|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 03/16/2007 : 20:58:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
beskeptigal said:
quote:
I'm going to drag this discussion back to where it started. And Dude, you can stew all you want, I think most people are done trying to carry on a discussion with your problem here.
Whatever.
You are obviously incapable of seeing beyond your political bais and recognizing your error. So please, feel free to continue practicing your Coulteresque political bigotry.
marfknox said:
quote:
I'm really done now (I promise, everyone) with responding to Dude in this thread, first because there really is nothing else to say, and second because the abuse is finally starting to hurt
HAHA! Poor you. It was you, afterall, who started out with insults and sarcasm in this thread. Don't expect any sypmathy, hypocrit.
Right here, psycho, is where this thread devolved into insults, courtesy of YOU:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7681&whichpage=5#114714
 Official Warning
Well Dude, I held off as long as I could. I was honestly hoping you would cool off or just see that the level of name-calling you have brought to this thread and for as long as it has gone on is probably unprecedented at SFN. (I couldn't say for sure because that would mean I would h have to go search for something worse, which I don't feel like doing.) I think the taunts you used in the above post to describe both beskeptigal and marfknox as well as an earlier taunt directed at McQ in a post to marfknox had nothing to do with what was being discussed and did not further your argument and were therefore abusive in intent. When I asked you to throw me a bone, I didn't mean for you to just become more creative in your insults by avoiding the use of vulgarity. Enough is enough…
Kil |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Aerik
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 23:08:03 [Permalink]
|
| I have to look up the Constitution party before I can vote. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 03/16/2007 : 23:29:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
As long as I'm posting reminders of what people have said in past posts, I take that last statement as sarcastic. If it wasn't, then this is just the reference, if it was sarcastic, then this is the reference Dave should explain.
You could have just asked, instead of insulting me further by rejecting a sincere apology. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 00:14:13 [Permalink]
|
Well, Dave, you have my sincere apology. Given the italics placed on my in the sentence, your claim in the same post:
"I made no assumption that you were "only talking about this forum." I had very good evidence to not make such an assumption. You knew that I had good reason to not make that assumption, yet you chose to state that I made that assumption in spite of the evidence."
(which I have no clue why I supposedly knew something), and the two preceding statements:
"Good grief, indeed. "Mycroft and Dave claim I'm far left" is incorrect"'
and
"Your memory is faulty. "I was attacked from all sides" and "Everyone had a cow" are both incorrect."
I think sarcasm was a reasonable interpretation.
-
So are you indeed aware how many people did 'have a cow' over at JREF over the World Can't Wait thread? I didn't go back and look if you had posted there.
-
And, by chance might you be apologizing as well for the claim:
"I was actually wondering how many of the right-wing trolls she says have appeared on the JREF forums are actually right-wing trolls, but don't have the time to go try to form an independent opinion on the subject." ?
How about accepting my statement that whatever I concluded about your political position which was incorrect was not the equivalent of insulting you? I draw conclusions based on what I read just as you do. If someone says I have it wrong, and it was just a matter of interpreting a post, then fine. I'm sorry. But I'm not a liar, I'm not conspiring to send evil coded messages, and I'm not insulting people for the sake of getting off on it.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/17/2007 00:15:59 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 01:54:53 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
quote:
I think the taunts you used in the above post to describe both beskeptigal
The majority of group "X" are "insert derogatory claim here".
Any person using this form of statement is engaged in bigotry.
You can claim it is nothing more than an opinion, but it isn't. Because it makes a conclusion that is unsupportable via evidence.
But here is an opinion for you, properly stated as such.
It is my opinion that you, Kil, are also biased on this issue. For whatever reason you are not applying your usual keen wit and skepticism to the remarks made by beskeptigal. I think you happen to agree with her, and are refusing to apply your critical thinking skills to what she is saying.
RE your warning:
While I recognize the delicious irony of being given a warning for insulting people in a thread where I'm complaning about a person being (essentially) insulting... an irony compounded by that person recieving no warning, and again by the others engaging in insults and threats also not even being asked by you to stop...
How many warnings before you ban me? Because, once again, in my opinion it is never wrong to call a bigot a bigot, and it is always wrong to remain silent in the face of bigotry.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 07:33:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
It is my opinion that you, Kil, are also biased on this issue. For whatever reason you are not applying your usual keen wit and skepticism to the remarks made by beskeptigal. I think you happen to agree with her, and are refusing to apply your critical thinking skills to what she is saying.
My opinion is beskeptigal's conclusion was an opinion. I have already gone over why I think that in an earlier post. But let me once again state that at the moment she admitted that her evidence was anecdotal, she was conceding that her conclusion was an opinion and not a claim of fact. Plus she said so in subsequent posts. You are free to draw any conclusion about me that you want to, based on my analysis of what she said. I think your wrong. It's also convenient of you to think that my logic is flawed because if you thought otherwise, again, you would be forced to admit that you're wrong in your conclusion. I suppose the same could be said of me. The bottom line is we disagree. And I have been willing to leave it at that without casting dispersions on your ability to think critically. And I also point out that with all of our critical thinking skills, in this case, we are both left with our opinions.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
RE your warning:
While I recognize the delicious irony of being given a warning for insulting people in a thread where I'm complaning about a person being (essentially) insulting... an irony compounded by that person recieving no warning, and again by the others engaging in insults and threats also not even being asked by you to stop...
I have had no reason to warn beskeptigal. The insults by others came nowhere close to the number of or the intensity of your insults. And that is what got me. You can think I am biased, but go back over the thread and look. Some of your replies were nothing but insults.
And Dude, I don't take these warnings lightly and toss them out every time I don't agree with someone. I agonized mightily over that warning. And I still am even though I stand by it. The moderation at SFN, as you know, is done sparingly, as opposed to many or most boards. It was the sheer intensity of your insults and taunts that I had to consider. I had to ask myself, would I let anyone else get away with that? Have I? As far as I am concerned you left me no choice.
As for any threats, I left a post, in red, covering the post in question and your reply to it, so you are wrong about that.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
How many warnings before you ban me? Because, once again, in my opinion it is never wrong to call a bigot a bigot, and it is always wrong to remain silent in the face of bigotry.
You get three warnings within a certain time frame of our choosing before a banning happens. And while defending the world against bigotry, are you saying you can't do it without resorting to the kind of tactics that got you the first warning?
I know you have better communication skills than that. Give me a break…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 09:45:46 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I was going to write this the other day, but didn't. Should've, I think. Might'a saved some hassle.
Now, I don't have a cock in this pit and no money riding on anyone else's, so I see it strictly from a bystander's viewpoint. That view is that I must have really been bored to have followed such nonsense for so long. It seems to me that these hassles could be better settled in private: PMs or e-mails. Really, Dude, B'gal, Marf, et al, why air it out in public? It certainly doesn't do anything much for the rest of us. And the topic, whatever that might have been, has been lost in a storm of ad hom, rendering the entire thread meaningless.
This comes from a man who considers vituperation an all-too-neglected art form.
Me now, I have come to hate political parties, every one. I don't give a rat's ass if they're Republican widow-rapers, Democratic whiners, Libertarian wankers, Green nitwits, what-the-hell-ever, they're all basically cut from the same cloth: to them all, the party comes first, cheap rhetoric not withstanding.
As I recall, many if not most of the Greens voted for Nadar in 2000, thereby helping to hand the drunken, crack-headed mendicant Bush, whose lifetime record of success is only slightly overshadowed by that of Krusty the Klown and whose intellect is that of an hydrocephalic bot fly, the means to nearly destroy the country. Fuck the Greens.
The Republicans speak for themselves. They are only concerned with giving constant fellatio to their super-religious, neo-conservative 'base,' that base having it's own, power-hungry agenda. They are without morals, ethics, nor the least of compassion unless it turns them a profit. The KKK and the other, various militias adore them, which is another reason to spit upon their every presence. They were conceived righteously enough, but then, like all political parties, slid from the high ground into the sewer from whence they are unlikely to emerge for a good long time. Fuck the Republicans.
The Democrats are little better. The cess pool the Republicans so gleefully dove into is the very one the Democrats only recently, historically speaking, slithered out of. The stains are no longer on their shoes, but they still carry a hint of the stench. This current crop of them have shown themselves, with some notable and too-rare exceptions, to lack the courage of any convictions they might have. For the last 12 or so years, they'd buckle up and cringe any time a Republican broke wind. They are now claiming the moral high ground, but leave them in power long enough and they will surely revert to their true form, and follow the Republicans straight back into the muck. Fuck the Democrats.
As for the rest, none of them are worth any more consideration than I've shown to the other three. They have their insane, little agendas, that would ultimately benefit no one but themselves. They are a lot like the anarchists of early in the last century. They sit and plot their puny, little actions and call them 'political activism.' I am reminded of one of my signature examples: the pathetic doofus who was a catalyst for The War To End all Wars, and what a crock that was! Millions dead due to one brain-dead, pig's anus who got politically active. And still they scheme, with no hope of success; bedlamites in paradise. Fuck 'em all.
Yeah, fuck 'em all; the long, the short, and the tall. I sometimes wonder if our alleged leaders are not suffering from congenital syphilis contacted during romantic interludes with chimpanzees on a Zimbabwe midden. From their behavior, it seems like a pretty good conjecture. But maybe not. More likely, perhaps, the contamination became manifest when they swore fealty to their parties.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 12:23:32 [Permalink]
|
kil said:
quote:
As for any threats, I left a post, in red, covering the post in question and your reply to it, so you are wrong about that.
So your first post in red counts as an "official warning"? Guess that means I have two then.
quote:
My opinion is beskeptigal's conclusion was an opinion.
See, this is what I am talking about. Conclusions are not opinions. And the conclusion in question, every time it was qualified with some thing or another it was followed by a challenge to prove it wrong!
"this is my opinion, but you need to prove it wrong"
So yeah, I think you are biased here. Same as the other people here who are jumping my shit for calling "the conclusion" for what it actually is, political bigotry. I have seen every one of you rip others people new orifices when they practice the same type of fallacious, bigoted argumentation.
But when the topic is politics and you agree with the conclusion, your biases dominate and you will not recognize fallacious arguments and faulty conclusions. Go figure.
The bottom line is simple. If Billscott, GK Paul, and verlch don't get a free pass on their faulty conclusions, then why should you?
Claiming that a conclusion reached is nothing but an opinion is, in and of itself, a logical fallacy.
Which brings me back to my original POINT. No claim of fact gets a free pass. Stated conclusions cannot be shielded with the veil of "its just my opinion" under ANY circumstances.
No matter how many times you state that "the majority of greens are magical thinkers" is just your opinion, it never can be just an opinion. An opinion would be "the green party contains to many magical thinkers." Do you see the difference?
So yes, Kil, your continued insistance that what beskeptigal was doing was just stating an opinion is evidence of your bias on this issue. The same applies to the others here who are defending and agreeing with beskeptigal on this issue.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 12:26:21 [Permalink]
|
ricky said:
quote:
The majority of people who believe in homeopathy are magical thinkers. I guess I'm a bigot now.
No, because you can provide evidence that shows homeopathy is fake.
Not even a good try, ricky.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 13:16:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
So your first post in red counts as an "official warning"? Guess that means I have two then.
That was an official clarification of the rules and how we enforce them. I did not issue an official warning to McQ anymore then I did you at that time, even though that was clearly not the first time you broke the vulgarity rule.
quote:
Dude:
Claiming that a conclusion reached is nothing but an opinion is, in and of itself, a logical fallacy.
I don't agree.
In the case of an opinion, the conclusion is held much more tentatively than a claim of fact. It is understood to be a subjective rather than an objective conclusion. It would be nice if it could be objectively supported, but often it can't be. That's what makes it an opinion and not a claim to a fact. And what's more, beskeptigal will admit that hers is an opinion. When was the last time you heard any of those you named admitting that the existence of God or the truth of creation is an opinion they have? Their view is not held at all tentatively. They tote around a big T conclusion and it ain't a matter of opinion.
If you really want your case about stating conclusions to hold water, or at least show that you are consistent, you are going to have to take the above post by filthy to task for drawing a boat load of very harsh conclusions about all political parties, especially the Republican and Democratic parties.
quote:
filthy:
The Republicans speak for themselves. They are only concerned with giving constant fellatio to their super-religious, neo-conservative 'base,' that base having it's own, power-hungry agenda. They are without morals, ethics, nor the least of compassion unless it turns them a profit. The KKK and the other, various militias adore them, which is another reason to spit upon their every presence. They were conceived righteously enough, but then, like all political parties, slid from the high ground into the sewer from whence they are unlikely to emerge for a good long time. Fuck the Republicans.
(Sorry to do this to you filthy…)
Where would you start Dude? He has clearly presented his opinions as conclusions. He didn't say “many” Republicans. Whew!
Edited to add: People do hold bigoted opinions by the way. (Think Norma.) That still doesn't make them claims of fact. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 15:42:34 [Permalink]
|
ricky said:
quote:
What is it that I'm missing?
Logic.
The train of statements you made do not necessarily follow one another. As has been stated, political platforms are decided by comittee. It does not follow that the majority of greens are magical thinkers just because there is nonsense in the platform. Platforms of political parties are intended to be inclusive, so minority points of view are often included, as long as they are not contradictory to any of the other planks.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 17:59:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The train of statements you made do not necessarily follow one another. As has been stated, political platforms are decided by comittee. It does not follow that the majority of greens are magical thinkers just because there is nonsense in the platform. Platforms of political parties are intended to be inclusive, so minority points of view are often included, as long as they are not contradictory to any of the other planks.
I understand what you are saying, Dude, I really do. And to a certain extent, you are right. That is, there are many people who belong to a political party and disagree with one or more of the party stances.
But we are trying to characterize a political party. If not by their platform, what else should we go off of? What's a better way to do it?
Also, do you have any evidence that the majority of people disagree with a party platform, as you have stated? Because that sounds like a claim to me. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 03/17/2007 18:03:43 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/17/2007 : 18:54:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you really want your case about stating conclusions to hold water, or at least show that you are consistent, you are going to have to take the above post(Sorry to do this to you filthy…)
by filthy to task for drawing a boat load of very harsh conclusions about all political parties, especially the Republican and Democratic parties.
quote:
(Sorry to do this to you filthy…)
S'ok. I'm rusty and could use the work-out.
The sad part of it is that, while I was mostly indulging in abusive hyperbole, a lot of it is exactly how I feel about it. And, I might add, the various, historical track records give me some justification.
I used to love election day. Long before, I'd sit down and try to figure which candidate would most benefit the American public, party not withstanding. As someone running unopposed offends me, I'd write in someone, sometimes myself. I'd do the same if I didn't like either. During Nixon/McGovern, I voted for Mickey Mouse.
These days, I just want to get rid of the current pack of scoundrels we, and the world, are afflicted with. While I am a flaming liberal, I have no party loyalties, end of story.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Party, Party, Party!
