INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: benjimanbreeg on April 20, 2016, 04:39:28 PM
-
But why do they keep getting away with it?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpQdg4D78Jc
-
WHY GOD, WHY??? :GA:
-
Such a subject to joke about.
-
WHY GOD, WHY??? :GA:
QFT
-
:wanker: Vague cunt.
-
Poor Benji having problems with his tinfoil hat again.
-
Poor Benji having problems with his tinfoil hat again.
Oh please elaborate and don't squirm so I can watch you make a fool out of yourself, again.
-
It's a tinfoil hat. It's not very elaborate, even by your standards.
-
You really don't have anything do you? :lol1: You're a shell. Was this more information you were oblivious to? It's not a secret, it was even in the New York Times you ignorant cunt :hahaha:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html
-
Benji,
I want to give you a pass because I understand the whole theory of mind thing, or at least I think I do. You don't get why the rest of the world doesn't perseverate on your conspiracy theories the same way you do because you have the autism. This makes you look weird and creepy to all the people you interact with. I know it's not really your fault in that nobody has ever given you the proper motivation to get past your hang-ups and learn how to interact with people in a "normal" way. If you want to succeed in life, you will have to do it someday.
But you do need to understand that this isn't the place to hold your hand through it. If you want/need that:
:gotowp:
-
Benji,
I want to give you a pass because I understand the whole theory of mind thing, or at least I think I do. You don't get why the rest of the world doesn't perseverate on your conspiracy theories the same way you do because you have the autism. This makes you look weird and creepy to all the people you interact with. I know it's not really your fault in that nobody has ever given you the proper motivation to get past your hang-ups and learn how to interact with people in a "normal" way. If you want to succeed in life, you will have to do it someday.
But you do need to understand that this isn't the place to hold your hand through it. If you want/need that:
:gotowp:
You guys shouldn't be so hard on MLA, he took time out from his busy schedule of deciding what dead dogs are worth, writing two saccharine blogs, and attending a bottom tier law school in order to be an asshole to you guys. Show some respect!
^
An interested party. MLA and I used to be... colleagues, and I don't care for this new evolution of him.
You're taking the wrong tack here, calling MLA an asshole who picks on LFAs on this site is like accusing the Pope of being Catholic. Better to ask why a guy who allegedly makes so much money and has such a good life and so little free time chooses to waste that time bragging about a boring job, a quarter of a law degree at a sub University of Phoenix school, a dumpy wife, and life in BFI rather than living that great life for it's own sake. The fact that he's choosing to boast on Autism sites rather than out in the wild should tell you more than any of the bullying behavior should, i.e. that you're dealing with an extremely insecure personality that needs to "compete" against a handicap in order to feel validation. But don't mind my kibitzing, handle the call out however you feel like.
I don't need any condescending lectures from you son. I'm higher up in life than you'll ever be :eyelash: I'm fully aware of how I come across on here and in life. I haven't posted anything remotely controversial in this thread. The girl was lying and was the daughter of the the Kuwati Ambassador to the US and Netanyahu was lying too, the burden of proof was on him. I post about these war mongers and instead you focus on me, you're the ones with the problem. Millions of people around the world are aware of reality, it doesn't mean they all have autism.
-
:autism:
What do you want us to do about it Benji? Just agree with you so the "problem" goes way?
-
:autism:
What do you want us to do about it Benji? Just agree with you so the "problem" goes way?
Where did I say I want you to agree with me? There's nothing to agree/disagree with anyway, as it's a known fact who the girl is. I haven't come up with any theories of my own, just started a thread with a question to see if anyone's willing to discuss it. But I didn't expect anything other than what's happened. I don't see how it's that difficult to watch the videos, check up on the information and then discuss it, though I know Odeon types can't even bare to watch the video as their ego's can't deal with being wrong :orly:
-
:autism:
What do you want us to do about it Benji? Just agree with you so the "problem" goes way?
Where did I say I want you to agree with me? There's nothing to agree/disagree with anyway, as it's a known fact who the girl is. I haven't come up with any theories of my own, just started a thread with a question to see if anyone's willing to discuss it. But I didn't expect anything other than what's happened. I don't see how it's that difficult to watch the videos, check up on the information and then discuss it, though I know Odeon types can't even bare to watch the video as their ego's can't deal with being wrong :orly:
I don't know that it has anything to do with being wrong. I don't watch your videos because I honestly just don't care. They all seem to be about "somebody did something bad". Yeah, okay. I'm sure they did. I don't care. Doesn't affect me. Can't do anything about it. The bad shit that affects me the most is probably shit that nobody knows about. No videos to be posted. Not gonna stay awake at night worrying about it.
-
I don't care either and I just want to make that loud and clear. :zoinks:
-
You really don't have anything do you? :lol1: You're a shell. Was this more information you were oblivious to? It's not a secret, it was even in the New York Times you ignorant cunt :hahaha:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html
OMG, it was in the NY Times!
If only you had said so in the first place. :GA:
-
I don't care either and I just want to make that loud and clear. :zoinks:
Our imaginary friend doesn't care about imaginary issues. Mind blown :zoinks:
-
:autism:
What do you want us to do about it Benji? Just agree with you so the "problem" goes way?
Where did I say I want you to agree with me? There's nothing to agree/disagree with anyway, as it's a known fact who the girl is. I haven't come up with any theories of my own, just started a thread with a question to see if anyone's willing to discuss it. But I didn't expect anything other than what's happened. I don't see how it's that difficult to watch the videos, check up on the information and then discuss it, though I know Odeon types can't even bare to watch the video as their ego's can't deal with being wrong :orly:
I don't know that it has anything to do with being wrong. I don't watch your videos because I honestly just don't care. They all seem to be about "somebody did something bad". Yeah, okay. I'm sure they did. I don't care. Doesn't affect me. Can't do anything about it. The bad shit that affects me the most is probably shit that nobody knows about. No videos to be posted. Not gonna stay awake at night worrying about it.
I respect your honesty, but not caring about millions of people dying because sects of your government fooled others and the population makes you a cunt.
-
You really don't have anything do you? :lol1: You're a shell. Was this more information you were oblivious to? It's not a secret, it was even in the New York Times you ignorant cunt :hahaha:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html
OMG, it was in the NY Times!
If only you had said so in the first place. :GA:
So you don't believe your beloved corporate media when they can no longer suppress the truth? And human rights groups confirmed that the girl was lying.
-
So you don't believe your beloved corporate media when they can no longer suppress the truth? And human rights groups confirmed that the girl was lying.
Yes, she was lying but that's a moot point. Saddam had invaded a neighboring country and the world had a right to form a coalition to evict him and restore the former government of Kuwait.
The Iraqi army deserved the asswhooping that followed.
-
:autism:
What do you want us to do about it Benji? Just agree with you so the "problem" goes way?
Where did I say I want you to agree with me? There's nothing to agree/disagree with anyway, as it's a known fact who the girl is. I haven't come up with any theories of my own, just started a thread with a question to see if anyone's willing to discuss it. But I didn't expect anything other than what's happened. I don't see how it's that difficult to watch the videos, check up on the information and then discuss it, though I know Odeon types can't even bare to watch the video as their ego's can't deal with being wrong :orly:
I don't know that it has anything to do with being wrong. I don't watch your videos because I honestly just don't care. They all seem to be about "somebody did something bad". Yeah, okay. I'm sure they did. I don't care. Doesn't affect me. Can't do anything about it. The bad shit that affects me the most is probably shit that nobody knows about. No videos to be posted. Not gonna stay awake at night worrying about it.
I respect your honesty, but not caring about millions of people dying because sects of your government fooled others and the population makes you a cunt.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Your's means very little to probably almost everyone. :)
-
So you don't believe your beloved corporate media when they can no longer suppress the truth? And human rights groups confirmed that the girl was lying.
Yes, she was lying but that's a moot point. Saddam had invaded a neighboring country and the world had a right to form a coalition to evict him and restore the former government of Kuwait.
The Iraqi army deserved the asswhooping that followed.
How is it a "moot point"? The US supported and propped up Saddam when he invaded Iran, and they continued to support him when he gassed his own people and the Kurds. Please don't pretend it's about him invading another country. The US had a strong oil deal with Kuwait, that's why they turned on their favorite monster.
-
:autism:
What do you want us to do about it Benji? Just agree with you so the "problem" goes way?
Where did I say I want you to agree with me? There's nothing to agree/disagree with anyway, as it's a known fact who the girl is. I haven't come up with any theories of my own, just started a thread with a question to see if anyone's willing to discuss it. But I didn't expect anything other than what's happened. I don't see how it's that difficult to watch the videos, check up on the information and then discuss it, though I know Odeon types can't even bare to watch the video as their ego's can't deal with being wrong :orly:
I don't know that it has anything to do with being wrong. I don't watch your videos because I honestly just don't care. They all seem to be about "somebody did something bad". Yeah, okay. I'm sure they did. I don't care. Doesn't affect me. Can't do anything about it. The bad shit that affects me the most is probably shit that nobody knows about. No videos to be posted. Not gonna stay awake at night worrying about it.
I respect your honesty, but not caring about millions of people dying because sects of your government fooled others and the population makes you a cunt.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Your's means very little to probably almost everyone. :)
What I said wasn't meant to be as personal as it sounded. You just fit in that category and I think any sane and well informed person on this matter would agree.
-
The US supported and propped up Saddam when he invaded Iran, and they continued to support him when he gassed his own people and the Kurds.
The US did the same thing with Ho Chi Minh. The US begins by doing the Faustian thing until they realize they made a deal with the devil, then they turn on the monster they formerly supported.
-
The US supported and propped up Saddam when he invaded Iran, and they continued to support him when he gassed his own people and the Kurds.
The US did the same thing with Ho Chi Minh. The US begins by doing the Faustian thing until they realize they made a deal with the devil, then they turn on the monster they formerly supported.
They realised who they were dealing with long before that, as they were supporting him through his worst crimes. They don't turn on them because they suddenly feel a tug on their heart strings. They supported Suharto 20 years after he wiped out a third of the population in East Timor. The media forgot to mention this though. They only remember when it's done by an enemy of the US. Purely a coincidence though ::)
-
They supported Suharto 20 years after he wiped out a third of the population in East Timor.
Actually the US did intervene in the genocide of East Timor. This was one of the "grievances" that Al Qaeda had with the US.
-
You really don't have anything do you? :lol1: You're a shell. Was this more information you were oblivious to? It's not a secret, it was even in the New York Times you ignorant cunt :hahaha:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html
OMG, it was in the NY Times!
If only you had said so in the first place. :GA:
So you don't believe your beloved corporate media when they can no longer suppress the truth? And human rights groups confirmed that the girl was lying.
You're completely missing my point which is that given your history, you have no credibility.
-
You really don't have anything do you? :lol1: You're a shell. Was this more information you were oblivious to? It's not a secret, it was even in the New York Times you ignorant cunt :hahaha:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html
OMG, it was in the NY Times!
If only you had said so in the first place. :GA:
So you don't believe your beloved corporate media when they can no longer suppress the truth? And human rights groups confirmed that the girl was lying.
You're completely missing my point which is that given your history, you have no credibility.
This has nothing to do with me you painfully stupid mong.
-
They supported Suharto 20 years after he wiped out a third of the population in East Timor.
Actually the US did intervene in the genocide of East Timor. This was one of the "grievances" that Al Qaeda had with the US.
What 20 years after the genocide? I think the main grievances were the US's blocking of democracy in the Middle East and it's support for monsters and monster states.
-
They supported Suharto 20 years after he wiped out a third of the population in East Timor.
Actually the US did intervene in the genocide of East Timor. This was one of the "grievances" that Al Qaeda had with the US.
What 20 years after the genocide? I think the main grievances were the US's blocking of democracy in the Middle East and it's support for monsters and monster states.
8 years before it ended. FFS at least look at wiki. ::)
OH, and at least bother looking at Al Qaeda's manifesto too, they specifically mention the US's intervention in East Timor as one of their reasons for declaring war.
Are you actually tying to claim that Al Qaeda was advocating for democracy in the Middle East?? :rofl:
-
They supported Suharto 20 years after he wiped out a third of the population in East Timor.
Actually the US did intervene in the genocide of East Timor. This was one of the "grievances" that Al Qaeda had with the US.
What 20 years after the genocide? I think the main grievances were the US's blocking of democracy in the Middle East and it's support for monsters and monster states.
8 years before it ended. FFS at least look at wiki. ::)
OH, and at least bother looking at Al Qaeda's manifesto too, they specifically mention the US's intervention in East Timor as one of their reasons for declaring war.
Are you actually tying to claim that Al Qaeda was advocating for democracy in the Middle East?? :rofl:
They were supporting the genocide at it's worst point while they cried about other genocides committed by their enemies. Are you suggesting again that the US suddenly felt the tug on their heart strings after 20 years?
Al Qaeda has a manifesto? ??? Do they? You'll have to show me the source to that, i'm not taking the piss, it really is just news to me.
Are you actually tying to claim that the US does or ever has??
:rofl:
-
You really don't have anything do you? :lol1: You're a shell. Was this more information you were oblivious to? It's not a secret, it was even in the New York Times you ignorant cunt :hahaha:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html
OMG, it was in the NY Times!
If only you had said so in the first place. :GA:
So you don't believe your beloved corporate media when they can no longer suppress the truth? And human rights groups confirmed that the girl was lying.
You're completely missing my point which is that given your history, you have no credibility.
This has nothing to do with me you painfully stupid mong.
Oh, I see. Somebody else posted your tinfoil posts here, then. My mistake.
-
They were supporting the genocide at it's worst point while they cried about other genocides committed by their enemies. Are you suggesting again that the US suddenly felt the tug on their heart strings after 20 years?
That statement doesn't match the facts. FFS READ THE WIKI ARTICLE!!
Al Qaeda has a manifesto? ??? Do they? You'll have to show me the source to that, i'm not taking the piss, it really is just news to me.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-july-dec96-fatwa_1996/
Are you actually tying to claim that the US does or ever has??
:rofl:
Yes, and democratic nation building in the middle east has been an obvious failure.
-
A friend of mine once made a comment about me not choosing to interject myself in discussions/debates/arguments I was not interested in and choosing not to comment. They called my act of not doing so, tiptoeing. So here is an argument and I have no interest in it. But rather than be thought of as tiptoeing around or away from such arguments I will interject and in the way that you seemed to imply was the new standard.
You really don't have anything do you? :lol1: You're a shell. Was this more information you were oblivious to? It's not a secret, it was even in the New York Times you ignorant cunt :hahaha:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html
OMG, it was in the NY Times!
If only you had said so in the first place. :GA:
So you don't believe your beloved corporate media when they can no longer suppress the truth? And human rights groups confirmed that the girl was lying.
You're completely missing my point which is that given your history, you have no credibility.
You are being disingenuous
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous
Full Definition of disingenuous
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating
disingenuously adverb
disingenuousness noun
There. By posting this definition, I made the point entirely and if you disagree I will repeat the claim a few times and then say I am not prepared to repeat myself anymore.
I paid attention, Odeon.
-
Is this how it's going to be from now on, Al? You and I both know that your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with my reply to Benji.
I'd think "butthurt" if I didn't know better.
-
Is this how it's going to be from now on, Al? You and I both know that your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with my reply to Benji.
I'd think "butthurt" if I didn't know better.
I don't know Odeon? You may wish asking me to evidence my claim or to mount a defence of my statement. You know, back myself. I would then rely on your standard, which would likely be throw another claim out there and repeat it and then tell you I am sick of doing so.
So in this case that new claim (equally as poor as the last - and unmeasurable, subjective and existentially unproveable) I will accuse your defence as being obfuscation
obfuscate
[ob-fuh-skeyt, ob-fuhs-keyt]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), obfuscated, obfuscating.
1.
to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2.
to make obscure or unclear:
to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3.
to darken.
I can repeat both claims a few times and say they are both accurate and solid claims.
-
They were supporting the genocide at it's worst point while they cried about other genocides committed by their enemies. Are you suggesting again that the US suddenly felt the tug on their heart strings after 20 years?
That statement doesn't match the facts. FFS READ THE WIKI ARTICLE!!
Al Qaeda has a manifesto? ??? Do they? You'll have to show me the source to that, i'm not taking the piss, it really is just news to me.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-july-dec96-fatwa_1996/
Are you actually tying to claim that the US does or ever has??
:rofl:
Yes, and democratic nation building in the middle east has been an obvious failure.
Thanks Pappy, but I couldn't see anything about East Timor, if there was, it couldn't have said much. It's just tripe from a lunatic.
Lol, it's laughable to suggest that they are trying to build democracy when they've been blocking it for decades. If a democratically elected leader nationalises the oil, the US will destroy the country, and they have. They've been destroying nations, not building them. Is supporting Saudi Arabia part of their democratic plan? Who are bombing schools in Yemen with US and UK weapons.
-
Is this how it's going to be from now on, Al? You and I both know that your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with my reply to Benji.
I'd think "butthurt" if I didn't know better.
I don't know Odeon? You may wish asking me to evidence my claim or to mount a defence of my statement. You know, back myself. I would then rely on your standard, which would likely be throw another claim out there and repeat it and then tell you I am sick of doing so.
So in this case that new claim (equally as poor as the last - and unmeasurable, subjective and existentially unproveable) I will accuse your defence as being obfuscation
obfuscate
[ob-fuh-skeyt, ob-fuhs-keyt]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), obfuscated, obfuscating.
1.
to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2.
to make obscure or unclear:
to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3.
to darken.
I can repeat both claims a few times and say they are both accurate and solid claims.
Butthurt it is, then. ::)
-
Is this how it's going to be from now on, Al? You and I both know that your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with my reply to Benji.
I'd think "butthurt" if I didn't know better.
I don't know Odeon? You may wish asking me to evidence my claim or to mount a defence of my statement. You know, back myself. I would then rely on your standard, which would likely be throw another claim out there and repeat it and then tell you I am sick of doing so.
So in this case that new claim (equally as poor as the last - and unmeasurable, subjective and existentially unproveable) I will accuse your defence as being obfuscation
obfuscate
[ob-fuh-skeyt, ob-fuhs-keyt]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), obfuscated, obfuscating.
1.
to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2.
to make obscure or unclear:
to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3.
to darken.
I can repeat both claims a few times and say they are both accurate and solid claims.
Butthurt it is, then. ::)
That would certainly be a disingenuous answer made solely for the purpose of obfuscation. Not that I have a problem with you being either disingenuous or your misrepresentation.
-
:deadhorse2:
-
:deadhorse2:
Repeating the same baseless claim over and over is :deadhorse2:
-
It takes a long time to eat a whole horse. :zoinks:
-
It takes a long time to eat a whole horse. :zoinks:
Don't eat that one. You don't know how long it's been lying there. :M
-
:deadhorse2:
Repeating the same baseless claim over and over is :deadhorse2:
So flamebaiting is the obvious solution?
-
:deadhorse2:
Repeating the same baseless claim over and over is :deadhorse2:
So flamebaiting is the obvious solution?
No it is simply adapting to your new argument structure. I can do it equally as well. You would notice in our first callout that there was a lot more even and take and the reason for that is based on the fact that your method of argument was not as poor as this one. But this one of weak subjective and unsubstantial claims repeated over and over with the definition of the claim offered as evidence of what is being claimed is something anyone can do. You can argue whether the fact that we can do something is any argument as to whether we should But I may call that flamebaiting or perhaps disingenuous or perhaps obfuscation. Then show you the definition and repeat the claim over and over.
-
:deadhorse2:
Repeating the same baseless claim over and over is :deadhorse2:
So flamebaiting is the obvious solution?
No it is simply adapting to your new argument structure. I can do it equally as well. You would notice in our first callout that there was a lot more even and take and the reason for that is based on the fact that your method of argument was not as poor as this one. But this one of weak subjective and unsubstantial claims repeated over and over with the definition of the claim offered as evidence of what is being claimed is something anyone can do. You can argue whether the fact that we can do something is any argument as to whether we should But I may call that flamebaiting or perhaps disingenuous or perhaps obfuscation. Then show you the definition and repeat the claim over and over.
Al, I honestly don't know what more to say on the subject. If you'd been displaying the kind of behaviour I highlighted outside the very narrow confines of that subject, there might have been more to add. Examples, nuances, what have you. But you're not a dishonest person as a rule, intellectually or otherwise, and so all I could do was to point out what I did, including that definition and all that came with it, and that's really it.
I think maybe you made it to be about more than it actually was, thinking I was calling you a liar or dishonest, and that wasn't the case. You are entitled to calling my argumentation weak, of course, just as I am entitled to disagree with that notion, but I don't think you can force me to add more if I think there isn't more to add. The way this sort of thing should have been resolved then was by asking what the peanut gallery thought.
The tiptoeing was even more problematic as the subject of a callout, since it is an observation based on how I've seen you behave in the past. The Al I know would not hesitate to call people out if their behaviour would warrant it--your calling me out is actually a good example--yet you were strangely silent even though DFG was posting all kinds of things all over the place. How do I prove the lack of something?
In a way, the sheer volume of this argument (including the callout and all those other threads, and now this exchange) shows your willingness to post about whatever you disagree with. So why didn't any of the things DFG said cause a reaction of any kind?
It's entirely possible that you didn't read it all, that you agreed with what she said, or didn't think it was worth challenging, but I think these are all a bit unlike you. It's one thing if you miss it--I don't read everything here and I bet you don't either--but her comments were frequently made in threads I know you followed because you posted in them.
Plus, the fact that both of my observations tie into that same basic topic, namely the whole Zegh thing.
I think I've said all of these things before, so my apologies for repeating them.
-
:deadhorse2:
Repeating the same baseless claim over and over is :deadhorse2:
So flamebaiting is the obvious solution?
No it is simply adapting to your new argument structure. I can do it equally as well. You would notice in our first callout that there was a lot more even and take and the reason for that is based on the fact that your method of argument was not as poor as this one. But this one of weak subjective and unsubstantial claims repeated over and over with the definition of the claim offered as evidence of what is being claimed is something anyone can do. You can argue whether the fact that we can do something is any argument as to whether we should But I may call that flamebaiting or perhaps disingenuous or perhaps obfuscation. Then show you the definition and repeat the claim over and over.
Al, I honestly don't know what more to say on the subject. If you'd been displaying the kind of behaviour I highlighted outside the very narrow confines of that subject, there might have been more to add. Examples, nuances, what have you. But you're not a dishonest person as a rule, intellectually or otherwise, and so all I could do was to point out what I did, including that definition and all that came with it, and that's really it.
I think maybe you made it to be about more than it actually was, thinking I was calling you a liar or dishonest, and that wasn't the case. You are entitled to calling my argumentation weak, of course, just as I am entitled to disagree with that notion, but I don't think you can force me to add more if I think there isn't more to add. The way this sort of thing should have been resolved then was by asking what the peanut gallery thought.
The tiptoeing was even more problematic as the subject of a callout, since it is an observation based on how I've seen you behave in the past. The Al I know would not hesitate to call people out if their behaviour would warrant it--your calling me out is actually a good example--yet you were strangely silent even though DFG was posting all kinds of things all over the place. How do I prove the lack of something?
In a way, the sheer volume of this argument (including the callout and all those other threads, and now this exchange) shows your willingness to post about whatever you disagree with. So why didn't any of the things DFG said cause a reaction of any kind?
It's entirely possible that you didn't read it all, that you agreed with what she said, or didn't think it was worth challenging, but I think these are all a bit unlike you. It's one thing if you miss it--I don't read everything here and I bet you don't either--but her comments were frequently made in threads I know you followed because you posted in them.
Plus, the fact that both of my observations tie into that same basic topic, namely the whole Zegh thing.
I think I've said all of these things before, so my apologies for repeating them.
In this very thread was a lot of talk about such things as the East Timorese Massacre by Muslims. I could have replied. I was following. I could have stated that the massacre was seen as nearly on our own doorstep and Australians rallied to stop it and install military presence to prevent it continuing.
I could have also explained that the Bali bombings that killed so many Aussie terrorists was a calculated attack NOT on their people but specifically to hit back at Australians and the target and time was coordinated to be killing and maiming Australian tourists as a direct "fuck you" to us for intervening in East Timor. It hurt us and was very strongly felt in Australia.
Could have said that, but didn't. Some of the conversation was silly and lame one-upmanship and I could not be bothered arguing or injecting myself. You and Benji and anyone else getting involved can sort yourselves out.
It was often the same with Lit. Lit would tell us he wanted to screw some nice young 16 year old in the arse and then get a headjob from her, what are you gonna do? For what reason too? I told him a couple of times he was an idiot and a couple of times made fun of him and his perversions. Fuck, the guy is my age. Those kids could literally be his daughter. So did I argue every point? Towards the end of his tenure here I had not argued with him in years and I disagreed with most of what he said.
I do pick and choose my moments but not out of favour but more out of how invested I am in something. If I am passionate in what has been said or it really rubs me up the wrong way I will go anyone online or IRL. You can choose to believe that or not.
I do not tiptoe around DFG. As I said, the irony was the only person in this whole thing that I was sort of "tiptoeing" around was YOU. The reason being is that I was incredulous and absolutely believed that I was missing something or not getting the full picture. I mean you making weak unsubstantiated claim after weak unsubstantiated claim and then doing a horrible job at backing it? THAT was not the Odeon I had seen in the past nor that I had a callout with. So I tiptoed in a sense and was far more reserved than I would have been with most.
In the same way that I read and ignored your tussle with Benji and indeed DFG's tussle with Some Bloke. I ignored a lot of posts from DFG that I disagreed with or found dull or confusing. The ones I agree with I commented on. THAT is not tiptoeing and never was and repeating the claim does not make it so. Did not then and does not now.
If you look at the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty you need to break it down into its parts and see how the relate to the persons action and intent. If the person accused mounts a case and gives account and is transparent and honest, it looks more and more like the intellectual dishonest claim is incorrect. I have done this. I have addressed every aspect of this. I have not been weaselly about this or obtuse. I have put everything about my actions and intent in context. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about what I have done.
You could well have made a strong case for me being rude, boring, annoying, or literally a dozen of other things which would have all been pretty difficult for me to argue no matter how subjective. THIS was the strength of our first callout. We both had GOOD reason to support our claims and whether we agreed or did not have a meeting of the minds, it was all reasonable and rational.
This wasn't. The behaviour of "tiptoeing" was not "tiptoeing" and was no aberration to what I have being doing on this site for years. The intellectual dishonesty was not intellectual dishonesty, no matter how many definitions are posted or how it is sliced. It was a weak claim (though certainly not weaker than the tiptoeing claim).
You making weak claims at me is unusual. Unusual too in respect to the fact that they were transparent, unproveable and unsubstantiated or able to be quantified. Also you must have known I would both reject the claims out of hand and ask you to back them and give account for yourself. Therefore you cannot have imagined posting a definition or repeating the claims a sensible option. Neither brings you any closer to making the case. Maybe you were gambling on the thought that making weak claims and then getting the other members to "vote" on it, would influence me. I know you have bought up the Peanut Gallery a lot. You know I would not given the peanut gallery the slightest notice. This is you and I. I would like to think that this was not the case.
So no the tiptoeing was not, nor do I believe looked like, tiptoeing. It looked certainly like I was not responding to some posts and the default response is NOT that I was tiptoeing. So there was no reason to go there and no connection there. Not rational and not a strong claim.
Intellectual Dishonesty is a not only a set of actions but also a mindset or set of behaviours. What I mean by that is to call someone Intellectual Dishonest you are evoking a set of behaviours that someone is adopting. In the same way that someone cannot be casually creepy. They can be creepy or you could mistake their intents as creepy or they could be completely not creepy. If you are calling someone or their behaviour intellectually dishonest you are absolutely saying that they intentionally committing fallacies, being biased, not relying on facts to make their assessment on thongs and showing an inability to self-examine or be transparent. Indeed to rationally back themselves. Doesn't sound like me. It isn't either. It is why I have been able to refute every silly claim. Were they GOOD claims, I would not be able to back myself. I would fumble around directionless.
In fact I would ask does that not say something that whatever you intent or thoughts on saying what you said, what has changed for having said it? Having said what you said, what was achieved and how? Was it worth saying and if so why? What were you expecting to get from saying it and why?
Hey I am happy going back and emulating your new argument trend but I am interested in trying to appreciate where you are actually coming from first.
-
Re the tiptoeing thing: You make a good argument and I accept your explanation. I think I was wrong about it--it was always a subjective thing, something I thought I saw but never anything I could prove--and I think you know yourself better than I do. Therefore, I'm sorry.
But about the intellectual dishonesty regarding your not reading Zegh, etc, I remain unconvinced. I also still think that there is nothing more to be said about it. It doesn't mean that the argumentation was weak, and you repeatedly claiming it was won't magically make it so.
As for me hoping the peanut gallery would judge, yes, I did, absolutely. I hoped they would, if only to kill the thread, but far more because there just wasn't anything else to be said. You couldn't convince me that I was wrong and I couldn't convince you that you were, and so maybe, just maybe, someone reading the callout would have had an opinion that helped decide the matter and let us move on. See, I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong if I think I am indeed wrong, but I still don't think so.
I would never have posted what I did if I had known all this would happen. It was never that important to me, and I am sorry you were hurt by it.
-
Re the tiptoeing thing: You make a good argument and I accept your explanation. I think I was wrong about it--it was always a subjective thing, something I thought I saw but never anything I could prove--and I think you know yourself better than I do. Therefore, I'm sorry.
But about the intellectual dishonesty regarding your not reading Zegh, etc, I remain unconvinced. I also still think that there is nothing more to be said about it. It doesn't mean that the argumentation was weak, and you repeatedly claiming it was won't magically make it so.
As for me hoping the peanut gallery would judge, yes, I did, absolutely. I hoped they would, if only to kill the thread, but far more because there just wasn't anything else to be said. You couldn't convince me that I was wrong and I couldn't convince you that you were, and so maybe, just maybe, someone reading the callout would have had an opinion that helped decide the matter and let us move on. See, I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong if I think I am indeed wrong, but I still don't think so.
I would never have posted what I did if I had known all this would happen. It was never that important to me, and I am sorry you were hurt by it.
I am not hurt nor butthurt. I know you have claimed both.
I am not going to pretend I don't give a shit either. I am not upset as such but certainly annoyed and frustrated. I am not perhaps disgusted or repealed but certainly incredulous. Yes I am disappointed.
Jack in the Peanut Gallery has the right of it. As to when I stopped reading Zegh, I don't know but I was honest about when I did and how by degrees I read less and less of him. I know certainly by the Twilight and Flintstone posts and such I was skimming him and it tapered off by degrees from there.
I also still think that there is nothing more to be said about it. It doesn't mean that the argumentation was weak, and you repeatedly claiming it was won't magically make it so.
I think we can look at it the other way and saying that denying that the argument "wasn't" weak will not make it so.
If I can draw away from the obvious difference between the callout this time and the callout last time, I think you would have to say that the positions were stronger and able to be examined and argued critically. Many of them were subjective too.
If you look at this position of yours about intellectual dishonesty (I will exclude the tiptoeing and the pretense and the dishonesty claims) AND assume that in saying something like that about me, I am more than likely to clamp my jaws tightly on it and start shaking it, we can assume that there would be a need to really examine and contests the premise. It is YOUR Premise to back.
Then I look at what you did to back it. You posted the definition. Which assumes that a) I don't know what Intellectual dishonesty is and/or b) that it reinforced your point. In fact neither were true. So it did nothing to educate me nor to prove me wrong (OR Back your premise).
I contested every aspect of the definition as it applied to my situation and did so transparently, easily and honestly.
You repeated the claim over and over in ways that again made no effort to clarify any telling point.
The claim itself. "If I did not read Zegh for a few months and rely on second hand information through the replies from others, then I am intellectually dishonest if I say Zegh is full of shit"
It is wrong in so many ways and in so many ways to look at the statement.
General usage of the turn of phrase "full of shit". "Glenn Beck is Full of Shit", "Amy Schumer is full of shit", "Angela Merkel is full of shit". Were you to hear that said by anyone on any given day your reasonable response would NOT be "You are intellectually dishonest in saying so because you have not heard or read their pronouncements of everything in the last 6 months. It is fallacious and asinine.
Zegh specifically can be full of shit without knowing a damn thing about what he wrote for 6 months because he has said a lot of thins in the last seven years which may have all been full of shot and registering he is full of shit is not dependent on what he says in the last 6 months.
Being able to read what others respond to Zegh allows one to track the broader conversation and other's place in the broader conversion, even Zegh, therefore saying Zegh is full of shit does not even require having read his posts for 7 years prior.
Zegh MAY have completely changed overnight at some point in the last 6 months to how he was the last seven years. Absolutely COULD happen BUT a) it is unlikely as Hell and b) I was still tracking what others were saying about him and who he responded to, what conversations he responded to and in which threads and how long they were. So less and less likely. THEREFORE saying he is "full of shit is uniform" to my thoughts.
On the basis of all the above, the claim was wrong on about every test. Yet it was certainly the strongest claim you had. At no point did you make a case for me being intellectually dishonest.
THAT is my problem. You argue better than that. Insult me? Fine, but make sure that there is something in it and that you can back yourself. There were, as previously said about a dozen things you could have strongly supported, and this was not one of them. I was not hurt that you insulted me. That is what we are here for. I am disappointed and incredulous that the argument was so weak. To insult me with such an argument, I honestly expected a ulterior motive, and I was busting a gut trying to get to the bottom of it, because I could not believe an argument as bad and shallow coming from you. I expected better. I hoped that I was simply failing to understand. I didn't.
-
Another thread bites the dust
-
Lol, it's laughable to suggest that they are trying to build democracy when they've been blocking it for decades. If a democratically elected leader nationalises the oil, the US will destroy the country, and they have. They've been destroying nations, not building them. Is supporting Saudi Arabia part of their democratic plan? Who are bombing schools in Yemen with US and UK weapons.
Apparently your mind is made up and is impervious to evidence. ::)
-
Re the tiptoeing thing: You make a good argument and I accept your explanation. I think I was wrong about it--it was always a subjective thing, something I thought I saw but never anything I could prove--and I think you know yourself better than I do. Therefore, I'm sorry.
But about the intellectual dishonesty regarding your not reading Zegh, etc, I remain unconvinced. I also still think that there is nothing more to be said about it. It doesn't mean that the argumentation was weak, and you repeatedly claiming it was won't magically make it so.
As for me hoping the peanut gallery would judge, yes, I did, absolutely. I hoped they would, if only to kill the thread, but far more because there just wasn't anything else to be said. You couldn't convince me that I was wrong and I couldn't convince you that you were, and so maybe, just maybe, someone reading the callout would have had an opinion that helped decide the matter and let us move on. See, I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong if I think I am indeed wrong, but I still don't think so.
I would never have posted what I did if I had known all this would happen. It was never that important to me, and I am sorry you were hurt by it.
I am not hurt nor butthurt. I know you have claimed both.
I am not going to pretend I don't give a shit either. I am not upset as such but certainly annoyed and frustrated. I am not perhaps disgusted or repealed but certainly incredulous. Yes I am disappointed.
Jack in the Peanut Gallery has the right of it. As to when I stopped reading Zegh, I don't know but I was honest about when I did and how by degrees I read less and less of him. I know certainly by the Twilight and Flintstone posts and such I was skimming him and it tapered off by degrees from there.
I also still think that there is nothing more to be said about it. It doesn't mean that the argumentation was weak, and you repeatedly claiming it was won't magically make it so.
I think we can look at it the other way and saying that denying that the argument "wasn't" weak will not make it so.
If I can draw away from the obvious difference between the callout this time and the callout last time, I think you would have to say that the positions were stronger and able to be examined and argued critically. Many of them were subjective too.
If you look at this position of yours about intellectual dishonesty (I will exclude the tiptoeing and the pretense and the dishonesty claims) AND assume that in saying something like that about me, I am more than likely to clamp my jaws tightly on it and start shaking it, we can assume that there would be a need to really examine and contests the premise. It is YOUR Premise to back.
Then I look at what you did to back it. You posted the definition. Which assumes that a) I don't know what Intellectual dishonesty is and/or b) that it reinforced your point. In fact neither were true. So it did nothing to educate me nor to prove me wrong (OR Back your premise).
I contested every aspect of the definition as it applied to my situation and did so transparently, easily and honestly.
You repeated the claim over and over in ways that again made no effort to clarify any telling point.
The claim itself. "If I did not read Zegh for a few months and rely on second hand information through the replies from others, then I am intellectually dishonest if I say Zegh is full of shit"
It is wrong in so many ways and in so many ways to look at the statement.
General usage of the turn of phrase "full of shit". "Glenn Beck is Full of Shit", "Amy Schumer is full of shit", "Angela Merkel is full of shit". Were you to hear that said by anyone on any given day your reasonable response would NOT be "You are intellectually dishonest in saying so because you have not heard or read their pronouncements of everything in the last 6 months. It is fallacious and asinine.
Zegh specifically can be full of shit without knowing a damn thing about what he wrote for 6 months because he has said a lot of thins in the last seven years which may have all been full of shot and registering he is full of shit is not dependent on what he says in the last 6 months.
Being able to read what others respond to Zegh allows one to track the broader conversation and other's place in the broader conversion, even Zegh, therefore saying Zegh is full of shit does not even require having read his posts for 7 years prior.
Zegh MAY have completely changed overnight at some point in the last 6 months to how he was the last seven years. Absolutely COULD happen BUT a) it is unlikely as Hell and b) I was still tracking what others were saying about him and who he responded to, what conversations he responded to and in which threads and how long they were. So less and less likely. THEREFORE saying he is "full of shit is uniform" to my thoughts.
On the basis of all the above, the claim was wrong on about every test. Yet it was certainly the strongest claim you had. At no point did you make a case for me being intellectually dishonest.
THAT is my problem. You argue better than that. Insult me? Fine, but make sure that there is something in it and that you can back yourself. There were, as previously said about a dozen things you could have strongly supported, and this was not one of them. I was not hurt that you insulted me. That is what we are here for. I am disappointed and incredulous that the argument was so weak. To insult me with such an argument, I honestly expected a ulterior motive, and I was busting a gut trying to get to the bottom of it, because I could not believe an argument as bad and shallow coming from you. I expected better. I hoped that I was simply failing to understand. I didn't.
And you did it again. You CANNOT know something without finding out for yourself. And if you don't see that, then I don't know what to say to you. No number of lengthy posts repeating your basic argument will change that. If you want to see weak, then try to have an objective look at your own argument.
-
Another thread bites the dust
Sorry about that.
-
It takes a long time to eat a whole horse. :zoinks:
Don't eat that one. You don't know how long it's been lying there. :M
A parma ham is over 12 months old. That horse should still be good to eat.
-
Re the tiptoeing thing: You make a good argument and I accept your explanation. I think I was wrong about it--it was always a subjective thing, something I thought I saw but never anything I could prove--and I think you know yourself better than I do. Therefore, I'm sorry.
But about the intellectual dishonesty regarding your not reading Zegh, etc, I remain unconvinced. I also still think that there is nothing more to be said about it. It doesn't mean that the argumentation was weak, and you repeatedly claiming it was won't magically make it so.
As for me hoping the peanut gallery would judge, yes, I did, absolutely. I hoped they would, if only to kill the thread, but far more because there just wasn't anything else to be said. You couldn't convince me that I was wrong and I couldn't convince you that you were, and so maybe, just maybe, someone reading the callout would have had an opinion that helped decide the matter and let us move on. See, I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong if I think I am indeed wrong, but I still don't think so.
I would never have posted what I did if I had known all this would happen. It was never that important to me, and I am sorry you were hurt by it.
I am not hurt nor butthurt. I know you have claimed both.
I am not going to pretend I don't give a shit either. I am not upset as such but certainly annoyed and frustrated. I am not perhaps disgusted or repealed but certainly incredulous. Yes I am disappointed.
Jack in the Peanut Gallery has the right of it. As to when I stopped reading Zegh, I don't know but I was honest about when I did and how by degrees I read less and less of him. I know certainly by the Twilight and Flintstone posts and such I was skimming him and it tapered off by degrees from there.
I also still think that there is nothing more to be said about it. It doesn't mean that the argumentation was weak, and you repeatedly claiming it was won't magically make it so.
I think we can look at it the other way and saying that denying that the argument "wasn't" weak will not make it so.
If I can draw away from the obvious difference between the callout this time and the callout last time, I think you would have to say that the positions were stronger and able to be examined and argued critically. Many of them were subjective too.
If you look at this position of yours about intellectual dishonesty (I will exclude the tiptoeing and the pretense and the dishonesty claims) AND assume that in saying something like that about me, I am more than likely to clamp my jaws tightly on it and start shaking it, we can assume that there would be a need to really examine and contests the premise. It is YOUR Premise to back.
Then I look at what you did to back it. You posted the definition. Which assumes that a) I don't know what Intellectual dishonesty is and/or b) that it reinforced your point. In fact neither were true. So it did nothing to educate me nor to prove me wrong (OR Back your premise).
I contested every aspect of the definition as it applied to my situation and did so transparently, easily and honestly.
You repeated the claim over and over in ways that again made no effort to clarify any telling point.
The claim itself. "If I did not read Zegh for a few months and rely on second hand information through the replies from others, then I am intellectually dishonest if I say Zegh is full of shit"
It is wrong in so many ways and in so many ways to look at the statement.
General usage of the turn of phrase "full of shit". "Glenn Beck is Full of Shit", "Amy Schumer is full of shit", "Angela Merkel is full of shit". Were you to hear that said by anyone on any given day your reasonable response would NOT be "You are intellectually dishonest in saying so because you have not heard or read their pronouncements of everything in the last 6 months. It is fallacious and asinine.
Zegh specifically can be full of shit without knowing a damn thing about what he wrote for 6 months because he has said a lot of thins in the last seven years which may have all been full of shot and registering he is full of shit is not dependent on what he says in the last 6 months.
Being able to read what others respond to Zegh allows one to track the broader conversation and other's place in the broader conversion, even Zegh, therefore saying Zegh is full of shit does not even require having read his posts for 7 years prior.
Zegh MAY have completely changed overnight at some point in the last 6 months to how he was the last seven years. Absolutely COULD happen BUT a) it is unlikely as Hell and b) I was still tracking what others were saying about him and who he responded to, what conversations he responded to and in which threads and how long they were. So less and less likely. THEREFORE saying he is "full of shit is uniform" to my thoughts.
On the basis of all the above, the claim was wrong on about every test. Yet it was certainly the strongest claim you had. At no point did you make a case for me being intellectually dishonest.
THAT is my problem. You argue better than that. Insult me? Fine, but make sure that there is something in it and that you can back yourself. There were, as previously said about a dozen things you could have strongly supported, and this was not one of them. I was not hurt that you insulted me. That is what we are here for. I am disappointed and incredulous that the argument was so weak. To insult me with such an argument, I honestly expected a ulterior motive, and I was busting a gut trying to get to the bottom of it, because I could not believe an argument as bad and shallow coming from you. I expected better. I hoped that I was simply failing to understand. I didn't.
And you did it again. You CANNOT know something without finding out for yourself. And if you don't see that, then I don't know what to say to you. No number of lengthy posts repeating your basic argument will change that. If you want to see weak, then try to have an objective look at your own argument.
Again YOU did not "get it" nor did you look objectively at what I said or how that applies to the arguments that you have actually made.
Here is a really asinine position "If you have not read everything someone says you can't know for sure everything someone say". Was THAT your position? " You CANNOT know something without finding out for yourself.". Well shit Odeon, that seems to be what you are saying. But was THAT your position OR was your position that I "was intellectually dishonest for proclaiming him full of shit without reading everything he said". Let's be clear.
a) IF you don't read everything someone says then you are unable to have that opinion....or believe that....or have reason to say that....or have a reasoned position on that.....or something
b) That reading Zegh means necessarily that you will be in a stronger position to judge whether he is full of shit or not (because we can absolutely infer that vital knowledge will be conferred and that the information he will give us will be truth and fact - ie the "one month silent treatment")
c) That 7 years of experiencing him as being full of shit will likely change the moment I stop reading.
d) That not acknowledging all of the above is being intellectually dishonest.
It isn't and never was. In fact saying someone is "full of shit" is a great expression and one that generalises the communication of someone and does not rely on everything someone has ever written. Only an absolute idiot would try to imply this and you are not an absolute idiot.
Exactly. Do what she tells you,
and you are safe. Now do be a good
boy, and do whatever mommy says.
^This looks like it was written by a boy who still has "issues" with his own mommy and projects them onto other women.
:lol:
Knew if I'd let off complaining, you'd manage to
pull the personal attacks out again.
Prime example. You know that I have disagreement
with my mother. Though it bears not at all upon
the site. Didn't think you'd strike so soon though.
No one went personal on you, to push you, this
time, so THIS is now a prime example.
ffs, you're constantly attacking her. You stated it more or less as a "fact" that Scrap was chased away, hinting strongly that Callaway did it. You did go personal, can't you see that?
You are full of shit, Calandale.
-1
How many posts did Calandale make? If I add up every post Zegh made here in 6 months, how many did I miss? How many of Cal's did you miss daily in the 6 months leading up to this comment? He was the biggest postwhore I ever saw. You did NOT read everything but you proclaimed him full of shit.
Now you will hedge and say either that you were making a full of shit about a specific claim or that at least you read many of his posts or were not actively not reading everything he wrote. Not buying it at all.
Thoughtful as in "devoid of actual content"? Definitely a cop-out.
No. As in, I actually consider what my views are,
rather than merely spouting the same crap to
ANY statement by someone.
this is supposed to be ironic, yes? or have you got the date wrong, and you posted it six days late?
Not in the least. Over and over, I get accused of shit that's unreasonable.
Most of your group see nothing wrong in one liners, such as you used,
whereas I usually am questioning myself, even within my 'attacks'.
Doesn't stop you, though. You're full of shit.
But you read all of this person's or was "full of shit" just an opinion signifying that the "full of shit" person generally talked crap and was either dishonest or moronic, I DO get that position and understand THAT use of the word. I don't think it is intellectually dishonest to say....what about you? You get it don't you, Odeon. Of course you do.
Nope, she's full of shit.
Second day and 12 posts in and you know her very well (Better than I do Zegh over 7 years of exposure to him). This is NOT hypocrisy though is it Odeon? You cannot have it both ways. Where have I heard this condescending statement before?
So being that you are not a fool, where exactly does this leave your position? It looks like it is very similar to various times YOU have used that same term of endearment about someone. But in those instances you have neither read everything of Calandale (and I assure you that I read far more of Zegh's posts percentage-wise than you did of Cal's posts), or have acted with a decent understanding of the kind of person you were talking about, and seemingly using it in EXACTLY the same way I used it.
So I can assume that you actually have NO problem with me using the term, NOR the way in which I used it, nor that there was the slightest thing wrong with using it in that manner, and nor did it make me intellectually dishonest doing so. Seems like a bit of blind spot, yes?
Back to you.
-
lol
-
::sigh::
You just don't get it, do you? Maybe it's my mistake, my failure to communicate clearly.
It was never about the exact wording. The "full of shit" expression was just that, an expression.
I changed my opinions on Cal, and I did it several times. If you bother to go back to search for Odeon posts that include the phrase "full of shit", also take into account what happened later, and what I did and did not say. I don't deal in absolutes like you do; you've made up your mind about Zegh and make a point out of not reading him AND saying he is full of it.
I never did. I was annoyed with Cal and said so, but also continued to read him, commenting when I had something to say, and I have no problem with him today. I moved on.
Do you see the difference?
Zegh had this right, just now. Since you don't read him, I'll quote him here for your benefit:
lol
-
::sigh::
You just don't get it, do you? Maybe it's my mistake, my failure to communicate clearly.
It was never about the exact wording. The "full of shit" expression was just that, an expression.
I changed my opinions on Cal, and I did it several times. If you bother to go back to search for Odeon posts that include the phrase "full of shit", also take into account what happened later, and what I did and did not say. I don't deal in absolutes like you do; you've made up your mind about Zegh and make a point out of not reading him AND saying he is full of it.
I never did. I was annoyed with Cal and said so, but also continued to read him, commenting when I had something to say, and I have no problem with him today. I moved on.
Do you see the difference?
Zegh had this right, just now. Since you don't read him, I'll quote him here for your benefit:
lol
"I don't deal in absolutes like you do"
Well nor do I and you know I don't. You lied here and we both know that.
It's part of the reason why we had a fair bit of give and take in our first callout. It's also the same reason why so many people proclaim I never apologise and then get proved categorically wrong. You know better. This was not you making a typo, this is a lie.
"You see the difference?"
Yes I see you virtue signalling for all you are worth and not backing your claim.
As to whether you changed your opinion on Cal or not. That only makes any kind of difference IF I similarly could not change my opinion on Zegh,, AND IF I only dealt in absolutes. Again you know this is not true and you've seen that I have changed my position on people I disagree with (as you did with Cal) such as Richard, Bint, and Penty.
"It's not the exact wording". Correct. Nor was it how it was meant, nor why it was said, nor who it was said to. AND nor was it intellectually dishonest.
The small differences left do not make your point and never gave the impression of doing so.
Whilst I don't deal in absolutes I am opinionated, stubborn and arrogant. If I change my mind I need a decent reason to justify doing so
So who is not getting what exactly? Do you imagine I should nod my head to the claim of dealing with absolutes when we both know that is untrue? What about the claim of tiptoeing or the pretence claim until such time you realise it doesn't apply? No? I did not "get them" because they were wrong. I do not agree or "get" things that are wrong. That is also why I don't "get" the intellectual dishonesty thing.
It's not me here, it's you. I think it may be a blindspot and I think younger to look at things objectively.
-
In absolutes like you with Zegh. That is what I meant, but I guess I do need to include the qualifier. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
But getting back to the point I made: Unless you change your mind about reading Zegh--and that is where we differ; I don't think I ever claimed to stop reading Cal only to hunt him around the board later, I simply said he was full of shit and kept on reading--my point remains valid. I know you will disagree, but hey, that's life.
Another round? :zoinks:
-
:deadhorse2: :deadhorse: :MLA:
-
Lol, it's laughable to suggest that they are trying to build democracy when they've been blocking it for decades. If a democratically elected leader nationalises the oil, the US will destroy the country, and they have. They've been destroying nations, not building them. Is supporting Saudi Arabia part of their democratic plan? Who are bombing schools in Yemen with US and UK weapons.
Apparently your mind is made up and is impervious to evidence. ::)
:facepalm2:
You mean you didn't realise this?
-
Apparently your mind is made up and is impervious to evidence. ::)
:facepalm2:
You mean you didn't realise this?
:LMAO:
-
:rofl:
Ahh jeesh, alcohol. That obviously wasn't what I meant to write, but glad I did now :rofl:
-
In absolutes like you with Zegh. That is what I meant, but I guess I do need to include the qualifier. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
But getting back to the point I made: Unless you change your mind about reading Zegh--and that is where we differ; I don't think I ever claimed to stop reading Cal only to hunt him around the board later, I simply said he was full of shit and kept on reading--my point remains valid. I know you will disagree, but hey, that's life.
Another round? :zoinks:
Oh I get the differences and they are a) not that significant and b) make no point as to being intellectually dishonest. Its just virtue signalling (I am better than you in x respect .... therefore my point has more weight and you are wrong)
Here is how it goes:
You say "I kept reading Cal" This is you saying a) I am better than you because you did not read Zegh and I did read Cal b) THEREFORE You have no position you can hold about whether Zegh is full of shit or not AND I can.
The fact is I can and I do, BUT more than this. You read Calandale's posts, right? According to you and I am happy to accept this as truth. Your assertion that NOT doing so would make you Intellectually dishonest (which is what you accuse me of being for exactly that reason). Your premise being that if you miss their posts then how can you say or mean someone is full of shit.
"You did not miss any of Calandale's posts and therefore missed no reference he could have made on Intensity. Therefore you are perfectly placed to pass judgement on him being full of shit whereas as I am not because I do not read Zegh at all."
Well now THAT would be a monumental lie. How many posts DID you miss of Calandale's in that time? None? A couple may have slipped through? A few a day? See, I know and you know, and many here know, the amount Calandale posted a day, every day. I clocked him one day at 75 posts and that was an average kind of a day for him. So I am not the slightest bit interested in the fact that you did not seek to not read him at all, but rather what you missed each day over a six month period. Now let's consider that against this standard "You did not miss any of Calandale's posts and therefore missed no reference he could have made on Intensity. Therefore you are perfectly placed to pass judgement on him being full of shit whereas as I am not because you do not read Zegh at all. "
Okay so you missed a whole lot of what he did, or did not say, and so contextually are not in a strong position to make such proclamations IF this is your standard. In fact all the difference between my position and your position as I say would amount to virtue signalling, which is barely window dressing. Its you saying "Well at least I made some kind of an effort". That doesn't impress me and it ought not impress you either.
So you would be essentially saying you were missing a substantial amount of what Cal said compared to me missing all of what Zegh said over 6 months. In percentage 100% will always be higher and in numbers I honestly did not miss as many of Zegh's posts as you would have missed of Cal's.
But then we look at Dr Bitch's claim to be studying Medicine. I doubt that she was, but I have no idea. You categorically said she was not and said she was "full of shit" for saying so. It was her second day posting. You had 18 small posts of her's by which to make this claim. So let's apply YOUR standard. You read her and you based it on ALL of the 18 posts she wrote as a member on the site for two days THEREFORE you can make that educated opinion and could not be at all intellectually dishonest. I mean Hell I have read many hundreds of posts of Zegh's over 7 years before I finally adopted the position that he was full of shit and not worth reading BUT look at you with your standard.
Now I do not deal in absolutes. Implying that I do, over Zegh or anything, is false and you know that absolutely. This standard of yours is certainly a standard but it is not the method by which one should measure intellectual dishonesty or judge it on. You refuse to look past this and look at context, and your refusal to look past your "You did not read him so you can't know" mantra is limited, weak and uncontextualised. That is why things like your own expressing people as being full of shit when examined fall to pieces when considered against your very own standard.
Why you know absolutely that I do not deal in absolutes with Zegh is that I have been equally as negative and opinionated about a good many people here (Nocturnalist, Bob, Randy, Richard, Penty, Butterflies, Squiddy, Scrapheap, Bint, Adam,.....actually more than a few people) and VERY few have I remained "absolute" about and I do not deal in "absolutes". In fact I get on with MANY people I have had an issue with. It is not that Zegh is different other than the fact I have stopped reading him. This YOU know absolutely. You are not confused about it or under any misapprehension. You have known me and my posting style over about 8 years so let's drop the "absolutes" arguments. Its bullshit and you and I know its bullshit.
"So you are saying then Al, that if it is not absolutes you will be nice to him and start reading him and...." NO. I have no reason to. Were I to get the impression he had changed, like I found out Penty had changed (from what someone else had posted) I would consider reserving judgement and reading. I did the same with Skyblue (Oppps he should have been on the list too LOL) and was shat on for it by him. I read what Richard said and again reserved judgment and he seems pretty cool now days. So let's drop the absolutes thing all together. Unqualified it was a lie and I would like to think that qualifying it was more desperate than dishonest.
You understand don't you Odeon, that your claim was baseless and weak? The intellectual dishonesty claim was not strong when it was padded with the tiptoeing claim or the pretense claim or the dishonesty claim nor the semantics claim. You have dropped each of these and now The thing I was accused of being intellectually dishonest in saying, you have said under similar conditions and when stripped down and examined the ways they are different is neither significant nor does either make a case for someone being full of shit as to not being full of shit.
The truth is and has always been that saying someone is full of shit, is simply saying that they talk a load of crap. It is not a position from which to claim someone is intellectually dishonest UNLESS the claim can be made for either the person not believing the claim they made (and I do of Zegh) or that the person accused of talking crap, does not talk crap (which Zegh certainly does). What kind of crap? Inconsequential things?, Lies? Yes but what about talking themselves up or insults or condescension, poorly thought out positions or stupid personal stories or experiences? Would any of that count as crap? Yes.
Do you need to have read EVERYTHING that person has ever said to make that assessment about them? NO. Is it saying EVERYTHING that they say MUST meet the conditions of being crap? No.
But this you know. You know the claim was bullshit. You know Zegh talks a load of shit because that is his posting style. Inconsequential things, Lies, talking himself up, insults, condescension, poorly thought out positions, stupid personal stories or experiences he hits the jackpot? Ergo he is full of shit. Doesn't mean that this is all he does. Hey you could say "Well I think YOU are full of shit, Al." Go for it. I will not call you intellectually dishonest because THAT would be stupid but I may ask you to explain what elements of what I think are full of shit. In fact I think at times people have made similar claims and I when they say things like "You write novel sized boring posts" I shrug. Its a fair comment. Again I do not call it intellectual dishonesty and I would be stupid to do so.
If you asked (without context) people at random, whether they thought
a) Obama
b) Hillary Clinton
c) Bernie Sanders
d) Donald Trump
e) Glenn Beck
f) Rush Limbaugh
g) Bill O'Reilly
were full of shit. Most people (presuming that they know who these people are) would agree with that assessment with at least a couple of those people. (I think I'd agree each of them to at least some degree). The expression does NOT and NEVER has conferred an expectation that you must know everything they have said or religiously follow them. Watch a handful of Glenn Beck interviews and if you are not convinced the guy is completely full of shit, you are seriously without any appreciable intellectual rigour. You do not HAVE to watch EVERYTHING he says to give you a moral hi five that you can hold the incontestable position that you are right about him, and NOT doing so does not make you intellectually dishonest when you proclaim he is full of shit.
It is and always was an argument that was beneath you Odeon. One you ought not have made in the first place and certainly ought not have defended.
-
I issue you a couple of edicts, Al! You MUST obey them, out of your respect and admiration for me. This is about willpower, and ability to prove yourself
1. I want you to stop arguing with Odeon, and NOT keep arguing with him untill you die of age.
2. I want you to stop writing LONG and winding posts. The shorter you keep it, the more pleased I will be. Your goal here, is to please me.
3. I want you to NOT start needless arguments with EVERY other member of this forum. So long as there are people left on the forum you are NOT arguing with, you WILL be complying adequately.
I look forward to your full cooperation in this, and trust your eagerness to obey.
-
I issue you a couple of edicts, Al! You MUST obey them, out of your respect and admiration for me. This is about willpower, and ability to prove yourself
1. I want you to stop arguing with Odeon, and NOT keep arguing with him untill you die of age.
2. I want you to stop writing LONG and winding posts. The shorter you keep it, the more pleased I will be. Your goal here, is to please me.
3. I want you to NOT start needless arguments with EVERY other member of this forum. So long as there are people left on the forum you are NOT arguing with, you WILL be complying adequately.
I look forward to your full cooperation in this, and trust your eagerness to obey.
Hello Odeon. Thank you for responding to me.
Oh you aren't. You are Zegh.
You are the stoner guy.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/15/article-1206718-06112F5C000005DC-931_468x330.jpg)
What on Earth would you have offer this discussion? Don't bother answer.
-
I issue you a couple of edicts, Al! You MUST obey them, out of your respect and admiration for me. This is about willpower, and ability to prove yourself
1. I want you to stop arguing with Odeon, and NOT keep arguing with him untill you die of age.
2. I want you to stop writing LONG and winding posts. The shorter you keep it, the more pleased I will be. Your goal here, is to please me.
3. I want you to NOT start needless arguments with EVERY other member of this forum. So long as there are people left on the forum you are NOT arguing with, you WILL be complying adequately.
I look forward to your full cooperation in this, and trust your eagerness to obey.
Hello Odeon. Thank you for reponding to me.
Oh you aren't. You are Zegh.
You are the stoner guy.
[img[ http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/15/article-1206718-06112F5C000005DC-931_468x330.jpg[/img]
What on Earth would you have TO offer TO this discussion? Don't bother TO answer.
hey, try to rage less, and you'd be able to actually finish sentences
Oh, and this isn't your call-out, you senile old fuck :V
Could it be that you are drunk. Again? :V
-
:rofl:
Ahh jeesh, alcohol. That obviously wasn't what I meant to write, but glad I did now :rofl:
:plus: for unintentional comedy.
-
:rofl:
Ahh jeesh, alcohol. That obviously wasn't what I meant to write, but glad I did now :rofl:
:plus: for unintentional comedy.
:laugh:
-
I issue you a couple of edicts, Al! You MUST obey them, out of your respect and admiration for me. This is about willpower, and ability to prove yourself
1. I want you to stop arguing with Odeon, and NOT keep arguing with him untill you die of age.
2. I want you to stop writing LONG and winding posts. The shorter you keep it, the more pleased I will be. Your goal here, is to please me.
3. I want you to NOT start needless arguments with EVERY other member of this forum. So long as there are people left on the forum you are NOT arguing with, you WILL be complying adequately.
I look forward to your full cooperation in this, and trust your eagerness to obey.
Hello Odeon. Thank you for reponding to me.
Oh you aren't. You are Zegh.
You are the stoner guy.
(http://[/b] h[i][/i]ttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/15/article-1206718-06112F5C000005DC-931_468x330.jpg)
What on Earth would you have TO offer TO this discussion? Don't bother TO answer.
hey, try to rage less, and you'd be able to actually finish sentences
Oh, and this isn't your call-out, you senile old fuck :V
Could it be that you are drunk. Again? :V
What exactly did you answer? I bet if I read it, it would be in no way full of shit. In fact it was probably the antithesis of what I said. I am sure I was neither inconsequential nor condescending wankery.
I imagine that it was insightful, wise and constructive. The only problem is that I have given up holding out hope to see this in you.
So rather than me enacting the labour of reading you, how about you hi five yourself and air pump you monitor? Perhaps you can have a celebratory cone or four. Treat it like a normal weekend.
Yes it is the weekend. I know for you the days no doubt seem to meld into one. As long as the state pays you enough for you minimal rent, dope and food...then who cares what day it is. C'mon, that has gotta be worth a solid air pump and one or five cones?
-
Al: sorry, I can't be arsed to repeat myself right now. Please feel free to continue, though.
-
Al: sorry, I can't be arsed to repeat myself right now. Please feel free to continue, though.
I know I am free to do so.
I would not imagine repeating the same points would do anything as those points are blatantly wrong. Probably better addressing the points raised, rather than repeating points that in no way address the points I raise. I mean doing that makes no sense. I have helped you out by quoting it again, for when you can be "arsed".
Oh I get the differences and they are a) not that significant and b) make no point as to being intellectually dishonest. Its just virtue signalling (I am better than you in x respect .... therefore my point has more weight and you are wrong)
Here is how it goes:
You say "I kept reading Cal" This is you saying a) I am better than you because you did not read Zegh and I did read Cal b) THEREFORE You have no position you can hold about whether Zegh is full of shit or not AND I can.
The fact is I can and I do, BUT more than this. You read Calandale's posts, right? According to you and I am happy to accept this as truth. Your assertion that NOT doing so would make you Intellectually dishonest (which is what you accuse me of being for exactly that reason). Your premise being that if you miss their posts then how can you say or mean someone is full of shit.
"You did not miss any of Calandale's posts and therefore missed no reference he could have made on Intensity. Therefore you are perfectly placed to pass judgement on him being full of shit whereas as I am not because I do not read Zegh at all."
Well now THAT would be a monumental lie. How many posts DID you miss of Calandale's in that time? None? A couple may have slipped through? A few a day? See, I know and you know, and many here know, the amount Calandale posted a day, every day. I clocked him one day at 75 posts and that was an average kind of a day for him. So I am not the slightest bit interested in the fact that you did not seek to not read him at all, but rather what you missed each day over a six month period. Now let's consider that against this standard "You did not miss any of Calandale's posts and therefore missed no reference he could have made on Intensity. Therefore you are perfectly placed to pass judgement on him being full of shit whereas as I am not because you do not read Zegh at all. "
Okay so you missed a whole lot of what he did, or did not say, and so contextually are not in a strong position to make such proclamations IF this is your standard. In fact all the difference between my position and your position as I say would amount to virtue signalling, which is barely window dressing. Its you saying "Well at least I made some kind of an effort". That doesn't impress me and it ought not impress you either.
So you would be essentially saying you were missing a substantial amount of what Cal said compared to me missing all of what Zegh said over 6 months. In percentage 100% will always be higher and in numbers I honestly did not miss as many of Zegh's posts as you would have missed of Cal's.
But then we look at Dr Bitch's claim to be studying Medicine. I doubt that she was, but I have no idea. You categorically said she was not and said she was "full of shit" for saying so. It was her second day posting. You had 18 small posts of her's by which to make this claim. So let's apply YOUR standard. You read her and you based it on ALL of the 18 posts she wrote as a member on the site for two days THEREFORE you can make that educated opinion and could not be at all intellectually dishonest. I mean Hell I have read many hundreds of posts of Zegh's over 7 years before I finally adopted the position that he was full of shit and not worth reading BUT look at you with your standard.
Now I do not deal in absolutes. Implying that I do, over Zegh or anything, is false and you know that absolutely. This standard of yours is certainly a standard but it is not the method by which one should measure intellectual dishonesty or judge it on. You refuse to look past this and look at context, and your refusal to look past your "You did not read him so you can't know" mantra is limited, weak and uncontextualised. That is why things like your own expressing people as being full of shit when examined fall to pieces when considered against your very own standard.
Why you know absolutely that I do not deal in absolutes with Zegh is that I have been equally as negative and opinionated about a good many people here (Nocturnalist, Bob, Randy, Richard, Penty, Butterflies, Squiddy, Scrapheap, Bint, Adam,.....actually more than a few people) and VERY few have I remained "absolute" about and I do not deal in "absolutes". In fact I get on with MANY people I have had an issue with. It is not that Zegh is different other than the fact I have stopped reading him. This YOU know absolutely. You are not confused about it or under any misapprehension. You have known me and my posting style over about 8 years so let's drop the "absolutes" arguments. Its bullshit and you and I know its bullshit.
"So you are saying then Al, that if it is not absolutes you will be nice to him and start reading him and...." NO. I have no reason to. Were I to get the impression he had changed, like I found out Penty had changed (from what someone else had posted) I would consider reserving judgement and reading. I did the same with Skyblue (Oppps he should have been on the list too LOL) and was shat on for it by him. I read what Richard said and again reserved judgment and he seems pretty cool now days. So let's drop the absolutes thing all together. Unqualified it was a lie and I would like to think that qualifying it was more desperate than dishonest.
You understand don't you Odeon, that your claim was baseless and weak? The intellectual dishonesty claim was not strong when it was padded with the tiptoeing claim or the pretense claim or the dishonesty claim nor the semantics claim. You have dropped each of these and now The thing I was accused of being intellectually dishonest in saying, you have said under similar conditions and when stripped down and examined the ways they are different is neither significant nor does either make a case for someone being full of shit as to not being full of shit.
The truth is and has always been that saying someone is full of shit, is simply saying that they talk a load of crap. It is not a position from which to claim someone is intellectually dishonest UNLESS the claim can be made for either the person not believing the claim they made (and I do of Zegh) or that the person accused of talking crap, does not talk crap (which Zegh certainly does). What kind of crap? Inconsequential things?, Lies? Yes but what about talking themselves up or insults or condescension, poorly thought out positions or stupid personal stories or experiences? Would any of that count as crap? Yes.
Do you need to have read EVERYTHING that person has ever said to make that assessment about them? NO. Is it saying EVERYTHING that they say MUST meet the conditions of being crap? No.
But this you know. You know the claim was bullshit. You know Zegh talks a load of shit because that is his posting style. Inconsequential things, Lies, talking himself up, insults, condescension, poorly thought out positions, stupid personal stories or experiences he hits the jackpot? Ergo he is full of shit. Doesn't mean that this is all he does. Hey you could say "Well I think YOU are full of shit, Al." Go for it. I will not call you intellectually dishonest because THAT would be stupid but I may ask you to explain what elements of what I think are full of shit. In fact I think at times people have made similar claims and I when they say things like "You write novel sized boring posts" I shrug. Its a fair comment. Again I do not call it intellectual dishonesty and I would be stupid to do so.
If you asked (without context) people at random, whether they thought
a) Obama
b) Hillary Clinton
c) Bernie Sanders
d) Donald Trump
e) Glenn Beck
f) Rush Limbaugh
g) Bill O'Reilly
were full of shit. Most people (presuming that they know who these people are) would agree with that assessment with at least a couple of those people. (I think I'd agree each of them to at least some degree). The expression does NOT and NEVER has conferred an expectation that you must know everything they have said or religiously follow them. Watch a handful of Glenn Beck interviews and if you are not convinced the guy is completely full of shit, you are seriously without any appreciable intellectual rigour. You do not HAVE to watch EVERYTHING he says to give you a moral hi five that you can hold the incontestable position that you are right about him, and NOT doing so does not make you intellectually dishonest when you proclaim he is full of shit.
It is and always was an argument that was beneath you Odeon. One you ought not have made in the first place and certainly ought not have defended.
-
Are you seriously still expecting me to change my mind about this?
-
Are you seriously still expecting me to change my mind about this?
Its not necessary, (in fact I think it is a blindspot for you and you will not regardless of anything I say) but whilst you are reading it, I would imagine that you may as well address the points I raised WITHOUT repeating yourself (and YES your points have not addressed my points).
If you don't want to do that I could always make another callout I guess. Thought you and I might be better avoiding that eventuality.
-
"without repeating yourself"
=
"finally agreeing with me"
::)
-
"without repeating yourself"
=
"finally agreeing with me"
::)
We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Give me five bees for a quarter, you'd say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
-
"without repeating yourself"
=
"finally agreeing with me"
::)
Yes, mainly.
-
"without repeating yourself"
=
"finally agreeing with me"
::)
Yes, mainly.
Another callous specific to these points you have read but are not addressing?
-
"without repeating yourself"
=
"finally agreeing with me"
::)
Yes, mainly.
Another callous specific to these points you have read but are not addressing?
I think Zegh got it right. I did explain my views, you simply chose not to accept them. You think my argumentation is weak, I don't. Etc.
-
... and you two thought I was a coward for getting bored of your callouts. ::)
I just know better. :deadhorse:
-
Can I change the name of this thread?
-
Yes.
-
Can I change the name of this thread?
What are you going to change it to? :orly:
-
... and you two thought I was a coward for getting bored of your callouts. ::)
I just know better. :deadhorse:
A coward? Um, say what?
-
"without repeating yourself"
=
"finally agreeing with me"
::)
Yes, mainly.
Another callous specific to these points you have read but are not addressing?
I think Zegh got it right. I did explain my views, you simply chose not to accept them. You think my argumentation is weak, I don't. Etc.
I do not think so. I think you are not addressing my points nor backing your own. You are simply repeating yourself and then complaining that you have to repeat yourself. You don't need to. It should be quite a relief I imagine.
You are not addressing my points by repeating a mantra over and over. (That mantra being "You did not read Zegh so you do not know everything he said and so you can't know he is full of shit'). Any point I have raised is NOT instantly struck down by repeating this. It is not a flawless argument and neither is it nuanced or all-encompassing. If you are not going to discuss the points I raise I will make another callout to do so.
As for whether you agree or not, I do not care.