Strawman arguments?

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:35 pm

piscator wrote:No. Seth was right about the intolerance and Scott being a snotty douche in the classic RatSkep mode. And Xam was right about the personal attack call, as Seth willfully chewed through his leash in that post.
Well who am I to argue with a dancing otter with a fish. :D
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:56 pm

DaveDodo007 wrote:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:By the way, Seth. This post earlier in the thread contains a clear personal attack. Next one gets you a holiday.
This is unfair as the mistake was mine and I take full responsibility for it, Scott1328 and Seth where but bit players in it.
Show me where you called another member an idiot or an asshole and I'll gladly warn you as well. It is quite possible to debate forcibly without personal insults. We don't like that here - no matter how "justified" the poster believes it to be - and it is pretty much our only serious rule. Seth knows that and he takes his lumps.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
Scott1328
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:34 am
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by Scott1328 » Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:46 pm

piscator wrote:No. Seth was right about the intolerance and Scott being a snotty douche in the classic RatSkep mode. And Xam was right about the personal attack call, as Seth willfully chewed through his leash in that post.
I'll have you know that I am well respected by people of discernment, I take antihistamines for post nasal drip, and I don't like vinegar and water

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by jamest » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:40 pm

Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:By the way, Seth. This post earlier in the thread contains a clear personal attack. Next one gets you a holiday.
This is unfair as the mistake was mine and I take full responsibility for it, Scott1328 and Seth where but bit players in it.
Show me where you called another member an idiot or an asshole and I'll gladly warn you as well. It is quite possible to debate forcibly without personal insults. We don't like that here - no matter how "justified" the poster believes it to be - and it is pretty much our only serious rule. Seth knows that and he takes his lumps.
I thought you guys were easy going on the insult front? :ask:

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by jamest » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:51 pm

I'm of the opinion that women have an equal right to fuck everything up, just as men have. It makes no difference to me who shafts me, except that being shafted by a woman is... :lou: ... err... :oops: ... never mind.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by Svartalf » Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:05 pm

jamest wrote:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:By the way, Seth. This post earlier in the thread contains a clear personal attack. Next one gets you a holiday.
This is unfair as the mistake was mine and I take full responsibility for it, Scott1328 and Seth where but bit players in it.
Show me where you called another member an idiot or an asshole and I'll gladly warn you as well. It is quite possible to debate forcibly without personal insults. We don't like that here - no matter how "justified" the poster believes it to be - and it is pretty much our only serious rule. Seth knows that and he takes his lumps.
I thought you guys were easy going on the insult front? :ask:
Yes and no, personal attacks and insults are one of the few offences that can get you 24h or a week of vacation... after a lot of warnings so you know it's coming when it eventually drops. Seth has had a few, I never had time to notice he was gone.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:17 pm

jamest wrote:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:By the way, Seth. This post earlier in the thread contains a clear personal attack. Next one gets you a holiday.
This is unfair as the mistake was mine and I take full responsibility for it, Scott1328 and Seth where but bit players in it.
Show me where you called another member an idiot or an asshole and I'll gladly warn you as well. It is quite possible to debate forcibly without personal insults. We don't like that here - no matter how "justified" the poster believes it to be - and it is pretty much our only serious rule. Seth knows that and he takes his lumps.
I thought you guys were easy going on the insult front? :ask:
In theory, it stops heated discussions developing into flame wars. Calling someone a cunt is fine as long as it is clearly in jest. Calling someone a cunt because, by way of example, they are trying to second-guess the scientific community about the nature of some misleadingly-named physical phenomenon when they really don't have a clue what they are talking about, would be a no-no. :tea:
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
hackenslash
Fundie Baiter...errr. Fun Debater
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:05 am
About me: I've got a little black book with my poems in...
Location: Between the cutoff and the resonance
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by hackenslash » Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:31 pm

What about calling somebody a cunt because, for example, he's a cunt?
Dogma is the death of the intellect

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:46 pm

hackenslash wrote:What about calling somebody a cunt because, for example, he's a cunt?
If you have detailed, certified, medical evidence that one of our members is, in fact, a female reproductive channel that has somehow attained the power of typing and a rudimentary knowledge of spelling, syntax and grammar, feel free to present it. Otherwise, call someone a cunt in a post and you give them a Hack free platform to spout upon for however long the staff decide to separate you fro our midst. :tea:
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
Scott1328
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:34 am
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by Scott1328 » Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:59 pm

Scott1328 wrote:
piscator wrote:No. Seth was right about the intolerance and Scott being a snotty douche in the classic RatSkep mode. And Xam was right about the personal attack call, as Seth willfully chewed through his leash in that post.
I'll have you know that I am well respected by people of discernment, I take antihistamines for post nasal drip, and I don't like vinegar and water
BTW, how is what Piscator wrote not also a personal attack?

User avatar
piscator
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:11 am
Location: The Big BSOD
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by piscator » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:03 am

Scott1328 wrote:
piscator wrote:No. Seth was right about the intolerance and Scott being a snotty douche in the classic RatSkep mode. And Xam was right about the personal attack call, as Seth willfully chewed through his leash in that post.
I'll have you know that I am well respected by people of discernment, I take antihistamines for post nasal drip, and I don't like vinegar and water

No offense meant, mate. :cheers:

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:09 am

Scott1328 wrote:
Scott1328 wrote:
piscator wrote:No. Seth was right about the intolerance and Scott being a snotty douche in the classic RatSkep mode. And Xam was right about the personal attack call, as Seth willfully chewed through his leash in that post.
I'll have you know that I am well respected by people of discernment, I take antihistamines for post nasal drip, and I don't like vinegar and water
BTW, how is what Piscator wrote not also a personal attack?
It is. Just not a very severe case. A matter of degree and frequency. Seth doesn't resort to personal attacks too often but, when he does, it's usually with very little ambiguity. :biggrin:

There's no way we are going to sanction everyone that calls someone else a twit or stupid. We could if we wanted but, hey, that's fucking WORK, dude! :nono: We are pretty arbitrary beasties. No hard and fast rules. But if we think you are coming on too strong, we will let you know. And, if you think someone else is coming on too strong, there's a little button with an R on it. Report them. We'll probably ignore it cos we're lazy fuckers. But at least you can say you tried. :tup:
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by jamest » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:29 am

Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
jamest wrote: I thought you guys were easy going on the insult front? :ask:
In theory, it stops heated discussions developing into flame wars. Calling someone a cunt is fine as long as it is clearly in jest. Calling someone a cunt because, by way of example, they are trying to second-guess the scientific community about the nature of some misleadingly-named physical phenomenon when they really don't have a clue what they are talking about, would be a no-no. :tea:
I see what you did there. You're obviously a clever cunt. ;)

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:31 am

jamest wrote:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
jamest wrote: I thought you guys were easy going on the insult front? :ask:
In theory, it stops heated discussions developing into flame wars. Calling someone a cunt is fine as long as it is clearly in jest. Calling someone a cunt because, by way of example, they are trying to second-guess the scientific community about the nature of some misleadingly-named physical phenomenon when they really don't have a clue what they are talking about, would be a no-no. :tea:
I see what you did there. You're obviously a clever cunt. ;)
Far better than being a stupid one, in my experience. :tea:
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Strawman arguments?

Post by jamest » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:37 am

Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
jamest wrote:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
jamest wrote: I thought you guys were easy going on the insult front? :ask:
In theory, it stops heated discussions developing into flame wars. Calling someone a cunt is fine as long as it is clearly in jest. Calling someone a cunt because, by way of example, they are trying to second-guess the scientific community about the nature of some misleadingly-named physical phenomenon when they really don't have a clue what they are talking about, would be a no-no. :tea:
I see what you did there. You're obviously a clever cunt. ;)
Far better than being a stupid one, in my experience. :tea:
Stupid cunts don't exist beyond the experience of them. :hehe:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests