To remind you, the current “brouhaha” is that you accused me of dishonesty. That means you’d need to show where my argument wasn’t honest. It’s rather telling that you accuse me of arguing dishonestly and then say that you’d prefer not to support your claim and actually point out any dishonesty in the correct forum, the Pit, and that someone your inability to back up your own claim is my fault. And asking you to justify your own accusation is beyond the pale. But you’d like to change the subject from that insulting and false-to-facts charge that you cannot substantiate, to something else (that also isn’t true). Arguing dishonestly has a specific meaning, and it has nothing to do with ‘tone of voice’.
And:
Hey, I can play that game too!
The way you eat puppy dogs and make stew out of live kittens makes your posts really unpleasant, and, also, I’m pretty sure that you told Godzilla to attack Tokyo. Those poor, poor people…
I disagree with people, and quite a few opinions on the I/P question, quite happily and civility. DSeid and I have disagreed thoroughly on the method’s that Israel should use to protect itself and neutralize external threats as well as just how far the 4th Geneva Convention goes when it states that protected persons cannot shield a valid military target from military activity. I’ve corrected Sam Stone, IIRC a few times, on the causes of the Palestinian refugee problem. And so on. It’s also telling that you phrased the issue in terms of opinions instead of facts. Some people’s opinions are founded on fiction. And as the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. And if you’re talking about me being used to the same dozen or so people making the same factual errors time and time again, sometimes in the same thread, or as you put it, debating dishonestly? Then no, I don’t cut them any slack.
To say nothing of the basic absurdity of your claim. For the mere fact of holding my opinions, I am routinely accused of being a traitor to the United States and having Dual Loyalty, being a secret neocon, saying that Israel Can Do No Wrong even in threads where I’ve explicitly criticized Israel, etc, etc, etc. I’ve never said, for instance, that anybody who believes that the Green Line should be an absolute border is a secret pawn of the Arab states. People routinely say that due to my opinions, I am all sorts of bad. The OP of the Pit thread that started this one said I had an anti-humanity position and likened the MK’s to Nazis. So please don’t tell me that it’s a matter of respect for differing opinions.
Nope, the brouhaha I’m referring to is whatever thread the OP was referring to where you spouted your usual litany of insults that offended them.
I have no idea about this at all because I can only go by what I think based on your comments. I routinely agree with your opinions so it isn’t disagreeing with you that makes me feel the way I do. It’s the way you attack people that makes me feel the way I do.
I’m hardly a delicate flower around here and I’m not easily offended. I’ve insulted people and have a pretty aggressive demeanor on many topics. I also have a pretty terrible memory when it comes to putting names to posts and could use a spreadsheet to remind me who is who on the board so if you ping my “wow!” meter enough for me to remember then that’s really saying something
My opinion is based on the dozens and dozens of posts I’ve read where you routinely insult anyone and everyone who disagrees with you with a zealousness that is jaw dropping. I gave the OP my opinion which I do not need to prove to you. If you choose to dismiss my opinion because of lack of cites, feel free because that matters zero to me. If the OP dismisses my opinion because I refuse to wade through your comments to point out instances that you will simply dismiss then that’s the OP’s choice, too.
Honestly, it’s a shame because I find I’m interested in the information you give on certain topics. I just can’t stomach the vitriol enough to choose to follow your ideas anymore. Again, it’s a shame because I think there’s a lot of information there that I could learn from.
Oh well, neither one of us will lose much sleep over it.
Just so we’re clear Sleeps, you claim I’m dishonest, and it’s clear enough that you’d make such a claim secure in your being right… but you can’t quote a single phrase and post in the Pit thread to show just how dishonest I am, because gosh darn I’d disagree! But you weren’t just sayin’ whatever sounded good to you whether or not it had a factual grounding, and I really am dishonest. You could prove it… you just don’t wanna.
Kay.
Again, you are, generally, seeing the result of years worth of interactions with the same posters. Refuting the same ‘honest factual mistake’ for the 47th time gets a bit old. And I don’t have a whole lot of patience even for newer folks who don’t bother to learn the first thing about a topic before spouting off.
You know the way most people view 9/11 Troofers? With a mix of contempt, mockery, lowered-expectations and simple frustration that it’s all been done so many times and they could learn the facts if they weren’t willfully ignorant?
Unless I know for a fact that this is not the case, I prefer to assume people to be neglectfully ignorant more than willfully so. This is after all a place to fight ignorance.
I am often the type to ask for a “bring me up to speed on the matter of so and so” and I find it very frustrating when both sides immediately assume that just for asking the question I am supporting the other side and I get grilled all around. Just because you have done it a thousand times that doesn’t mean everybody else knows all the arguments and their counterarguments.
Sure, and I’d agree. But that’s why I was talking about the folks who I’ve seen engaging in the same behavior over, literally, years. I’m more than happy to explain things to someone who has honest questions, but there’s also a significant difference between someone asking honest questions and someone who doesn’t bother to do even the most basic research before they hold forth with a strident, counter-factual opinion.
Well as I have said already in this thread, it is clear Finn Again is a made man. Untouchable. He can say whatever the hell he likes and the moderators do nothing about it. My lack of credibility with you is not something I’ll lose sleep over, much as how you won’t lose sleep over how I think the likes of you, when it comes to moderation, are cowardly in refusing to act because of the controversial subject matter.
For the record, this is the first time I have entered this thread in a few days. I saw Finn Again’s name in the topic list as most recent post and I knew he’d be trying to continue the argument here. Continuing to call everyone liars. Continuing to fail to see basic facts (like his accusation of me having a specific view happening several hours before I wrote anything close to supporting that viewpoint) as they harm his argument. I was right.
So I stayed away. The same way I stayed away from the GD thread and the Pit thread. My point has been made, with the additional point of yet again the moderators are condoning Finn Again’s attitude towards anyone that disagrees with him by not doing anything about it.
You stayed away, but your absence solves nothing if you come back with the same complaints.
Have you considered the possibility of remaining present but nondefensive? I am being serious. (And I’m not choosing a side in the argument for the moment.)
You can decide not to let it become that important to you. Just a suggestion.
Nah, I generally call people liars when they’re saying things that aren’t true. Everybody doesn’t do that. Some people do, repeatedly.
You are not grokking this. Yet again:
You keep claiming that I haven’t “seen basic facts”, when in fact I’ve not only addressed your same exact claim, numerous times, in this thread and the other while explaining why you are wrong, but you’ve refused to acknowledge what I’ve said. You keep repeating an argument that is inaccurate at best and ignores what I’ve actually said to rebut a strawman. This is part of the problem.
If that’s your concern, you’re not ever going to be happy. I’m allowed to disagree strongly with people who I disagree with in GD, and I’m allowed to flame people in the Pit. It’s always been that way and there are no rules against ‘having an attitude towards anybody that disagrees with them’, to say nothing of the fact that even that claim is not factually accurate as I disagree with folks quite civilly as long as I view their argument as intellectually honest and factually accurate. Your complaint that I shouldn’t be allowed to disagree with people isn’t very convincing, as it’s allowed by the rules… especially in a folder dedicated to debate and another to personal arguments and flaming.
I don’t understand a lot of what’s going on in this thread (ex - I’m ignorant of the underhanded tactics that amanset used to try to get people into trouble) but I like it!
-Flaming should be either verboten in the Pit, or at least curtailed so that someone doesn’t flame you ‘too much’.
-Disagreeing strongly with other people in GD, without flaming them, should probably be banned too.
-Disagreeing on civil and pleasant terms with some people, and viewing others as somewhat less than honest and responding as is appropriate considering the forum they are posting in is bad, and shows that such a person cannot disagree with anybody at all. And that they should probably somehow be stopped by the mods (your guess as to what such ‘stopping’ would look like is as good as mine).
-The mods are beholden to me by a blood-pact of darkest intentions, I am a made man and untouchable. I am a gangster who is able to follow the forum rules, get this, with impunity.