Author Topic: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac  (Read 403 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96113
  • Karma: 4049
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
And while it's sort of fun to watch the train wreck that is you trying to argue, I think we are done here. Ask the peanut gallery who won.
I know, I know, it's just that I don't know what should be there. :GA:
Could put some awesome Jack quote in there.

Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16342
  • Karma: 2053
  • Friendly bastard
And while it's sort of fun to watch the train wreck that is you trying to argue, I think we are done here. Ask the peanut gallery who won.

You have not backed a thing you have claimed, which is the intent of a callout.
A callout is not simply a popularity contest.So no.

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96113
  • Karma: 4049
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
/shrugs

I'm going to be charitable and say it's two separate issues.
I know, I know, it's just that I don't know what should be there. :GA:
Could put some awesome Jack quote in there.

Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16342
  • Karma: 2053
  • Friendly bastard
Sorry, Al, but it's the only explanation I have. Most others would have understood the points I made here, and some reacted against your original post exactly the way I did. This means you're bad at expressing yourself and suck at reading comprehension.

Of course, it could be that those two are separate issues but that would be arguing semantics, really.

The way I see it there are other very equal possibilities. I have expressed one already. The kneejerk "He did not outright support all instances of climate change and therefore he must be a climate change denier".
That is one. Another (and why I thought Meowsy was Scrap) is I rather thought with such a poor understanding of what I said, that they did a Scrap (which is to extrapolate a base reading from what is such without really reading through things. Scrap still hits the mark as often as not but that is as much him being him as me writing long posts). There may be some priming "Al is arguing again, let's tune out" or perhaps "I think Odeons positions are so readonable that I will not care to understand a contesting or alternate point of view" or perhaps "Let's show solidarity here because we do not like the way this looks to be going" or "Al is just arguing for the sake of arguing and is not worth reading"

Could be many more possibilities too. Listing what YOU consider faults of mine do not matter at all.

It does not address a single claim you say and as I said, this is your chance to address it here. You made the claims and now you evidence them not with disapproval for HOW I said what I said but rather what I DID say.

You may have well not liked how I said something but your claims were not about disliking how I said things. They are rather about what you claims I was saying and for that you need to show that the claism are correct or not. I have given you some clear sign posts. You have not addressed them and we know why you cannot. I did not claim what it is you said I claimed.

You lied, as you do. You were wrong as you hate admitting you are.

At the very easiest measure of proof:

What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?
whether or not I actually made claims that deny man-made climate change exists at all?

Let's face it for climate change denialism, these above are about the easiest standards I or anyone could foist on you to evidence, and you cannot do it. At this point ANY rational thinking person would raise their hand and admit they had nothing, never did and that their claims were stupid and dishonest, doubling down was even sillier and more dishonest.

Yet you don't. THAT is NOT on me. Not in the slightest. THAT is your reason for being here.

You CAN choose NOT to resolve it here in its proper setting and in its proper setting. (I think that best) I can choose to indignantly NOT keep it unresolved here and this may start feuding all over the board again. On this freedom of expression, combative forum it is a gentleman's rule that we keep feuding in call out and a gentleman's rule that one has to back themselves. I do think both are best but not essential.

Make the claim? Then back the claim when called out on it.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 04:21:37 PM by Al Swearengen »

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96113
  • Karma: 4049
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Oh, I see. Either I continue a meaningless bullshit callout or you start shitting all over the board again? That's an interesting approach.

Here's the thing, though. You formulated yourself so poorly that many members thought you were denying man-made climate change. When called out on it, you then clarified yourself so poorly that while you didn't deny it all, you hinted that while some things could be caused by man, maybe, perhaps, most probably aren't. A stance worth a politician. Well, perhaps not--I'm not here to insult politicians--but worth Trump.

No specific denials, of course, just the vague probably, perhaps, maybe, an ignorant man's attempt at being reasonable the one time he would have needed to show some actual backbone.

Instead you chose to make it about specifics when you never offered any.

This is now over, Al, like it or not.
I know, I know, it's just that I don't know what should be there. :GA:
Could put some awesome Jack quote in there.

Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16342
  • Karma: 2053
  • Friendly bastard
Oh, I see. Either I continue a meaningless bullshit callout or you start shitting all over the board again? That's an interesting approach.

Here's the thing, though. You formulated yourself so poorly that many members thought you were denying man-made climate change. When called out on it, you then clarified yourself so poorly that while you didn't deny it all, you hinted that while some things could be caused by man, maybe, perhaps, most probably aren't. A stance worth a politician. Well, perhaps not--I'm not here to insult politicians--but worth Trump.

No specific denials, of course, just the vague probably, perhaps, maybe, an ignorant man's attempt at being reasonable the one time he would have needed to show some actual backbone.

Instead you chose to make it about specifics when you never offered any.

This is now over, Al, like it or not.

Nope, here is the thing. You say that I needed to state specifics, you have it precisely ass-backwards.

I was actually stating that there is a lot not known and that whilst climate change does exist and some of that is caused by man the specifics are precisely the problem. That does not make me ignorant as it does make me more open to the best evidence for any particular claim. I am not prepared to dismiss any party coming to the table. Present good opinions on any perceived man made or man influenced change in the climate and I will listen and may well agree with that particular claim. If you disagree with the reasons for that particular claim or you think that that particular claim is not man influenced but caused by some other factor, I will listen to that too.

So no, it would be foolish to say that EVERY claim is equally as valid or credible. It is also stupid to say I would need to state specifics. It has NOTHING to do with not having backbone or convictions. Really stupid.

But as mentioned, you had it ass-backwards.

It is not ME that needs to make specific. It is you. Why? Because YOU made specific claims and allusions about what I specifically said. When asked to show why you made those specific claims you vaguely foist it away from yourself at what others thought. The others are not in the callout. YOU are.

You made claims you need to back. That is all. You haven't. You have relied on several go to settings to avoid having to back yourself. You have insulted me, deflected, said what amounts to "everyone else was doing it too", and said that what I wrote was not specific.

Not a radical notion here, BUT if someone was to make claims that were NOT clear to you, then surely only an idiot would make specific claims based on what they were not clear about? Surely if you were to make a specific claim about someone (On I2 of all places) then you would be able to point to where the person has said or done what you were accusing them of?

I mean, this is not exactly rocket science. The bar I set you was at the idiot level as it is. Basically, it was, show me anything I said. To which your argument is:

"Well, you are an idiot. You have to write more clearly for me to understand and now that I have been called for what I can't back, I want you to retroactively edit what I have already made claims on. I have been called on claims I made about what you said but now it is apparent I can't actually point to anything you said that supports my claim, I will both say "the other boys were doing it too"", and then you stop playing.

This is petulant and immature BUT is still not backing yourself. This is where you have to back yourself, Odeon. If you were not interested in backing yourself then you ought not have made claims you could not back. In fact, given the recent history between us, that goes double. The callout is not meaningless bullshit, for that reason. I clearly do not really give a shit about Climate Change. But I think you talking crap that you cannot back and then refusing to give account of in callout IS not meaningless.




Offline rock hound

  • Elder
  • Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2347
  • Karma: 118
  • Gender: Male
  • The Shadow out of time.
It is what it is, Al! 
I don't hold grudges, you just become irrelevant.

Offline Gopher Gary

  • sockpuppet alert!
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *
  • Posts: 8836
  • Karma: 390
  • I'm a gopher, bitches. Write that down.
I already won this one two months ago.  :zoinks:
:gopher:

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96113
  • Karma: 4049
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
It is what it is, Al!

You are what you are, Ozy. I guess you just can't help yourself.
I know, I know, it's just that I don't know what should be there. :GA:
Could put some awesome Jack quote in there.

Offline 'andersom'

  • Pure Chocolate Bovine PIMP of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 38236
  • Karma: 2455
  • Gender: Female
  • well known as hyke.
 :lol1:
I already won this one two months ago.  :zoinks:
:lol1:
I can do upside down chocolate moo things!

Offline "couldbecousin"

  • Invincible Heisenweeble of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 53032
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Female
  • You're goddamn right.
  I love that little twerp gopher.  In a sick sort of way. :gopher: :zoinks:
I am fucking finished with fear.

--- Queen Vic!  :viking:

Offline 'andersom'

  • Pure Chocolate Bovine PIMP of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 38236
  • Karma: 2455
  • Gender: Female
  • well known as hyke.
  I love that little twerp gopher.  In a sick sort of way. :gopher: :zoinks:

Always knew you were the sick sort of egg.  :-*
I can do upside down chocolate moo things!

Offline Gopher Gary

  • sockpuppet alert!
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *
  • Posts: 8836
  • Karma: 390
  • I'm a gopher, bitches. Write that down.
Here's me and the weeble, being awesome in a sick sort of way.  :zoinks:

:cbc:  :gopher: 
:gopher: