I have two reasons for not responding to that thread. For one, I’ve already said I wasn’t going to, that I saw no reason to argue things over again. I think I’ve outlined strong support for my position in the pit thread in question. It is unfortunate people weren’t given a chance to respond to some of those arguments–but I wasn’t the one who asked for that thread to be closed.
I would basically have to rehash a lot of what I had already said to even participate in that GD thread.
Secondly, this discussion started in the raucous pulpit that is the pit. I think “moving it up” to GD is a bad idea. I don’t want to go into GD with an attitude and frame of reference from a pit thread, I think it is bad posting practice.
So basically, you’re starting a Pit thread to argue in favor of your right to post “neener neener” hijacks, and calling Shayna an intellectual coward? You’re smarter than that, it just doesn’t compute. Shayna may have an almost fanatical devotion to [del]the Pope[/del] Obama, but my experience is that she usually backs up what she says pretty well.
It’s the Pit, Martin. Her language was obviously hyperbolic. That’s sort what this forum is for.
I avoided the original thread because it looked like political hackwork. Even if your claim is sincere and hers isn’t, that doesn’t make your claim any less stupid.
And here’s where I think you’re wrong. Because in a heated election where people feel strongly about their chosen candidate, just about any rhetoric on either side is going to be perceived as slander/name-calling/whatever. By your standard, no thread on either candidate would ever be free of partisans from the other side yelling out accusations and insults.
I think the problem is that you’re only viewing this in terms of the people on the firmly established partisan sides. You’re not taking into consideration the vast majority of posters here who may not have fully made up their minds or, even if they have, are less invested in politics as message board career and may enjoy discussing specific issues related to the election. One can’t have a focused discussion if as soon as one side perceives some rhetoric to be unfair, they start hurling insults and talking points about the other candidate.
No, I’ve said several times the initial form of my response to her was not appropriate.
However, this, as you go on to say, is the pit. If she calls my candidate a name, I feel like I should be able to call her candidate a name. Furthermore, I think it particularly notable that I called her candidate a name that I actually believe, whereas she was calling McCain something she probably does not truly believe he is.
Basically, if she’s going to start a thread just to insult McCain, she should expect some return-jabs. I agree it would have been better if I had responded to the initial allegations about McCain before going into calling Obama names. But I think that was still a valid avenue of attack because she started the thread off as a name-calling thread. I didn’t view the thread as a debate about contraceptive programs to prevent the spread of HIV. I viewed it as an “insult McCain” thread, that had that as its initial “theme.”
But only for Shayna?
I’m glad at least someone sees that it was indeed political hackwork. Like you’ve said earlier “she usually backs things up.” My impression is she’s barely even capable of making any arguments herself.
It’s sort of like the old adage we all learned in school, it’s one thing to quote someone or some other work to give your paper support–but a series of quotes shouldn’t make up the entirety of your paper’s contents. My impression of **Shayna[/b is she’s not really capable of arguing about Obama, only capable of reposting things said in his defense or things said about his opponents that she has found in her “Internet Crusade to Promote Obama.”
I’d probably have a ton more respect for her if I felt she was bringing some of her own ideas into these discussions, most of her posts are primarily defined by her quoting other things, not by her making arguments for herself–at least in regards to threads like this, I’m not making this claim about her postings on this message board as a whole.
Look at this post for an example of what I’m talking about.
:dubious: You asserted an inflammatory and highly debatable position. Challenging you to defend it in our serious-debate forum by serious-debate rules is not bad posting practice.
That’s because you’re a dickhead fuckface cuntweasel shit-spewing testicle-free assmonkey. You should be grateful that anybody still responds to your vapid typewritten vomitus with a modicum of respect, because it’s far more than you deserve. The day you vanish from the boards will be an occasion for hoisting of many celebratory cocktails.
I don’t think there would have been that much exception to a response of yours defending McCain’s statements, followed up by a presentation of instance(s) where you thought Obama had said something dumb/uninformed.
Dragging out charges of racism is naked hijackalesque tu quoquery.
There are things I admire about John McCain, and I’m not set on who to vote for in November. Still, he’s taken some awfully dumb and/or pandering positions on health and science-related issues and deserves to be blasted for them.
If you can find something jaw-droppingly dumb that Obama has said about vaccines, fluoride or AIDS, for example, I will happily join you in scathing criticism of Obama, rather than responding with “McCain wants to fight a 100-year war in Iraq!”.*
*yes, I know that’s not what he meant.
I have no idea whether it was “fair” or not. But that has no bearing on whether or not the Obama topic was a hijack. I didn’t participate in that thread, although I did read most of it, and I wouldn’t say she mischaracterized entirely what he said. It’s the Pit, so exaggeration should be expected. I doubt she really thinks he’s one of the dumbest people on the planet. Anyway, if you think his comments made sense, you could’ve defended them. Or not participated in the thread. Most Pit threads like that are just circle jerks anyway.
I think she posted an exaggeration or strong expression of what she really thinks that was related to the topic; you posted something ridiculous (even if you do believe it).
I don’t think I said anything that can be interpreted that way.
She’s prone to posting every endorsement in the world, but like I said, when she makes an argument, she finds the statements to back it up.
A bad example. I’d found that guy’s site during another search and I was planning to post it myself. I think it’s totally on point in that situation.
Run’n Hyde, you’ve got some major league nads to title a thread as you have this one, after pulling such a super-puss move regarding BrainGlutton’s GD thread.
Yeah, Martin Hyde, I don’t get your reasoning for not wanting to participate in BrainGlutton’s GD thread. I’m sure Shayna will be more than happy to not be an intellectual coward over there! I don’t really see the point in shutting this thread down, but if they same discussion is going on over there, who cares? Or start your own Pit thread to call Obama a racist if you feel have to.
(Bolding mine) This is not a hijack, how? I don’t see how Obama’s being a racist makes John McCain less of an idiot. (FTR, I beleive neither of these claims)
What if he is an idiot? More importantly, what if she really thinks so? Then how is that dishonest?
So what you’re saying is, we can’t ever have a thread wherein we discuss John McCain’s myriad idiocies and foibles that you will not hijack to be about Obama, esp. if you perceive the OP or other posters in the thread to be Obama supporters? You do realize that’s pretty disrespectful of the entire concept of a conversation, don’t you?
The thread you’re pitting was not about Obama. Not at all, not even a little-- until YOU made it so. You come off as a frothing lunatic with an axe to grind, considering how completely you tried to change the topic of the thread. You’re as much a psycho obsessive as you claim Obama supporters to be. Shayna happens to be an Obama supporter, but she is allowed, and fully able, to start threads devoted to bullshit that McCain says without discussion of Obama. In fact, I hope there are more threads about McCain and fewer about Clinton and Obama, because frankly, I’m tired of hearing about them, and it’s only April.
Make the return jabs ABOUT McCAIN!
I think you’re completely off base. We were in fact discussing McCain’s and the Republican party’s position on HIV prevention, and possible reasons why McCain made the boneheaded response he did to a factual question. It was YOU who changed the subject.
You know, you pretty much deserve your own Pitting for the frankly fucking idiotic shit you said in that thread, about Obama being the Manchurian Candidate who, despite never doing so before in his political career, and despite being half white and raised by his white mother, will suddenly enact a “screw whitey” agenda wherein he will bilk White America out of their money. Also, your gem about how no one can prove anyone else is a racist, it’s just a matter of opinion, therefore you don’t have to offer any support for your wild conspiracy theory. So you Pitting Shayna is pretty fucking ironic.
A bad example. I’d found that guy’s site during another search and I was planning to post it myself. I think it’s totally on point in that situation.