Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Seth]

Does the above post mean you are not of the opinion that you were obviously and manifestly wrong when you accused SD of Justifying the routine punching of women in the face when they get too mouthy to show them that men are in charge, or am I somehow misreading it?

I'm not getting into this specific debate, but Surr is perhaps availing himself of some context you are unaware of. SD was one of the biggest trolls and whingers at ratskep. There's always usually a backstory to most of Sds comments. As I mentioned in my economic liberals comment, most of them are suck arses for elite power and show utter disdain for the powerless (or those of lesser power) in society. You only have to look at our own Seth to see it in extreme.

rEv, I agree with you in so far as I regard SD's opinions as in the main reprehensible, and his posting style as excessively abrasive. No argument there, but the context of my recent posts is this, and only this: Surr asserted that SD was, and I quote, "Justifying the routine punching of women in the face when they get too mouthy to show them that men are in charge." When pressed for evidence to back up his accusation, Surr quoted SD as saying "Police officers are human too. I don t blame anyone for dispensing some natural justice now and again" While that is what SD actually did post, there is no mention of "routine", "men", "women", "mouthy", "men are in charge", and there certainly was not as much as a hint that punching the handcuffed person in the mouth was justified.

I cannot think of a more blatant and complete misrepresentation of what someone has actually said. When I put that to him and suggested Surr apologise to SD for having done just that, he basically refused, and instead of admitting the inescapable fact that he had slandered SD big time, he tried to squirm out by saying "members here can decide for them selves if I was wrong or not". Can you get any more slimey than that?

Most certainly. One can instead hurl personal insults at others because one has no rational argument to make, as in rEv's case.

At least Surr had the decency to put up the evidence and let people decide for themselves, which is what I did, whereas rEv always turns to personal insults as his habitual method of trying to save face when he's been intellectually and morally bested.

[MrJonno]

Rat Skep suffers from people thinking they can have a rational conversation with other people who they don't have the slightest thing in common. Sometimes basic values are so different that such conversation is impossible, rationalia doesn't have that issue as we know full well we are just shouting at each for our own entertainment

[DaveDodo007]

Don't be silly Hermy, Mr Dodo embodies the normative standards of all rational thinking.

Yes because you lefties are so logical and rational how can anyone disagree with your politics, all those re-education camps and gulags and millions of dead people are all just a bureaucratic oversight.

Defining a prototypical group, then ascribing people to that group, and then lambasting them on the basis of their membership of that group, is indistinguishable from trolling: "The problem with all you Xs is that you're just so fucking wrong all the time!"

How are those ad homs working out for you, eh?

Inside every lefty is a genocidal maniac who is authoritarian through and through, they are right because reasons and if anybody dares to disagree with them, then that person is worse than Hitler. Their absolutist's stance is frightening to behold and every day they eat away at our liberty and freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. My tolerance of their intolerance is paper thin right now and I'm beginning to hate them all. Seriously, fuck all lefty totalitarian cunts, fuck them, fuck them for ever.

A very similar degree of over-generalisation to your rants about feminists. Left wing politics is a very broad church indeed, particularly from the vantage point of someone like Seth.

Within the very wide part of the political spectrum that could be genuinely called leftist, there is a relatively small strand of those who take a hard-left, dogmatic position. And yes, for them, a description that involves very little tolerance for dissenting views and an inclination for rigid, authoritarian positions is certainly valid. In the remote chance they achieved politic power, they would slide into totalitarian dictatorship very quickly, ignoring the lessons of the past. Less severe case of this condition can be irritating, too, joining militant feminism in their rather absurd form of political correctness.

But, as usual, your rant ascribes all the sins of a few to a very large group of people who are simply working for policies that attempt to balance the power of corporations and the state, and give the masses of working people a better deal.

Small acorns grow into big fuck off oak trees so don't tell me I shouldn't go nuclear on their ass from the get go and if you don't oppose them then I see that as tacit support. It is not as if the right haven't had their own authoritarians in the past and will do so again. Trust me if am still around I will go for their jugular as well. Though at this moment in time it is the left and liberals who are opposing free speech, doxxing people and getting people fire from their jobs for dissenting views. This is always a bad sign that leads to totalitarianism, especially when they do it with good conscience, 'it's for the greater good', 'the ends justify the means.' I don't trust anybody who has a problem with free speech and dissent and neither should you.

[DaveDodo007]

Don't be silly Hermy, Mr Dodo embodies the normative standards of all rational thinking.

Yes because you lefties are so logical and rational how can anyone disagree with your politics, all those re-education camps and gulags and millions of dead people are all just a bureaucratic oversight.

Defining a prototypical group, then ascribing people to that group, and then lambasting them on the basis of their membership of that group, is indistinguishable from trolling: "The problem with all you Xs is that you're just so fucking wrong all the time!"

How are those ad homs working out for you, eh?

Inside every lefty is a genocidal maniac who is authoritarian through and through, they are right because reasons and if anybody dares to disagree with them, then that person is worse than Hitler. Their absolutist's stance is frightening to behold and every day they eat away at our liberty and freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. My tolerance of their intolerance is paper thin right now and I'm beginning to hate them all. Seriously, fuck all lefty totalitarian cunts, fuck them, fuck them for ever.

See how this is going? Now those whose views you disagree with are now advocates for totalitarian cuntery, which in turn acts as a further justification for more ad homs: "If you weren't a cunt then I wouldn't call you a cunt; I only call you a cunt because you are one." I would be interested to know which one of your supposed 'lefty totalitarian cunt' interlocutors here you think is an advocate of the eating away, or suppression, of liberty and freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, or freedom of conscience?

In response I would suggest that disagreeing with you does not signify a totalitarian instinct or automatically qualify one as have fascistic political views - that's just a story you tell yourself for comfort, or just to get a rise out of others maybe.

See the Tim Hunt thread as just one example.

[DaveDodo007]

I hate to drag us back to the topic, but has anyone discovered why I was banned yet? I'd be surprised if it had passed without comment over there, but the email I sent 17 days ago remains unanswered. I presume there must be a reason, so one wonders what obstacle prevents me from knowing it.

I like you SD but this post is the most idiotic post you have ever made. You are guilty of wrongthink and that is the worst crime ever.

[Seth]

Rat Skep suffers from people thinking they can have a rational conversation with other people who they don't have the slightest thing in common. Sometimes basic values are so different that such conversation is impossible, rationalia doesn't have that issue as we know full well we are just shouting at each for our own entertainment

No, RatSkep suffers from people thinking that they CANNOT have a rational conversation with other people who they don't have the slightest thing in common.
To an intelligent, rational person basic values are irrelevant as intelligent, rational people know that basic values can vary and they are able to disconnect their emotional side from their rational side for the purposes of discussion and debate without difficulty.

As Aristotle once said, "The mark of an intelligent mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it."

RatSkep suffers from a bunch of ideologically and mentally ossified pseudo-intellectuals who clearly and utterly fail Aristotle's test.

[Hermit]

The thing is, though, that I basically believe Surr has got it right (not from that quote alone, but from knowing SDs history). I totally could believe that SD holds those views.

Well, he was asked to provide evidence justifying his accustations. This is what he came up with, and he turns out to be spectacularly wrong.

SD got caught out big time about his signature, which Surr quoted as: "NEVER WRONG" When Surr mentioned that, SD replied "I will never believe that freedom is ever wrong. I won't apologise for that." then added "What on earth did you, or anyone else, think that "never wrong" referred to if not my belief in liberty?!" Then Scott1328 exposed those replies as big, fat lies by quoting another one of SD's posts, which bears repeating here: "And I thought PZ Myers couldn't sink any lower. Guess I was wrong. Thanks a lot PZ, I'm going to have to change my fucking signature now!". Thank you Scott. Is anybody surprised that SD has not commented on the matter of his signature since?

You keep handwaving in the same manner as Surr. Vague comments like "Surr got it right" and "from knowing SDs history", nothing more from either of you. I won't bother asking you to substantiate your trolling and racism accusations because I already know your reply.

[DaveDodo007]

GENERAL MODNOTE
As some of you make have noted Strontium Dog has been banned.
This member enjoyed more opportunities to redress issues with his posting behaviour than many may think is reasonable. Like some before him he may not be most accurately labelled as a classic troll, but his continued and frequent disruptive influence on discussions has led us to end his membership.

As this situation highlights, disruptive members are difficult to nail down, and therefore often have considerable longevity. And to those who feel this is too harsh an action, this thread will remain open for comment. But let us make this quite clear - while banning this member may prove unpopular, the staff has not taken this step lightly. This action has been the result of discussions over an extraordinary length of time and has been taken for the good of the forum as a whole. I would also like to note that this was the unanimous decision of all staff.

GENERAL MODNOTE
As some of you make have noted Strontium Dog has been banned.
This member enjoyed more opportunities to redress [Totally agree with us and cut out the dissenting nonsense] issues with his posting behaviour than many may think is reasonable. Like some before him he may not be most accurately labelled as a classic [person who failed to conform to groupthink] troll, but his continued and frequent [having ungood thoughts] disruptive influence on discussions has led us to end his membership.

As this situation highlights, disruptive members are difficult to nail down [so we have to make up shit to ban him], and therefore often have considerable longevity. And to those who feel this is too harsh [yeah right, your members have been pleading with you for ever to ban SD because they can't rationally debate him] an action, this thread will remain open for comment. But let us make this quite clear [he is banned get over it as we are just doing what you wanted us to do after all he was hurting our feeling by showing us to be retarded fuckwits] - while banning this member may prove unpopular [lol], the staff has not taken this step lightly [I was hard to ban him as he didn't break any rules so we said fuck it and banned him anyway]. This action has been the result of discussions over an extraordinary length of time and has been taken for the good of the forum as a whole [he keeped exposing our stupidity and hurt our feeling]. I would also like to note that this was the unanimous decision of all staff [we are an echo chamber here and don't any of you forget it.]

Jesus Fucking Christ what a bunch of self loathing retarded faggots.

[DaveDodo007]

Well clearly Hack was, Brian Peacock, Hermit and JimC. Over there, beatsong, chairman Bill, mazille, fallible, stijn. And me, of course. (there are others, of course, I'm not going to provide a long list).

Christ birds of a feather and all that. Hack is just as much of a creationist when his sacred cow is attacked as you are along with Brian and Hermit (people who agree with you are intelligent lol, how narcissistic is that.) JimC I will give you as I think our differences are mainly over tacit support, chairman Bill, seriously as he is a pinko retard. fallible is just a bit dim I guess and has reading comprehensive fails all the time but she does try god bless. Beatsong is OK and I don't know the other fuckers.

[DaveDodo007]

I always thought ADParker was among 'The Titans', and susu.exp of course, and our own dear Cali.

Can't argue with Cali, I liked Oldskeptic and spearthrower and Scarlet even though I didn't always agree with them, also Nicko was great but that might be my bias showing.

[Brian Peacock]

Fuck your biases and make merry.

[pErvinalia]

Does the above post mean you are not of the opinion that you were obviously and manifestly wrong when you accused SD of Justifying the routine punching of women in the face when they get too mouthy to show them that men are in charge, or am I somehow misreading it?

I'm not getting into this specific debate, but Surr is perhaps availing himself of some context you are unaware of. SD was one of the biggest trolls and whingers at ratskep. There's always usually a backstory to most of Sds comments. As I mentioned in my economic liberals comment, most of them are suck arses for elite power and show utter disdain for the powerless (or those of lesser power) in society. You only have to look at our own Seth to see it in extreme.

rEv, I agree with you in so far as I regard SD's opinions as in the main reprehensible, and his posting style as excessively abrasive. No argument there, but the context of my recent posts is this, and only this: Surr asserted that SD was, and I quote, "Justifying the routine punching of women in the face when they get too mouthy to show them that men are in charge." When pressed for evidence to back up his accusation, Surr quoted SD as saying "Police officers are human too. I don t blame anyone for dispensing some natural justice now and again" While that is what SD actually did post, there is no mention of "routine", "men", "women", "mouthy", "men are in charge", and there certainly was not as much as a hint that punching the handcuffed person in the mouth was justified.

I cannot think of a more blatant and complete misrepresentation of what someone has actually said. When I put that to him and suggested Surr apologise to SD for having done just that, he basically refused, and instead of admitting the inescapable fact that he had slandered SD big time, he tried to squirm out by saying "members here can decide for them selves if I was wrong or not". Can you get any more slimey than that?

Most certainly. One can instead hurl personal insults at others because one has no rational argument to make, as in rEv's case.

At least Surr had the decency to put up the evidence and let people decide for themselves, which is what I did, whereas rEv always turns to personal insults as his habitual method of trying to save face when he's been intellectually and morally bested.

Do not, bum face!

[Seth]

Most certainly. One can instead hurl personal insults at others because one has no rational argument to make, as in rEv's case.

At least Surr had the decency to put up the evidence and let people decide for themselves, which is what I did, whereas rEv always turns to personal insults as his habitual method of trying to save face when he's been intellectually and morally bested.

Do not, bum face!

Ipse dixit quod erat demonstrandum

[surreptitious57]

fallible is just a bit dim I guess and has reading comprehensive fails all the time but she does try god bless

Someone with a degree in English is hardly likely to have any problems with reading comprehension now are they Dave? Now that aside
I can tell you that you could not be more wrong as Fallible is as I have previously said one of the most brutal uncompromising debaters
on the internet. I know this because I have been thoroughly shafted by her in the past when I have been brave enough to go up against
her. Now you are more educated than me and so may not find her as formidable so I am only saying how it is from my own perspective

The three most brutal debaters on the internet are Seth and Cali and hackenslash for these are just world class when it comes to taking any
opponents argument apart with absolute precision. For when they are in their element no one can touch them. And the other great debater
is Cito. Though he is less brutal than the others as he communicates in riddles a lot of the time and so is not understood by many. But make
no mistake about him. For he is a true cyber guru with a brain as big as a planet. Now Fallible is just below all of these in the pecking order

[Mr.Samsa]

And the other great debater
is Cito. Though he is less brutal than the others as he communicates in riddles a lot of the time and so is not understood by many. But make
no mistake about him. For he is a true cyber guru with a brain as big as a planet. Now Fallible is just below all of these in the pecking order

Fallible is *below* cito in intelligence and debating ability?

I honestly can't think of a greater insult.