Not quite.
I don’t think the pitting here is deserved, although I opposed your position in the first thread. I believe that I could have demonstrated your error to you, but the pile-on got in the way of a rational discussion.
So point #2 was the barrier that prevented the rebuttal of point #1.
I’m not sure you can call it a pile-on when you’re just so fucking nebulous it’s barely possible to agree with you. Plus mswas continued to come back swinging at pretty much all comers in that thread, and almost everyone but him was making logical and informed arguments, so this talk of pile-on I’m not sure about. Is it just any time one goes against many, or shouldn’t there be some actual mindlessness to it?
A pile on is a matter of quantity not quality. By responding to the quantity of responders I diffused my ability to argue my point succinctly.
Miller That’s still based on your prejudice. Has no bearing on what I actually think, only what you wish I thought so you could justify your vitriole as you were clearly tittillated by your righteous indignation.
Actually, if you’ll step out of your “own reality” for a moment, you’ll see that I never said that.
What was your response to the question of the transgendered and gainful employment again? Oh yeah…they’re not allowed to maintain it if the rest of the employees don’t want them to. Mustn’t rock the Good Ship Social Cohesion… I think that’s the subject we were discussing here.
Now, be fair. I don’t think mswas is malevolent, necessarily. Just stupid.
ETA: Bricker, the only one impeding a rational discussion in the GD thread was mswas himself. begbert2 and Urgk. were getting along just fine.
There’s got to be a point at which we all agree a poster has brought it on himself, though, and indeed invited it, as evidenced by later statements admitting his foreknowledge that his opinion would be enormously unpopular.
Oh yeah, there is. We call it trolling.
Fair, and accurate, enough.
Oh, really?
Or was that just another example of you lying about your position to “encourage debate?”
If I started a thread called “Do we have a responsibility to accept white individuals” and filled it with stuff about how, in the world, there are clearly only lovely brown people one would want to work and couple with, and other, bizarre, icky people with a melanin defect – and that therefore, a white person who insists on keeping her job even though I think the pasty cottage cheese flesh I can’t even see under her clothes is gross is a bigot…would I be accused of malice? Would anyone defend me against charges of malice or trollery? Would it be a pile-on when people rightfully debated me into the ground?
Depends. If, after having your ass handed to you, you claimed you were just “playing devil’s advocate” to get a rise out of everyone, then yes. You would be accused of trollery. That’s the case here.
Incidentally, I just read the thread in its entirety for the first time. That is the trolliest trollery troll troll troll I’ve ever read from someone with more than three posts. Troll on wheels. Turbo troll. Troll on rye with spicy mustard.
The problem is when there’s one person arguing against many, it’s well-nigh impossible to devote the time necessary to carefully rebut points, completely answer opposing points, and generally field a strong argument. It’s also difficult to see when your own points are being refuted, because you have the frustrated sense that your arguments are not getting the attention from your opponents that they deserve.
I think mswas was vulnerable to being backed into a logical corner, because his basic position was logically inconsistent. But too many people shouting at him at once made that impossible.
Technically correct, but “Heh. This certainly doesn’t do much for the god argument, does it?” does not differ significantly. Nice dodge.
No dodge. I never said they were stupid. Deluded, maybe…but not stupid. There’s a difference.
and mswas wins the thread!
CMC fnord!
OneCentStamp I claimed that I was playing Devil’s Advocate in Post 13. Just not in those exact words.
:rolleyes:
I believe the word she used was “Heh” . It struck me the same way at first but if you read further into the thread you can see she was clearly making light . Then she started bitching about preparation technics 
“Not in those exact words”? Let’s look at your “exact words”:
If you think that anything in that post would be construed by a reasonable reader of English to mean “I am playing devil’s advocate,” we may have an answer to why this statement was so silly:
You never “argued an unpopular opinion.” You simply threw out a mish-mash of inchoate ideas, badly expressed, with no attempt to let your audience know what you actually intended, then piled defective arguments on top of outlandish examples (often expressed in insulting language) to the point where no one could tell what you actually meant. The thread had over three hundred replies before I stepped in to point out an apparent error in your presentation and it took nearly 50 more posts before you finally explained to me what you were actually arguing.
The problem is not that your ideas are unpopular, it is that they are unrecognizable. Your later claim of “devil’s advocate” is an example of that same obscurity. To lay claim to a position of devil’s advocate, one must address a clear discussion to which most participants have already agreed (on terms, boundaries, principle point of contention, as well as most probable final agreement) and then to set forth a view that appears to refute the accepted position either through a startling new application of logic or a reconsideration of a basic fact. Your thread did nothing like that–no one knew what you were even arguing about for seven pages. (And a claim that the quoted post was a declaration that you were playing devil’s advocate indicates that either/both you do not know what the term means or you don’t even know what you posted.)
To claim “devil’s advocacy” for your arguments is to demonstrate an utter misunderstanding of the language that we attempt to use to convey our opinions on this board.
You are not oppressed, just incoherent.
(In general, I find that Socratic Dialogue and Devil’s Advocacy are foolish things to post to a message board in that they each require a very limited number of participants with a strong common ground of understanding–conditions that are almost never present in this environment–but to claim that one is playing devil’s advocate when has not even identified the agreement against which one will argue is simply odd.)
So you’re saying we can we add “Devil’s Advocate” to the growing list of terms it doesn’t know the meaning of? At some point we’ll be better off listing the ones it does know.
It might be a short list.
Oh, and I really agree with this - I sometimes catch myself slipping into it because it’s my natural IRL debate/discussion approach, but dang, it doesn’t work very well in open forum.