I hope you don’t expect me to keep track of your political affiliations. You are no britney spears running around with a tube sock on your arm, you know. I barely even noticed you here in this thread. You are not this super evil villian that makes my spidey senses tingle when you come around. I’m too busy making sure everbody notices ME to try and figure out just what it is you are trying to say.
Izzy…
I’ll have you know that I intend to have the last word on this thread.
My comment had nothing to do with Izzy’s issues, merely with what Freedom had said about one’s need for validation.
You know I think you rock. But if Izzy thinks you suck, that’s Izzy’s problem. I know better.
By the way, Izzy: if you and I ever got into it, i thought I’d let you know that I don’t remember it, either. There is a very small group of posters with whom I specifically remember locking horns, although I’m also sure that the group I happen to recall does not represent everyone who has ever disagreed with me, only those that impressed themselves on me for one reason or another…generally because of repetition or egregious rudeness, in one or two cases simply because the handle happens to be very memorable. There’s a whole lot of people posting here, I don’t remember everyone’s beliefs or every exchange I’ve ever had with them. Do you? Because if you do, I think you are unusual.
I keep hoping that perhaps I will see some evidence for the character that has inspired respect in other posters. Instead, I see a coward who lacks both the ability to admit his error and the courage to engage me in debate.
You see no obligation to retract an accusation for which you can offer no support beyond your own certainty? Is an example of the moral superiority that you espoused in the religion thread? Has your god told you that slander is fine so long as you show it is unfounded? Your opinion of me is a matter or personal conscience. Your accusations are a matter of public record.
As of this moment, so is my utter contempt for your character.
You say that you could rebut my points. If rebut means offer a logical counterargument, then you are wrong. The substance of your charge rests on nothing but your own opinion of what I remembered. That you continue to pretend you can support this opinion with objective evidence simply confirms your inability, or unwillingness, to honestly explore your own position.
I am disappointed that you feel no obligation to value honesty above hurt feelings, to value truth above ego, but I cannot say I am surprised. That obligation comes from an ethical sensibility which you have aplty demonstrated that you lack. This does add an ironic finish to your position in the morality thread though. Nice touch.
I have no doubt that you emerge from this encounter wrapped smugly in a coccoon of self-righteousness, convinced that your position is valid and that others simply lacked the ability to appreciate the truth of your charge. You perhaps even see your unwillingness to respond to me as a virtue, “rising above the fray” perhaps. I simply remind you that there was no “fray” until you leveled your charge.
I also remind you that you asked for a detailed response to your points. You also specifically stated that my opinion was welcome (while simultaneously insinuating that it would be dishonest.) Now you disdain to respond to either. What word might we find among your lexicon to describe that behavior, I wonder?
I close, for now, with a public pronouncement of my own.
I was not confused about the target of your post. I also have no prolem with what Izzy thinks. His opinion of me is completely irrelevant to me. My only problem is with willingness to continue making a charge he is no longer willing to defend.
I hope you know I respect your reasoning and posting abilities, though I don’t always agree with you. In fact, usually not. But you’re a fair person who listens and responds in kind, weighing my POV and the arguments I advance for it, before ripping them to shreds (at least from your POV).
I find it quite believable that someone might forget an incident in which they disagreed with someone else. In fact, the only two incidents where I specifically remember clashing with someone are my recent run-in with Gaspode and when Libertarian accused me of advocating theft for suggesting there were times when taxes to assist others might be appropriate. Certainly I’ve had intellectual disagreements with people in the past, but they were founded on mutual respect.
I suspect Izzy is finding it a bit difficult to remove himself from an untenable position – having ranted about the three incidents where you clashed, he apparently finds it difficult to accept that you might have forgotten what sticks clearly in his memory.
That does not make him an evil person. I do find it hard to believe that he would accuse you of falsifying whether you recall the situation. Which, it appears to me as it does to you, is what he has been saying in this thread. While he takes and adheres to stances, my experience of him has been that he argues fairly and with respect for differing POVs.
Might I humbly suggest, however, that your ragging him on that apparent inconsistency and his evident disparagement of you as a result of it, is being counterproductive. The purpose of a good Pit thread regarding another poster, as I see it, is to clear the air between the OP and the person flamed, with an eye to setting terms the two of you can live with in the future.
I think Izzy was wrong to accuse you of lying about whether you remember what stuck in his memory. But, as I noted before, Izzy seems to tend to attribute to others the POVs he himself holds. It’s not a far stretch from that to thinking something must be memorable to someone else if it was to him. And clearly your past clashes were so to him, and not to you (on the presumption you both are being up front on the facts behind the clash here, a presumption I’m glad to make regarding both of you).
I leave it to you and Izzy to resolve this from that point.
Oh, and I’ve been waiting for you to pop into one of the religion threads – I have a Yeats quote ready for the occasion!
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. I also agree with your idea of a “good” PIT thread. I tried to uphold that very standard in the thread I opened (which Izzy chose not to grace with his response). Finally, I agree Izzy’s actions do not make him an evil person. I would like to agree with your assessment of his fairness, but I have not experienced that aspect of his nature.
I have experienced an acusation that I find both personally and ethically offensive.
I have experienced an invitation to present my views, only to have them deemed unworthy of response.
I have experienced the arrogance necessary to make and maintain an accusation that rests upon nothing more than Izzy’s opinion about what I remember.
I have experienced the distortion of my posts in an OP accusing me of distorting his.
I have experienced the unwillingness to withdraw a charge which has not been sustained under any reasonable standard of evaluation.
You are correct, to the extent that the purpose here is to settling the animosity between IzzyR and myself.
I opened my thread hoping for just such a result.
Even after seeing the nature of Izzy’s “justifications”, I maintained a hope that we might put the matter to rest peacably.
When Izzy opened this thread in response, that hope seemed justified, since the matter appeared based upon mistaken perceptions.
When Izzy refused to acknowledge the response he invited, the hope seemed less promising.
When Izzy refused to retract an accusation without tangible support, the hope became dim indeed.
Now, when Izzy has declared his refusal to join me in discourse, when he has refused to abandon his absurd slander, when he has failed to acknowledge even the possibility that his certainty is misplaced, tell me, Polycarp, where now am I supposed to find hope that this matter can be resolved peacably?
Whatever Izzy’s purposes in opening this thread might have been, it is absolutely clear that settling the air between us was not among them.
So, given no hope of convincing him that his offensive charges are misplaced, I have little choice but to demonstrate as clearly as possible that the slander comes from a source unworthy of respect.
Then I respectfully suggest that you direct your missives to IzzyR. I am not the party that has refused conversation.
I look forward to it. I have as much respect for your wit as I do for your integrity. [sub]Now if you would just stop disagreeing with me you’d be perfect.[/sub]
SPIRITUS, you know I love you. You know I’d still be parked outside your house if it wasn’t for that restraining order you got. And I worry when I see that big ol’ vein popping out of your forehead; it makes me apprehensive that you’re going to have an aneurysm.
So please. Come with me. Sit in this virtual comfy chair. Drink this virtual cold drink. Allow me to rub your virtual shoulders. It’s the weekend. Spring is coming. Life is short. I appreciate the depth of slight you feel you received and, yea, your indignation is righteous. But now it’s time for deep, cleansing breaths and perhaps a cold beer. You with me?
I have been surprised at just how this accusation has pissed me off. It has been a long, long time since someone called me a liar. And something about having it done here, in an environment where I idealistically believe a person can be judged solely upon the content and quality of their posts. And to have the circumstances of the charge be so absurd!
throbthrob
Damn the restraining order. Pop the cap off that beer and let’s start this weekend right!
Spiritus, you are SO SPOILED! I swear, you are so accustomed to everyone telling you how fabulous you are…one shmo comes along and calls you a liar, and you fall to pieces! Shit, man, try being me for a day! Imagine being so far beyond being the * target * of epithets that you have *actually become the epithet itself! *
Really, life is good. Just chill like the freezer gnome…
“Liar” is a pretty strong word. Stronger than “asshole” or “pig-fucker”, from my POV. It indicates repeated dishonesty.
Yet Izzy is apparently comfortable making such an accusation, without substantiation (in the estate thread).
That would piss me off, if directed at me, and I always thought I was a fairly level-headed, non-resentful sort of person.
So, what burr did Izzy have up his posterior? As I understand it, his evidence essentially boils down to SM’s momentary inability to remember events from 3,4 and 5 months ago.
His central accusation boils down to something that I might call disingenuousness, at the very absolute worst. And frankly, I would tend to believe SM.
What do I know about Izzy? Well, other than the fact that he ignored one of my posts, I know that he has no problem with calling people liars without substantiation, implicit or explicit. That’s about it.
What a dick.
Oh and BTW, if we’ve conversed in the past Izzy, I request that you don’t call me a liar. Pig-fucker is ok. Debate Tactics
Let’s talk about debating.
Accusation: You started a new thread because you know that controlling the context of the debate is advantageous. It’s better to start a thread off with an accusation and a question, “What’s the deal with Spiritus?”, than to have to start on the defensive. i.e. You were using debating tactics.
Debate tactic #2: Accusing the opposition of using debate tactics.
Debate tactic #3: Beats me. You see, Izzy, you’re not that memorable. I’ve been on these boards since last Fall, and I really didn’t have a very clear picture of you, until you started making your accusations. But, hey, I’m up to something over 100 posts, and you probably don’t have a very good picture of me.
(Aside: Let’s face it, the most memorable posters are the ones who get banned. Next come those who make themselves notorious in some way (see Satan’s current thread). Next come those representing an ideological position seen as extreme, (Freedom, Stoid). After that come those who champion your particular POV. So there’s something to be said for subtlety.)
I have further news for you Izzy: Analytic discourse, of the sort that SM uses, is a crappy debate tactic, mainly because it demands concentration on the part of the reader or listener. What you see as debating tactics is merely a reflection of SM’s background in analytic philosophy. That’s his “deal”. I get the sense that most people on the board have the maturity to enjoy sparring with the guy, even when knowing that they risk having their arguments decimated in 25 words or less.
I’d elaborate more, but first I believe that you owe somebody an apology.
Well, that was my first pit post. I apologize for the vitriol, for some reason the situation pissed me off. I sincerely hope that my participation here doesn’t become a habit.
Oops, didn’t see your post, Freedom. How about this: To characterize you as a staunch conservative would be paying a compliment to staunch conservatives.
Cryptic and noncommittal enough for ya?
I’d say you’re at least as far to the right of the current political center as I am to the left. Of course, that probably says as much about the current political center as it does about your ideology.
Well, in this case(in the environment of the SDMB) I think so. If someone called mea liar, I’d say, “Where? Please correct me” too. Because it is always possible that I have been misinformed in some way on some subject.
The long-standing members of this board that I’ve noticed have an almost unswerving devotion to facts and truth(as they see it) and are more or less prepared to back those statemnts up. Calling them liars is really a bit over the top.
Because we like him, as frustrating as that is, for being able to point out the flaws in what we say. If he simply doesn’t agree, he doesn’t bash you, just inquires as to what makes you say something. I don’t know that I worship the guy, but he’s a damn fine poster who could be seen, if those circumstances were called for, as a model poster. IMO.
I’ve seen him bust down on other people besides myself, too. And he isn’t really harsh, just to-the-point. :shrug:
Sometime, I go to a forum called GD, and I actually ask questions! But the worst part is . . . I do it just so I can hear the answers. Sniff I can’t seem to stop myself. I quote, I paraphrase, I examine ideas. I even – this is hard to admit – sometimes, I even apply the rules of logic to someone else’s idea. It’s like I have some bizarre compulsion to fight ignorance. sob I’m sorry. I can’t talk anymore. I need to sit down.
There is not much for Izzy to respond to in your posts. You are very careful to keep the factual realm of the discussion on the content of your mind, and your opinions. That pretty much limits the realm of any response on matters of fact, since you have to be the authority on that realm of “facts” up to and including changing them pretty much at will.
What you seem most passionate about is that you want Izzy to either state that he has no evidence to back his opinion that you are a liar, or retract it. For his own reasons he seems unwilling to do so. What he presented is evidence. I don’t think it is very good evidence, but it is evidence. He made his judgement on the basis of that evidence, and publicly proclaimed that you are a liar. Asking him for evidence is pointless at this juncture.
But,
Saying in a public forum, to one of its long standing members, in the middle of a discussion on the subject of the reliability of the other person’s logic and argument that “I don’t think I remember you.” is not just a passing notice of some trivial forgotten detail. This discussion has gone way past “Is Izzy a Republican?” I find it very unlikely that you don’t follow all the connotative and denotative implications of the “oh, who are you again?” rebuttal.
Izzy,
An exposition of errors in fact, or logic is an ad argumentum reply, and fair game in any forum. Introduction of evidence of possible motive for false statements on the part of a debate opponent is ad argumentum as well. Calling someone a liar is an ad hominem reply every time. It is also a personal insult, and if it doesn’t have immediate and compelling evidence to support it, it is pretty much a resignation from the point in contention.
It also deserves an apology, and a retraction.
You do you own reputation no good at all, even if it is " just the Pit."
Look, I like your posts. I find them memorable. That’s a back-handed complement. I was pointing out that Izzy isn’t particularly memorable. Nor, for that matter, is Flowbark. Not an awful thing, in and of itself.
I realize now that in the heat of making a separate point that I implied that Stoid & Freedom are memorable merely because they have staked out an extreme position. Woops. Yet another reason why Flowbark should stay away from the pit.
Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa.
Oh, and FWIW, I’ve characterized my own ideological position as centrist by European standards but at the far left of the US political spectrum. So extremism in the defense of Freedom is no vice. Or something like that.
