Spiritus for all you long drawn bulleted arguments about the meanies, the situation here is obvious.
Redfury and Xploder both thought Liberal was being an underhanded asshole by bringing up a mysterious death notice to get out of a Pitting. In response, they acted like assholes back. Also in response, the moderators suspended him.
Sorry, while not the most pleasant exchange - I think Liberal had it coming.
We noticed.
An eminently reasonable position. How strange that I never saw you espouse the same ethos in the thread where liberal was being advised to change his posting style to make other people happy. In fact, I seem to recall you being firmly aligned with the “change your ways” camp.
The word that brings to mind is hypocrisy
Yes. Note also that I have not advised you to change your posting style, nor supported any such position by another. Note how this consistency of position contrasts with your own.
Yes, you were. This is called a strwaman. It is one of the most common logical fallacies, generally relied upon by folks who lack either powers of concentration or intellectual integrity. Sometimes, though, it is just the result of poor reading skills.
Clue for Mr RedFury, nobody has claimed that you violated the rules of this board.
Setting aside for the moment whether your perception is accurate, why in the world do you think that having a few other people agree with you is a validation of your behavior? This could be categorized as a number of fallacies, but I think I will choose appeal to popularity
A moment ago you wrapped yourself in the idea that folks could “love it or leaveit” when it came to your posts. Now, suddenly, you find use the agreement of others as if it were a meaningful support for your position. I guess we can add logical consistency to your the list of underdeveloped qualities.
You sell yourself short: [ul][li]“I only need look at my cancer-riddled mother to get a dose of hard-core suffering in living color – and if that is not enough, living as I do, in a Third World country, a quick ride through the streets, filled with some of the most gruesome images of pain and injustice you can ever imagine, more than fills my quota for suffering.”[/ul][/li]
An eminently reasonable position. If you actually practiced what you preach we might have some hope of a meaningful exchange of ideas. The word, again, was hypocrisy.
What was that sentence again? Oh yeah – Deal with what I write. Period.
You have erected another scarecrow. Neither measure nor myself made any sweeping claims about your behavior outside of these boards
When we began this thread, I thought you were a person who posted something shameful in a moment of anger.
Now I think you are a hypocrite with underdeveloped senses of ethics, empathy, integrity, and intellectual honesty coupled with an almost patholigcal inability to see any fault in your own actions.
But that doesn’t mean I think every post that you have ever made has been petty or cruel. Congratulations on being able to find a recent post in which you have expressed a measure of sympathy for another human being.
I fail to understand how personal antipathy should have any impact on ethical conduct in this context.
Perhaps I might be persuaded to believe otherwise when one of Spiritus’s antagonists demonstrates what harmful consequence of Liberal’s personality justifies the above use of such casually cruel language.
Until then, I am forced to conclude that by giving Liberal less of a benefit of the doubt than one would give a complete stranger that Spiritus’ assessment of the underdeveloped character of the participants of this thread is absolutely correct.
If this isn’t a chance to prove that despite disagreement and antipathy we are all individuals of good will, I don’t know what is.
That doesn’t make sense. Why shouldn’t we react differently to familiar personalities compared with unknown ones? What’s the point of getting to know someone otherwise?
Just because you want to be a goody two shoes don’t blame other people for actually remembering past experiences with Liberal.
When we began this thread, and based on the only interaction I’ve had with you on this board – which I linked to as contextual evidence – I thought you were a condescending, unctuous, sanctimonious prick with an overblown ego and delusions of grandeur.
Everything I’ve read from you since has only served to validate my original impression. In fact, you come off as little else than a negative copy of Blowhard #1, Lib himself.
My shorts are still available for your culinary delight.
BTW, Bryan, appreciate your attempts to engage Narcissus in rational discussion with a series of well thought-out posts which slice through all the pretentious bullshit and address the very heart of the matter at issue. But as it is plain to see, as a mere mortal, you stand about as good a chance of bringing common sense into this argument – and I use the term lightly – as does a snowball in hell.
Mr Blowhard appears to content himself with hurling back every possible logical fallacy he’s ever heard of. Whether they are material or not to what he is responding to, or whether he commits them himself by the bucketful, obviously troubles The Great One not a whit.
That said, it is my experience that hubri,s is, almost without fail, ultimately self-defeating.
How you react in your head is up to you. Your first instinct may be to believe that Liberal is lying or shamefully redirecting the discussion. The fact that this is your considered opinion does not mean that sharing it with the class is somehow acceptable or meritorious.
You do not have to be a “goody two shoes” to pause for a moment before posting and ask yourself “would I say this to a complete stranger?” and “what harm has Liberal actually caused me?”. The answers are probably “no” and “not much.” You should then refrain from posting your odious and unsubstantiable opinion. This is not being particularly high-minded; this is basic human courtesy.
That of course, fails to take into account the almost countless number of occasions Lib himself has been the one ‘casually’ slinging the foulests of epithets and acting in as cruel a fashion as this MB will allows – even skating on a razor’s edge many a time as his record bears. Apparently, what makes it all excusable in his case is that he goes through periods of ‘great remorse’ when he apologizes to all and sundry…only to shortly thereafter begin the vicious cycle all over again.
What utter hypocritical bullshit!
What’s that they say about “if you can’t stand the heat, say you’re dying.”? No, that’s not it, is it?
Had I leveled any charges relatd to liberal’s past behavior, or had I inculded an assumption that liberal’s post was necessarily true, then you would have a point. However, since I made no such claims the question of whether liberal makes people mad or whether he will actually die within a year or two is irrelevant. Hell, xPloder even managed to work in events that happened after the exchange quoted in the OP, as if my charges could in some way be related to actions that he might take in the future. RedFury focused much of his attention on past disagreements between he and I, as if I had criticized his behavior toward me rather than toward liberal.
Raising issues not relevant to an argument while pretending to respond to the argument is obuscation. The fact that you seem to think the elements of a valid argument can be determined by popular appeal speaks for itself.
And, since your own ability to read is obvoiusly impaired as well, here is a brief list of the misreadings present just in the single linked RedFury post:[ul]
[li]Inability to understand a conditional clause[/li][li]Attributing my actions (opening this thread) to liberal’s motivations (attention seeking)[/li][li]Imagining that my charging him with characteristics that he thinks liberal possesses is a “pot and kettle” situation (along with misuning the concept of “irony”)[/ul][/li]How interesting that you were incapable of reporting any of those as misreadings.
Yep. And the fact that you (again) raise this issue as if it had some bearing on my argument shows that (again) you are very familiar with the us of red herrings. You are a very prodigal of logical fallacies. How special.
WOW!! Truly? You have utterly demoloshed my argument that shameful behavior should be banned from the PIT!
Oh . . . wait. I never made that argument. That’s just the red herring served up by the jackass in your brain. I’m sure the two of you make a very cute couple.
I didn’t. That was the jackass in Bryan ekers’ brain.
Yep. Now if only you could find the capacity to understand what is is about.
CLUE for Bryan Ekers
CLUE for Bryan Ekers
[ul][li]If the words “rules”, “administration”, “PIT”, and “tighten” are CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT from an argument, then it may not be asking for the administration to tighten rules.[/ul][/li]
Do try and internalize that concept. It might even make the voices in your head be quiet for a little while.
By Jove, I think he’s got it! That would be, you know, why I directly expressed an opinion on the behavior of {b]redFury** and xPloder.
Subtle, ain’t I? :eek:
Works for me. I only wish those folks could come up with more persuasive criticisms than “you’re a jackass because I don’t like the things you haven’t really posted.” Still, one makes do with what is available.
What are you talking about? I created no dichotomy. I ASKED YOU why you posted the trivial observation that different people recognize different obligations. It is apparent that you have no answer. Perhaps you think the observation to be proound. :smack:
No effort at all. It was remarkably easy to demonstrate that your charges were unfounded. Hell, at this point you appear to be so confounded yb the voices in your head that you don’t even remember the charge you initially made (even though I helpfully quoted it back to you.) Here, let me do it again:
[ul][li]“you imply your intellectually superior position prevents you from fully understanding a position stemming from an intellectually inferior source”[/ul][/li]
Yep. I predict you will attempt to do so with a string of quotes that support neither the claim that I pretend a failure of understanding an argument based upon an assumption that the source was intellectually inferior. Let’s take a look, shall we?
[ul][li]Here, let me deconstruct your poor argument with the scorn and derision I feel it deserves. No extra charge for the lessons in basic grammar. strike one[/li][li]Should one of them demonstrate the capacity for honest exchange or self-reflection it would shock me greatly. strike two[/li][li]One of these things is not like the other. If you stare at them really hard and maybe squint your eyes a bit you might figure out the difference. strike three[/li][li]Well, we already know that thinking is not your strong suit. strike four[/ul][/li]Hell, even if the catcher drops the third strike you’re still a K.
Wow, the intellectual pissing is strong with this thread.
One thing that would be nice to see on the Straight Dope would be people who like to constantly refer to rules of logic and debate in patronizing and arrrogant ways, along with making constant, “Or is your puny little head incapable of understanding that,” type comments.
Seriously, everyone, if you can find those types of people, make sure to show them the board.
Ah, RedFury, a post of your standard quality. How much easier to simply hurl epithets and accusations without troubling to actually demonstrat the accuracy of your observations.
First, congratulations on using the word “unctuous” correctly in a sentence. Maybe next time you can use it in a true sentence, just for variety.
[ul][li]condescending - I cop to that one. I have indeed been condescending to you, and will most likely continue to do so until you demonstrate some quality worthy of respect.[/li][li]unctuous - This one is laughable. Do you seriously imagine that I have been insincerely agreeable in my posts to you? Maybe you need a better thesaurus?[/li][li]sanctimonious prick - Well, your definition of sanctimonious may require only the temerity to express disapproval of RedFury, but for the folks playing at home perhaps you would like to show where I have been feigning piety or righteousness? (I predict that you will show no such thing. Let’s see if I am right.)[/li][li]overblown ego and delusions of grandeur - right, because if I carry myself as if I am smater the RedFury I mist be grand, eh? Sadly, demonstrating the paucity of your intellectual presentations in this thread leaves the bar far too low to convey any exalted position for myself. If I do suffer from an overblown ego, rest assured that slapping around your sorry arguments has done little to inflate it.[/ul][/li] :wally
I have it on good authority that both Xploder and RedFury will die some day.
As such I feel that this thread is both mean, callous, and lacking in compassion.
Someone should pit Spiritus Mundi posthaste.
-Joe, apologizes for the lack of needless verbosity
I typically admire the strength of your convictions, RedFury. I just feel that here they are misplaced. Since I am not in your head and cannot assess the true measure of your feelings, my own opinions might well be worthless to you.
If Liberal skates on the razor’s edge and slings more feces than the ape god himself, then his sins fall upon his own head. Why compound them with yours?
Why let him slide instead of calling him on his bullshit?
Don’t worry, though. Soon Liberal will be back with us again. Then he can explain how he found Jay-zus in his heart and he’ll be a completely different guy from now on.
I’m sure he won’t regress or anything.
-Joe
Slyfrog
I take your point. How do you handle folks who hurl profanity at you while backing their charges with fauklty reasoning and logical fallacies?
What’s your beef? Are you Liberal’s father? Is it really up to you to correct his conduct or “call him” on his “bullshit”? Does being an unmitigated dick make you a better person?
Laugh at your own ignorance, dickwad. When done, learn something new:
Here’s one more to add to the heap:
Insufferable prima donna (translations available upon request)
Keeps the laughs coming, will ya? I just looove pissing constests with arrogant cumstains.
Just out of curiosity, do you prefer pissing contests with humble cumstains?
Again, that’s just the point, Maeglin. This whole thread’s about casting aspersions on the people who dared point out the beam in Lib’s eye while ignoring the mote in theirs.
And yes, before The Egghead comes along to correct my usage of the parable, let’s just say I took some creative liberties in its usage.
:::::gaaasp!:::::
On preview:
At my age, I’d much rather not engage in pissing contests of any sort – and my bladder’s quite happy for it. Having said that, as much as I admire genious, I prefer humbleness.
In the rare occasions when the two meet, I’m both truly humbled and appreciative.
OTOH, I despise bullies of any kind. And I think I’ve made that abundantly clear throughout this thread. Then again, if you think I’m being overly harsh here, you should read some of my tirades in my native language 
My mistake. You need to learn how to use a dictionary rather than getting a better thesaurus. Or maybe you just need to find within yourself some tiny little inclination toward honesty. How fortunate that the American Heritage dictionary is in fact online for ease of reference.
So, you managed to skip right by the first definition, the one that might actually be applied appropriately to the activities of a message board persona, and hang your hopes instead on “slippery”. Apparently you have been running your fingers up and down your computer screen examining the texture of my posts.
Here’s a hint – the oil you feel is probably coming from your own slimy little fingers.
Start a GD thread. State both your premises and your conclusion clearly and precisely, and maybe, just maybe, I’ll dignify said thread with my presence and make you eat shit logically.
No need to thank me for my brilliance. Really, I’m used to it by now.