Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Scott1328]

And here we have a classic example of a debating tactic commonly used by SD

Now it is admittedly very subtle but he employs it so often that it is very easy to spot after a while and it is moving the goalposts

Notice how his response in no way correlates to my actual statement because nowhere did I mention freedom so neither should he

You didn't directly mention freedom, but you were referring to my signature, which itself was a direct reference to freedom.

What on earth did you, or anyone else, think that "never wrong" referred to if not my belief in liberty?!

This posting of yours on RatSkep would seem to contradict your statement on this forum.
[quote="Strontium Dog";p="1777835"]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![/quote]
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... s#p1777835

[Seth]

What on earth did you or anyone else think that never wrong referred to if not my belief in liberty

You and everyone else who ever debated you at the other place knows full well that it was a statement pertaining to your perceived infallibility on all
issues you commented on not just a particular one. It is a shame you can not publicly admit it. You are not fooling me and if that is your intention you
are completely wasting your time. I know it is hard for you but please try to engage in productive discourse. You never know you might actually like it

SD, Surr is right, you're not infallible, I'm infallible, and being infallible I cannot tolerate anyone else being infallible, even surreptitiously, so you cannot therefore be infallible. Now just admit that your not infallible so we can all go back to laughing at the fuckwits at RatSkep.

[Seth]

You've had a crack at pretty much every minority and/or prejudiced segment of society over the years. I personally remember cracks at fat people, poor people, disabled people, ugly women, women in general, gays, and I'd be willing to bet Surr is round about on the money about blacks.

So what? Failing to be politically correct is hardly the same thing as being "racist." Even black comics make lurid, licentious and vile jokes about black people. Does that make them racists?

Richard Pryor made a career of it, till he fried himself freebasing.

And your mama is fat, ugly and smelly.

Sue me.

[Seth]

And here we have a classic example of a debating tactic commonly used by SD

Now it is admittedly very subtle but he employs it so often that it is very easy to spot after a while and it is moving the goalposts

Notice how his response in no way correlates to my actual statement because nowhere did I mention freedom so neither should he

You didn't directly mention freedom, but you were referring to my signature, which itself was a direct reference to freedom.

What on earth did you, or anyone else, think that "never wrong" referred to if not my belief in liberty?!

WTF?!? How do you make that link? This is the specious sort of nonsense that Surr refers to. On a debate site "Never wrong" most logically refers to debating arguments.

And you're stupid enough to take a statement of "I'm never wrong" as anything but hyperbolic sarcasm? That's about as "safe zone" PC speech-hobbling propagandistic moralizing as it gets. You and the fucking nitwits at Oberlin College, you all ought to be horsewhipped, tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

You're a fucking lunatic, and I'm never wrong about identifying fucking lunatics...he said with hyperbolic sarcasm.

[Seth]

Police officers are human too. I don t blame anyone for dispensing some natural justice now and again

She was handcuffed and he punched her full in the face and gave her a massive shiner as a result. You cannot have police officers doing that and he was a nineteen year veteran and so should have known better. One hundred and sixty hours for what he did is a joke. He should have been sacked. And you stop being needlessly provocative with your stupid comments

FROM THE MIAMI COP PUNCHES HANDCUFFED WOMAN IN THE FACE THREAD ON 06 MAY 2015 / MY COMMENT GOT FOUR LIKES
NO ONE AGREED WITH SD AND HE THEN LEFT THE THREAD AFTER HIS RIDICULOUS COMMENT ABOVE WAS TOTALLY DEBUNKED

Cheeses fucking crust, Surr, that's well over a country mile away from Strontium Dog

Justifying the routine punching of women in the face when they get too mouthy to show them that men are in charge.

I notice how your accusation in no way correlates to SD's actual statement because nowhere did he mention women, men, mouthy or routine, so neither should you. And don't try to argue that your interpretation accurately describes what SD means with the words he did use. It won't wash. What it does do is to put such a spin on what SD said that it would do the best hack journalist in the gutter press proud. You should apologise to SD for grossly misrepresenting him.

Looking forward for more "substantiation" ( ) of your assertions.

What it does show is most conservatives (and yes, you are a conservative, SD) have utter contempt for people with less power in society and basically worship elite power structures. Some economic liberals might actually believe they support policies for social freedom, but I feel certain the vast majority of elites who support it support it because it entrenches their elite position in society.

Oh go fuck yourself you liberal nitwit, it means nothing of the kind. Some women need a good punch in the mouth from time to time, just like some men do. And some women don't get the punch in the mouth they really, really need in order to demonstrate to them objectively the unintended consequences of their quest for sexual equality and the social obligation to act in a peaceable manner. In my never-wrong opinion, the "never hit a woman" practices of the past went right out the window when women's lib became the mantra of all Progressive women. If a man gets up in someone's face (particularly a woman's, most hypocritically) and taunts and insults her "in a manner likely to result in an immediate breach of the peace" he usually gets punched and the puncher usually walks away without sanction because the law acknowledged that provocation can be an excuse. I see no reason why the same shouldn't apply to women who do the same thing under the mistaken impression that they get to say or do whatever they want, including striking a man, and get away with it. You see it all the time on YouTube where some mouthy bitch thinks she can say whatever she wants to someone else without fear of getting bitch-slapped into next week...but she's wrong and gets what she has coming to her.

Any woman, white, black, yellow, red, fat, skinny, ugly or good looking who strikes me or attacks me is going to get exactly what I'd give to anyone doing so: the reasonable and appropriate use of force in self defense, up to and including deadly physical force if I reasonably believe that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate and I reasonably believe that my life, or the life of another, is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

That's REAL women's lib and sexual equality. You be nice and I'll be nice. Attack me and I don't care who you are, I'm going to prevail in the combat, period.

As for cops, I'm fine with them punching women (or men) who resist arrest in the face if they think that's what's needed to quell resistance, and most likely the only connection with race is the fact that some ethnic minority women may be more likely to physically resist arrest than others and therefore are more likely to have force used against them to compel them to comply with lawful orders and arrest. The lesson: Don't resist arrest.

On the other hand, cops who punch anyone need retraining because it's far too easy to break the bones in your hand hitting something as hard as someone's head with your fist. You should always use one of the many tools available to you for the application of physical force that reduce your chances of injuring yourself...like your collapsible baton, pepper spray, or your gun if necessary. In weighing the balance between injuries to a subject who is violently resisting a lawful arrest or injuries to the police officers trying to make a lawful arrest, the scales must always tip for the police officers, who are merely doing what the law and society requires of them and who have an absolute right to go home at the end of the shift alive and uninjured. A resisting arrestee on the other hand, forfeits a good deal of his rights to personal well-being when she chooses to violently resist arrest or disobey lawful orders and pretty much gets what she deserves for doing so.

[surreptitious57]

You should apologise to SD for grossly misrepresenting him

I was initially recounting this from memory and so may inadvertently have got it wrong

I do not though think an apology is necessary for SD was being deliberately provocative

Now here is the thread so you can decide for yourself

http://rationalskepticism.org/news-poli ... ilit=MIAMI

[Seth]

You should apologise to SD for grossly misrepresenting him

I was initially recounting this from memory and so may inadvertently have got it wrong

I do not though think an apology is necessary for SD was being deliberately provocative

Now here is the thread so you can decide for yourself

http://rationalskepticism.org/news-poli ... ilit=MIAMI

Having read the thread, you're full of shit, that's my decision.

[Hermit]

You should apologise to SD for grossly misrepresenting him

I was initially recounting this from memory and so may inadvertently have got it wrong

May? What . The . Fuck. You got it undoubtedly got it wrong. Massively wrong. There is not a word of truth in your initial accusation. There is of course no shame in misremembering, but once it is pointed out to you just how comprehensively you have misremembered everything you based your accusation on, how just about every assertion turns out to be nothing more than words you put into SD's mouth, you ought to have the honesty to apologise. Your weasel words of 'may' and 'inadvertently' indicate that you possess none of it. For 'may' you should have used 'definitely' and for 'inadvertently' you should have used 'negligently'. SD's posting style is too often abrasive and his views reprehensible, but I definitely prefer him as a forum member to someone who libels another with utmost courtesy and under the cover of expressing politically acceptable views. You, Surr, are a despicable smear that has gone under my radar - and the radar of many others - for too long.

[surreptitious57]

I provided the link so that members here can decide for them selves if I was wrong or not so while I might
not agree with them I have no problem with being totally transparent about it. If I had an ulterior motive
I would not have provided it. Now I only apologise if I am genuinely sorry. To do it and not mean it would
be effectively telling a lie and I would not do that anyway. For it disrespects whoever I am apologising to

[Hermit]

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?

[pErvinalia]

And here we have a classic example of a debating tactic commonly used by SD

Now it is admittedly very subtle but he employs it so often that it is very easy to spot after a while and it is moving the goalposts

Notice how his response in no way correlates to my actual statement because nowhere did I mention freedom so neither should he

You didn't directly mention freedom, but you were referring to my signature, which itself was a direct reference to freedom.

What on earth did you, or anyone else, think that "never wrong" referred to if not my belief in liberty?!

This posting of yours on RatSkep would seem to contradict your statement on this forum.
[quote="Strontium Dog";p="1777835"]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!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... s#p1777835[/quote]
ZING!

[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.

[Hermit]

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?

[pErvinalia]

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.

[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.

Anybody you call a troll is axiomatically a better person than you are, and a better person than anyone at RatSkep. I consider it a badge of honor demonstrating one's dedication to straight talk and uncompromising dedication to one's debatorial position to be called a troll by the likes of you, because the likes of you are simply incapable of rising to our level of intellectual flexibility and honesty, being so mired in jealousy, envy and outright hatred of those who are better than you at this particular game.

As for your insults, you simply are incapable of understanding that liberalism and socialism are not the pathways out of poverty and privation. Never has been, never will be because simply giving people dole money doesn't help them to better themselves, it destroys them and permanently enslaves them to whomever is doling out the largess from the public treasury. That's precisely why the welfare system in the US didn't work...until Clinton changed it, when it actually started to bring people out of poverty by forcing them to prioritize and work to get out or be kicked out...until Obama changed it back and re-enslaved the poor to his Marxist Progressive agenda.

You see, that is the actual purpose of socialism; to enslave the proletariat to the system in order to control them and control their votes, which keeps the socialist elite in power and privilege.

You just don't like capitalists or rich people because they have what you don't have and will never have because they have the moxie and will to earn it while all you do is sit around whining about your own condition and demanding that others support you.

The road out of poverty is steep and hard to climb for a reason. If you don't earn it, you won't value it, and if someone gives it to you it destroys your self-esteem and your willingness to take risks and apply yourself to solving your own problems...with help along the way, but not the kind of help that socialism says it's going to provide, but never does.

My disdain is not for those in poverty who are trapped there through no fault of their own, my disdain is for those who choose poverty because they would rather demand that others support them than earn it themselves. If you want help raising yourself from poverty, then ask for it, seek it out, and work to make yourself worthy of the effort of others on your behalf. if you do not want out, refuse to work, and you're satisfied to demand that others support you, then you get what they choose to give you and be thankful that they choose to give you anything at all, because they are not morally obliged to do so.