they were talking about or were using hyperbole for effect. I also didn’t see a lot of handwaving (though I’ll concede that derailing was definitely happening), nor distortions, transparent or otherwise.
If you get a Mod warning for the STFU statement it’s most likely because the Mods don’t agree with your liberal outlook, not because of your tone or language outside of the Pit.
Have you convinced yourself that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? I remain unconvinced. I’m sure you think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but then I’ve seen AGW deniers state that Gigo (another fairly abrasive guy on that particular subject) doesn’t know what he’s talking about too. I’m sure they wish he’d STFU as well, but you know what they say…wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first. Let me know how it works out for you…
I think his only purpose is fighting ignorance on the subject of Israel, but since it’s taking a lot longer than he thought it would I think he is getting a bit frustrated with things. YMMV, of course…
-XT
Ironic, seeing as he is the master of hyperbole and rhetorical sophistry.
I would like to apologise for my mistake and retract my previous post , as it was actually Alessan who started that off.
Look up the way he tosses around the phrase “conspiracy theories.” It’s freaking nuts, but God forbid anyone should ask him if crazyness is his intent.
As with december, CLounsbury and many another ‘abrasive’ poster, the mods have grown habituated to FinnAgain’s bad behavior. It may not even be conscious on your part, but you have grown to tolerate more bullshit from him than you do from most posters.
Yes, he loves to accuse anyone who is thinking beyond the headlines of having thoughts not even worthy of deliberation.
I was totally kidding. It was late and I thought I was funnier than I am.
Those are not insults by the SDMB’s definition, and it’s a big reason we usually specify that personal insults are not allowed. A personal insult is an insulting remark about someone else. (Sometimes I’ll say personal comments instead, which is a slightly more expansive word that is intended to nullify the argument that a particular comment should not be considered an insult even if it is unnecessary and personal.) You’re free to consider his arguments distortions or irrelevant or even insulting to your intelligence, but with rare exceptions that’s not something the moderators deal with.
We also don’t make determinations on who is qualified to opine on a topic. Not in any forum outside of General Questions, at least. This is a message board. Anybody with a computer can post here, and anybody can stick around provided they follow the rules.
He downplays his criticisms sometimes but he does make them. And this is not against the rules.
OK, that makes two of us, then… :smack:
I do find it to be very, very funny that you’re so eager to find some mistake, any mistake I’ve made that you’re willing to champion anything, no matter how small. I don’t have to do the same for you because you make so damn many.
Of course, looks like I was wrong. I hadn’t seen your post before I responded and I misread the time stamps and missed my intervening post while looking through the record. Now, please cite the dozens of retractions you’ve made as to all your factual errors? Or do you not only have a ‘problem with the facts’, you also don’t retract your errors when they’re shown to you?
Simply not true. You did not research the Israeli supreme court verdict of 2008 before that, you were ignorant of it. Likewise, your claim that ignorance of the verdict renders someone totally ignorant of the facts applies no matter if they researched other things or not. You are, rather obviously, crafting a double standard and making a big deal about something that you, yourself were ignorant about so as to argue in bad faith. Again, you were ignorant of the exact same verdict that I was up until about 2 hours before I learned of it. You claim that ignorance of the verdict constitutes total ignorance of basic facts on the topic. Obviously, you were claiming that you yourself were totally ignorant of basic facts on the topic… but since it wasn’t a statement that you really could stand behind and just a rationalization designed to needle me, you decided that your ignorance of the same fact doesn’t count, because you read Wikipedia to be aware of the same quotes from the MFA and other that I was already aware of anyway. As should be obvious, if Fact A constitutes the whole of basic knowledge on a subject and Person B and C both don’t know it, but Person C claims that it only constitutes basic knowledge for Person B and not himself, Person C is arguing in bad faith in order to find some way to attack another poster.
So you made a bad faith argument for the purpose of increasing the rancor in the thread.
Do you deserve a Warning?
And just before you again post some irrelevancy about “Well, I’m not saying you should receive moderator action!” this whole thread is in ATMB based on an allegation that I should receive moderator action. If you’d simply like to complain about me, this is the wrong thread.
Cheers.
Again we see that “bad faith debating” really means “disagreeing with me!!!” You were using a defintion of “need” that in fact meant “not need”. I argued that which is truly needed is that which you cannot survive without. You objectedt, and since you don’t like being disagreed with, I must be arguing in bad faith. The proof that I was arguing in bad faith was, of course, you didn’t convince me.
QED.
I really do wish you’d learn the definition of ad hom if you’re going to keep using it. Discussions of a source’s credibility are not ad hom falllacies. And comparing tobacco research with uncited, unsourced claims based on alleged newspaper headlines that are uncited, unsouced and uninvestigated is a bad faith comparison.
Do you deserve a Warning?
Which is why I probably pointed out that if the claim was that a handfull of military targets and some bridges were hit in the north, then yes of course that was true. But if the claim was that the bombing campaign which really did reduce some areas to rubble in the south was at issue, then no, the north was not touched by the bombing campaign. I’ve explained this many, many times.
Again we see that folks are using arguments based on rules lawyering trying to ‘get me in trouble’, and doing so in bad faith. I was well aware of the MFA’s contention, and I discussed it. I was, however, not aware of the 2008 Supreme Court decision. And neither was anybody posting in the thread until roughly 2 hours before I learned of it from another poster’s cite.
And yet none of them are obligated to keep out of GD threads, only me.
Funny how that works.
Well I took a day off because I flew back to the UK to visit my Parents. I now can’t be arsed to go back to the thread. I’m just fed up of someone that will hijack to the death rather than admit fault. I honestly can’t believe that the discussion regarding the scope of a discussion in relation to the phrase “occupying power” was conducted with an adult.
That, along with arguing against the dictionary as to what “starve” meant, disputing what malnutrition actually is, disputing UNICEF statistics for one illness by quoting WHO statistics for a different illness within a small age range, demanding statistics regarding deaths when no-one was discussing death and so on were all hijacks designed to steer the discussion away from the actual topic. And that was just what he was discussing with me.
If that’s not being a jerk then I don’t know what is.
Wait. You’re a guy???
It wasn’t me making a big song and dance about 32 minutes in an effort to make someone else look like a jerk.
I went to Wikipedia to look it up. I found that Wikipedia agreed with my view of the situation, so I felt no need to look further. I only did because you couldn’t accept what was written in Wikipedia.
So yes, I did some research. If you had done the same research you would have found that Wikipedia disagreed with you, which should have been your call to look further into it. Instead of doing that you just argued your incorrect view again and again until I posted the cold, hard facts for you (ie. did the research you should have been doing) and there was simply no way you could have continued to argue along those lines.
And that was the point where you suddenly started claiming we were discussing the the entire Palestinian territory rather than the Gaza Strip. Oooh. I wonder why.
This is an excellent encapsulation of my complaints against your style.
You attempted, clumsily, to dismiss a factual claim (not originated by me) that made your ideological position look bad. You did so on the strength of baseless mockery and fallacious logic, as already detailed, instead of any real information. Your faulty argument was promptly addressed in the thread, at which point you resorted to furious equivocation (as above) and strident quibbles (directed at another poster) over the meaning of the words “starve” and “malnutrition”. You were trying to weasel out on semantics* right after giving an obnoxiously hard time* to **Captain Ridley’s Shooting Party ** over the use of the word “flattened” (which he immediately admitted was not intended literally).
QED, indeed.
Of course! That’s the SDMB version of a matter-antimatter reaction. 
sorry, the mutliquote function does not work at all locations for me due to some pretty severe firewalls.
Yes, trolling sounds like a good adjective.
No, that’s not what I am saying. Most people drop a line of argument before it is proven to be incontrovertibly incorrect. Finn Again does not.
For example, other posters would (or at least they should) see the map of the bombing sites in northern Lebanon and say, OK I mispoke, Northern Lebanon was indeed “touched”, I meant that it was relatively untouched compared to the south.
They might even go so far as to say that they see now how Capt might have legitimately used the word flattened in the context in which he used it.
If they were really on the ball they might even admit that the definition of flattened and its effect on Lebanon is irrelevant to the debate concerning the flotilla and apologize for the pointless divergence.
Do you see the difference?
I also have a very high opinion of mods here and I see them getting beaten up for having partisan biases. This isn’t a complaint about partisan bias, this is a complaint about how much they let Finn Again get away with.
I don’t know what it is. He may feel that to admit error is to admit weakness. When you use other people’s minor footfaults as a bludgeon, you are probably less likely to be willing to admit your minor footfaults if you can possibly help it.
My experience has been that he focuses on these details because he is looking for ammunition, not debate.
How about Israel’s right to defend itself. When Finn posted that link to the San Remo manual, I could have quibbled about how binding the San Remo manual is but based on some very cursory research, I said that Israel was probably acting legally when it used force on the Maru. If the roles were reversed, I do not think Finn Again would give the me the same courtesy especially if I was posting as if the San Remo manual was unimpeachable…
I have encountered him in other threads (where we are on the same side of an issue) and he is snide, dismissive, condescending, etc. If his intent is to convince people through debate he does not seem to have gotten the knack of the art of persuasion.
Same here.
It would be easier if there was an ignore button.
Oh, there is a report button. I hadn’t noticed that before. I’ll use it.
What he said was “israel should drop the blockade” = “you deny that Israel has the right to defend itself”
Yeah, that is the general principle I am asking to have applied to Finn Again.
Finn Again makes his second post in the thread in post 124 which nitpicks the fact that Lebanon and Manchester were not literally flattened and goes on to question the strength of Capt.'s position if he has to rely on fictions like “flattened”
IN THE VERY NEXT POST, Capt clarifies his position that he didn’t mean that Lebanon and Manchester was literally flattened, that he was speaking idiomatically and yet this goes on for pages. The subtext of this argument is that if Capt can’t be trusted to be honest about “flattened” we can’t really trust him at all and Capt is flailing around trying to defend his credibility against a pretty ridiculous attack.
So when Finn says
“If you can’t make your points without relying on fiction, it’s a pretty good indicator that you haven’t got much of a point. Don’t make fact-checking the order of the day, eh?”
“I’m used to dealing with people using deceptive claims that are later backpedaled from, yes.”
“Calling the facts “sophistry”, however, shows that your argument can’t be taken at face value.”
He may not mean to insult Capt but I would be insulted if I were Capt.
I don’t know if he has somehow refined the art of walking the line between almost insulting someone and actually insulting someone but there it is.
Not even in the face of evidence of the contrary.
He is doing a bang up job and fighting ignorance. He is closing minds by the day.
This is what I am talking about.
I have already addressed this issue, you’re not disagreeing until proven wrong, you are obstinately disagreeing.
[quote]
You just made the “good faith” argument that when I pointed out that you were engaging in exactly that behavior, that you had a conclusion and you were working backwards from the conclusion to try to find facts that would support it… that I was wrongly suggesting that you had an agenda, and I must have been suggesting that it was anti-Semitisic.
**And all along you knew I was right. **
this the the sort of selective quoting you engage in that distorts what I am saying.
Here is my post “I don’t think I used to be a knee-jerk Israel criticiser but Finn is quickly turning me into one. I don’t sepdn time slowly digesting new facts into my gestalt of what is going on in the middle east, instead I find myself trying to fifure out how new facts can be incorporated into a narrative against Israel and I have to make a conscious effort to retain objectivity and that really bothers me. I don’t think this was the case before I encountered Finn.”
Instead of reading this post to mean that your efforts are creating counterproductive reflexes in the people you are arguing with, you take it as another opportunity to impeach my credibility. :smack:
I don’t have an agenda but your method of argument is creating a reflex in me. I am suppressing that reflex but I have to make a conscious effort to do so because of you.
That’s right, a mirror is sometimes how you show someone their hypocrisy.
I have already addressed why this is an inflammatory and dishonest statement
Give me dates because I am getting confused. You probably have better facts than I do, what were the respective dates of (1) when the partition plan was supposed to take effect, (2) when the Brits were leaving Palestine (3) when Israel declared independence and (4) when the arab states invaded? Now tell me why my understanding of the timeline is relevant to the argument (without bringing up the notion that my errors on the timeline means something about my credibility or the strength of my argument)?
Yes
Yes
yes
Glad you finally understand that you were the instigator of an irrelevant tangent that you only started to try to impeach Capt’s credibility on the flotilla debate.
And it was explained to you many times.
Yeah like the very next post.
And why would he have to say that or why would even be relevant to say that?
Anyway i don’t want yo get into substantive debate on this forum. I am just here to ask the moderators why you get away with stuff that others get moderated for and why others get moderated along with you for stuff that you instigate. I’d also like to know why the moderators tolerate your style of debate considering where it always leads.