Those with high moral standards beware... thar be evil nigh!


AdBrite Ad Here



Comments

These comments in RSS.
Comment View Threshold:
avatar
HunterPence, on 5/15/2008 1:19:07 PM
Total Posts: 1142, Joined: 7/25/2006
@immaculate
First of all, let me just say, immaculate, that I enjoy reading your posts on Shoutwire very much. I think what you write is intelligent and witty far beyond what you'd expect to find on this or any other message board.

So, it's disappointing to hear that you think I've abandoned rational discourse and become nothing more than a bully. I think it's odd that you consider this verison of me to be new, and that you miss the old me. If you remember, in our first argument, I advised you to actually go back and edit the text of a post! So this side of me is, I think, the only one you have ever known. If anything, I've gotten more considerate of other people's ideas.

Here's what I think you're right about. It's pretty weak to inject violence into rhetoric. I never considered myself to be threatening anybody, or for anything I said to be anything other than a joking metaphorical reference to the fact that I will take on all comers in this debate, and I will not hold back any punches. But, it's lame.

The rest of your post I disagree with. First all, stop complaining when I call you a bigot. You are a proud bigot. In that same thread, you embraced the term. You people have to fucking stop pleading for special consideration. I don't call you a bigot because you disagree with me and I want to discredit you.

I call you a bigot because you meet my definition of the term, a definition that I'm willing to spell out. Then, if you feel that you don't fit my definition of a bigot, or that my definition is incorrect, you can explain why that is.

But you don't want to have that argument. Instead, you want the terms of the discourse to automatically exclude ANYBODY from being called a bigot. You can go ahead and say that gay people are a detriment to society, and that all of them are simply suffering from delusions because they were rejected by women. But if anyone calls that bigotry, they are automatically part of the "PC police" and arguing in bad faith. Which is just your way of controlling what things people can and can't say to your own advantage.

"It is funny how you call Jeff a bully while it is in fact YOU who is the bully."

It would be funny, if I was claiming that Jeff was a bully while I am not. Instead, I was saying that Jeff and I are bullies to the exact same degree. If he wants to say that it's what I am, then he has to own it himself. If he wants to let himself off the hook, then he has to give me the same privelege. Instead, he, like you, wants to have his cake and eat it too.

"You Jewish by any chance?"

Yes, I am. What's just so astonishingly oblivious about you is that you say shit like that, and not only do you STILL get sand in your ass over being called a bigot, but you can say to me with a straight face that you've "never been insulting" to me.

That's what you don't get. The things you've said about Jews and homosexuals are actually quite vicious. It doesn't matter if you cloak it in polite language, or pseudoscience.

"I don't say things like 'this faggot can't breath' not because I'm TOO SMART but because it is not my habit to insult random people who I don't know in the first place."

Actually, this is your habit. You say things about gays and Jews that are extremely insulting. You just don't say "faggot". But when someone does cross that line, you side with them against anyone who tries to call them an asshole.

"There are no arguments from you anymore in your discussions,"

That's laughable. In the thread you linked to, we went back and forth for many, many posts. You made arguments, and I rebutted them, without insulting you. That's called an argument. You just didn't enjoy it very much, because you lost.

I admit, I've talked to Jeff in a totally different way. But, Jeff's on-line persona is different from yours. So I tried to adapt. Maybe that was the wrong move, but I see Shoutwire as a good place to experiment with different ways of trying to reach people. I expect you to respond to rational argument in a way that it seems unfair to expect of Jeff. (Not because he's stupid, or anything, but because he's set up a different sort of game with the way he talks on this site.)

Sorry if that change in attitude made you think that I had turned into a vampire. But I talk to people who come out and say "at least this faggot can't breed" in a different way from people who, like you, prefer to see their resentments as rational.

Your prejudices AREN'T rational. That's not something I say just to bully you off a point. I say it because I think it's true. And rational, like bigot, is a word that I'll give you my definition for.

"YOU OUTRIGHT TOLD ME THERE WHAT I SHOULD THINK. Now, that is crossing the line by miles in my opinion."

Oh, cry me a river. You're not telling me what I should think, right now? That's what an argument IS. I didn't put a gun to your head; I told you why I thought you should you think that way. I didn't get through to you, with polite argument or with yelling, which is disappointing to me, since you seem like you should be reachable.

This is the hypocrisy of people like you and Jeff. You want to say whatever comes into your head, and to never be called a bigot, or irrational, no matter how obnoxious or offensive you are. But god forbid anyone tells you off over it. Then that person's a bully, crossing the line, god help us, by MILES.

Really, you just want special rules for yourself. You want to be treated like princesses. Jeff's said some pretty raunchy things to me, and so have you. But you might notice I'm not crying about it.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
ThisisJeff, on 5/15/2008 2:59:19 PM
Total Posts: 2007, Joined: 4/8/2007
"f he wants to say that it's what I am, then he has to own it himself. If he wants to let himself off the hook, then he has to give me the same privelege. Instead, he, like you, wants to have his cake and eat it too." - hunterpence

hunter notice what i said in a comment or two above yours:

"Now i dont think you've been a "bully" anymore than I have been"

"This is the hypocrisy of people like you and Jeff. You want to say whatever comes into your head, and to never be called a bigot, or irrational, no matter how obnoxious or offensive you are. But god forbid anyone tells you off over it."

You make some valid points hunter. Points that arent really arguable to me. We just really are not on the same page, maybe we are a library apart I dont know. I do know that in being a bigot when someone tells me i am wrong or immoral i tend to snap back pretty hard. Thats just me.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
Immaculate1, on 5/15/2008 3:41:50 PM
Total Posts: 7090, Joined: 7/16/2006
"You just didn't enjoy it very much, because you lost."

I didn't lose. I didn't enjoy it because of your complete strange and bullying way of saying things. You mentioned in above post that you told me to edit my post and I do remember that now again although I forgot it or I would have brought it forward in my post above as an example.

I tell you, nobody ever told me to edit any of my posts. I was baffled by the idea you even mentioned it. And you might say you and Jeff are bullies to the same extent and perhaps me too, but I seriously never saw Jeff mention to anyone to edit a post of them nor did I ever tell that to anyone. And I think that that attitude of you, telling someone to change their own words to suit you, is stepping over the line.

Like I said, I contemplated about telling you about your bullying whining Chris Crocker way right there but I decided not to. Why? I didn't think the issue was all that important to me to go all out into what became a flamewar fueled by your overly emotional ferocity. That ain't losing. That is just keeping silent for now. It's not even a tactical retreat. It just a momentarily cease of hostilities. You know, I can't lose a discussion in a thread. Why? Because I set my goals on a longer term than just a single thread. I know there's always another thread and another discussion where the same game plays further. Only once did I lose in a thread and that was in a discussion about a very wild idea where I did overstep my own boundaries and was pointed out about them by DaImp in the role of referee.

"First all, stop complaining when I call you a bigot.'

^ Alright, I'll stop complaining about being a bigot. I thought hard about this, and I decided I have to accept that there are certain interest groups who define the term bigot to include me for being critical of those certain interest groups. So if that makes me a bigot in the eyes of certain people, like you for instance, I'll have to accept your opinion on that. I'd like to add that part of the sensitivity from me for the word bigot derives from the fact that we use that word too in Dutch and that it has a slightly different meaning in Dutch or French than in English. To be honest, the English adaptation of the meaning of the originally French word is not as insulting to me as the original is. I had to google around before I realised the English had changed the meaning.

So in the end, I can live with what you think is the definition of a bigot.

"You're not telling me what I should think, right now? That's what an argument IS."

Uh nuh. An argument is not telling people what to think, it is INVITING them to change their opinion. It is the process of providing information you think is right and then let the opponent judge that on his own accord. It is not outright telling 'Think this', 'Think that' or you're a bigot. That is what bullies do. I never do that. I just provide my opinion on matters and never tell people what to think directly. I simply know that the only way to truly convince people is to let them draw their own conclusions after deliberation of the data, and not just lay it out for them.

"This is the hypocrisy of people like you and Jeff. You want to say whatever comes into your head, and to never be called a bigot, or irrational, no matter how obnoxious or offensive you are. [...] Really, you just want special rules for yourself. You want to be treated like princesses."

No, I don't want special rules for me. I want a certain set of rules of common decency for everybody when we are in a discussion. I want to be able to discuss things in an way that is not determined by emotion. People never seem to be able to attach their own interest from pure philosophical points.

"Jeff's said some pretty raunchy things to me, and so have you. But you might notice I'm not crying about it."

I never said raunchy things to you in person, except for that post above and I really didn't want to, to be honest. Yes I said things towards Jews and gays as a whole group that are critical of them and sometimes my words weren't nice but if you think that my words are then directed towards you personally because your part of one or more of those groups then you fail to separate between the cold philosophical viewpoint and an emotional personal viewpoint. I consider those two to be completely separate. I can be critical of any type of lifestyle you have and yet buy you a beer in the pub this evening. I can bash Israel and America as the two biggest hypocritical and violent nations of the planet and still play a game of pool and drink a beer with Olmert and Bush afterwards, treat them as I would any other decent person and perhaps have a few laughs. Perhaps difficult to digest for you, but that is what I am.

Me: "You Jewish by any chance?"

You : "Yes, I am. What's just so astonishingly oblivious about you is that you say shit like that, and not only do you STILL get sand in your ass over being called a bigot, but you can say to me with a straight face that you've "never been insulting" to me."

I was a little bit mean to you there, on purpose. Of course I already knew you where Jewish. But then again, I intended to be mean to you in above post, just a little bit. I never did consciously in any other post directed towards you in person. Of course you regard many of my comments towards groups you're part of as an insult to yourself too, but I know how to distinguish and detach comments about a general group from the person right in front of my nose.

 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
HunterPence, on 5/16/2008 9:45:30 AM
Total Posts: 1143, Joined: 7/25/2006
@Jeff
"We just really are not on the same page, maybe we are a library apart I dont know."

I don't know either. Look, I don't have a problem with "joke racism", like, a performance that is just to clear the air or get a rise out of people. It does have to be actually funny, or it just comes off as really mean, and that's just the risk you take with that type of humor. But even when it comes off that way, I realize that that isn't the intention.

But, I do have a problem with "let's put these people in their place and make them know they'll never be welcomed" racism. Even though it's just words, I have a real problem with it. Might make me a moralfag, but so be it.

@Immaculate
"To be honest, the English adaptation of the meaning of the originally French word is not as insulting to me as the original is."

Well, I'm unaware of any of those subtleties. Possibly you should clarify what the word means to you.

"I have to accept that there are certain interest groups who define the term bigot to include me for being critical of those certain interest groups."

Oh, isn't "interest groups" a cute way to put it. Of course, the "interest" that homosexuals have in not being openly discussed as if they're an open sore on humanity is greater than your "interest" in being allowed to vent every last resentment and grudge without being judged. That is the cold fact about grown-up life that you just cannot accept.

"I tell you, nobody ever told me to edit any of my posts."

I never said I was usual. But that was our first encounter, and since then, we've had some positive discussions and been on the same side of many arguments. This is who I am, on-line, and who I've always been, and at times you've seen the positives.

"I want a certain set of rules of common decency for everybody when we are in a discussion."

Yes, but you want to define "common decency" so that it includes the views you want to express, though they're abhorrent to many people, but makes it "indecent" to insult anyone who expresses those views. That's "common decency" as defined by you. I'd define it differently.

"Yes I said things towards Jews and gays as a whole group that are critical of them and sometimes my words weren't nice but if you think that my words are then directed towards you personally because your part of one or more of those groups then you fail to separate between the cold philosophical viewpoint and an emotional personal viewpoint."

Actually, that's bullshit. I don't believe there's anything cold or philosophical about your opinions on Jews, or, especially, gays. You basically admitted as much on the other thread, when you described all the bad personal experiences you'd had with gay people, some of which seemed traumatic. I think all that psychobabble and Darwinism you laid out on the Kern thread was just rationalizing what is really an instinctual distaste, and I said so.

And I said so, repeatedly, coldly and philosophically, before the post that you quoted. Which, though heated, maybe over-heated, was still detached and philosophical, and can in no way be described as "personal".

"I didn't lose."

You're analysis of homosexuality, that it is a mental disorder that comes from being rejected by women, doesn't stand up to even mild scrutiny. I made that point on the other thread and you have yet to respond. You lost that round, at least.



 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
Comments per page: 10

Post your comments

 

Your Message:

This system allows you to use html-like tags in replacement of HTML. These tags are easier to use and are widely supported on messageboard systems.

HTML DISABLED
CODE DISABLED

 

You must be a registered user in order to post comments.
Please sign in or create a new account.

Your Ad Here
Xxoozero
bulshoy
Dock
Bebichan
Romanov
LifeRiot
ThisisJeff
Sapphire
Shoutwire channels

FidoQuick Take On The RNC
Being an open minded individual, I decided to spend a couple hours watching the Republican national convention in St Paul, or Minneapolis, Minnesota, or wherever it is. I had initially tuned in to watch Sarah Palin’s address, in order to maybe get a read on what she may be all about. I regret that I couldn’t get that far. After viewing Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani speak to the delegates, I felt an overwhelming need to seek asylum in another country. ...

BebichanInterview With Westboro Baptist Church!!!
This interview was compiled by myself and the great Nodnarb232001. Questions were selected from suggestions made by our great, dedicated, Shoutwire users, as well as a couple of our own suggestions!Nodnarb232001- Yep, and now we would like to ask Shirley Phelps-Roper old Freddy Phelps himself, and anyone from their congregation to come here defend their views from some of our users' unholy "persecution". We need to be reminded of just why we're going to hell.Just cl...