Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:...whinging about how dare I say that your completely uninformed, ignorant and pig-headed opinion was wrong

See the bolded stuff above? That is not necessary for you to convey your point that 'ChrisWWII's opinion is wrong'. That is random gak that you just tack on because you want to insult me. If you want to debate someone, cut out all the insults.

No, Chris, those arent insults (well, maybe pig-headed is a bit). Those are actually fairly accurate descriptions of your opinions.

You even admit it yourself in some of your posts. In that whole argument about ethics, you kept making it clear that you haven't studied ethics. That means you're uninformed. You've admitted you don't know anything about the study of ethics. That makes you ignorant. You don't care that you don't know anything, you reject the idea of reading anything that might make you informed, and you expect your opinion to be taken seriously despite your ignorance. All of that makes you, yes, pig-headed.

A good debater shouldn't need insults to back up his or her points. THeir points should stand on their own merit.

I don't use insults to back up my points. You made the claim that you were open-minded and reasonable, I am arguing that you are not.

Yes, I hold the opinion that agreeing to disagree is a completely valid solution because some disagreements come from such deep seated emotional viewpoints that they are irreconcilable, and both can be right at the same time.

No, that's not how it works. Rightness isn't determined by what you want to believe because of deep seated emotional viewpoints. Agreeing to disagree is just a thing cowards do when they can't admit they are clinging to emotional reasoning and are too weenie to cede the point. Agreeing to disagree is just a cheap way of never having to admit you're wrong, or that you don't know what you're talking about, etc.

=Shakes head= I will feel free to test your opinion's Gailbraithe, as not all facts support liberal positions only. Socially, maybe, but I don't give a crap about social conservatives anyway. Fiscal conservatism has tons of good points and evidence backing it up. Here's a good, standard, conservative position for you: The free market is good, and overregulation is bad.

You should start a new thread. And better phrase the position, because the position you've posted is almost entirely void of actual meaning. I mean, duh, of course over regulation is bad. No one contests that. What is contested is that the market is over regulated in its current state, that less regulation would result in greater wealth creation, and whether one can regulate a free market at all.

Gailbraithe wrote:
No, that's not how it works. Rightness isn't determined by what you want to believe because of deep seated emotional viewpoints. Agreeing to disagree is just a thing cowards do when they can't admit they are clinging to emotional reasoning and are too weenie to cede the point. Agreeing to disagree is just a cheap way of never having to admit you're wrong, or that you don't know what you're talking about, etc.

Are you saying that you aren't using emotional reasoning?

Because it would seem to me that it's the only reasoning that you use. It's why you can't just discuss something without immediately insulting someone and bringing up the Nazis.

I hate that I've been actually using my email on 8chan for the past 3 years I never realized it wasn't mandatory. pft.


Also, not wearing leather. I wish I could wear leather all day, all year, but I can't. I love all of my various biker jackets, and this heat is making it hard to enjoy them

Monster Rain wrote:Are you saying that you aren't using emotional reasoning?

Correct.

Because it would seem to me that it's the only reasoning that you use. It's why you can't just discuss something without immediately insulting someone and bringing up the Nazis.

This would be more convincing if it weren't coming from someone who insists that having his beliefs accurately identified as the fascist nonsense it is is some kind of insult. It's not an insult when it's an accurate description of the pure BS you put stock in.

And if it seems like the only kind of reasoning I use, it's because you're so poor at critical thinking, so completely unprepared for debate, and so completely dishonest intellectually that you lie to yourself and delude yourself into thinking that a rational, articulate point made against your stupid, nonsensical garbage beliefs must be "emotional reasoning." But seriously, you almost certainly have no concept what emotional reasoning is, or how to distinguish it from objective reasoning. No offense, but intellectually you have the credibility of a rock.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Are you saying that you aren't using emotional reasoning?

Correct.

Because it would seem to me that it's the only reasoning that you use. It's why you can't just discuss something without immediately insulting someone and bringing up the Nazis.

This would be more convincing if it weren't coming from someone who insists that having his beliefs accurately identified as the fascist nonsense it is is some kind of insult. It's not an insult when it's an accurate description of the pure BS you put stock in.

And if it seems like the only kind of reasoning I use, it's because you're so poor at critical thinking, so completely unprepared for debate, and so completely dishonest intellectually that you lie to yourself and delude yourself into thinking that a rational, articulate point made against your stupid, nonsensical garbage beliefs must be "emotional reasoning." But seriously, you almost certainly have no concept what emotional reasoning is, or how to distinguish it from objective reasoning. No offense, but intellectually you have the credibility of a rock.

So... since you're an expert on debate and all, I think you'd know what ad hominem means. Delicious, delicious irony. Here's an idea, why don't you make a "rational, articulate point" and I'll respond to it. Way to totally prove my point while trying to refute it. Nothing emotional about this post, huh?

Stop derailing this nice person's fun thread.

People who chew with their mouths open. Makes me have homicidal thoughts.

Monster Rain wrote:

This alone makes my blood boil! (Clearly jokin ofc).

One thing that makes my blood boil is TROLLS! Cant stand em... they should be shot and left to rot.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Goliath wrote:I hate people who are deliberately belligerent purely because they disagree with someone's standpoint, and who seem to need to be able to see themselves as right, by trying to destroy other people's opinions.

Just because you have an opinion, which may or may not be backed up with evidence, doesn't mean that other people aren't entitled to their own.

Yeah. Whatever. I'm just sick of conservatives inciting hatred of gays, muslims, and other minority groups because of their precious right to have an indefensible, stupid and often inhumane and backward opinion they can't hope to support.

Call me belligerent all you want. I hate conservatives, and I'm not going to apologize for it. Conservatives are gakky human beings with gakky ideas that they can't defend, so they have to enflame the worst tendencies in the worst sort of people to get power, and the world would be a better place if they all jumped in a lake. With concrete boots on. Wait til you've had a few friends end up in a hospital because some jack-booted fascist half-wit got riled up by conservative anti-gay hate speech and beat the crap out of them.

That gak really makes my blood boil.

I'd like to point out that there are plenty of liberals who hate gay people. California passed prop 8.

BrockRitcey wrote:
I'd like to point out that there are plenty of liberals who hate gay people. California passed prop 8.

Eh, there's actually a lot of conservatives in CA. They just get voted down in most regular elections...Prop 8 passed thanks to a mass influence of support from Mormon groups that really mobilized the conservative group.

But yes, I agree. No need to derail this nice thread. Apologies to the OP, and everyone whose been pissed off cause of us derailing the thread.

I really hate people who do that....no respect for other readers.

I can;t stand it wne I call someone sir or ma'am, only to get a look of disgust back. They seriously look at me as if I sodomized a rabbit in front of their eyes. What blows me away is that women don't like that up here, they think its wierd and over-polite. Its funnier when an older women gives me this look, because she's not fooling anybody, she's passed her 30's by a good bit. Bless her heart .

What really makes my blood boil is people who derail threads into personal troll wars...

Hey I hate gay people and I'm extremely liberal. I am not opposed to homosexuality other than I don't really want to partake of it. What does bug the gak out of me and makes me hate fags (not to be confused with 'homosexuals') is the annoying affected whiney voice, fasion obsession, and generally shallow outlook. Sorry fags, you aren't cool enough to count as 'homosexual' in my book. The only people who think you are so damn cool with your printzing prancing act are others like you, who really want to imagine you as a 15 year old in spandex. The rest of us are just annoyed by the lisping, the pants-judgementalism, and the complete obliviousness to anything non pop-oriented. Sorry but Abba and Madonna still suck, and tight pants never looked good on anyone with balls or a perpensity for facial hair.

I love the idea of homosexual rights
I hate the idea of annoying cliches who just want to preen.

Guitardian wrote:Hey I hate gay people and I'm extremely liberal. I am not opposed to homosexuality other than I don't really want to partake of it. What does bug the gak out of me and makes me hate fags (not to be confused with 'homosexuals') is the annoying affected whiney voice, fasion obsession, and generally shallow outlook. Sorry fags, you aren't cool enough to count as 'homosexual' in my book. The only people who think you are so damn cool with your printzing prancing act are others like you, who really want to imagine you as a 15 year old in spandex. The rest of us are just annoyed by the lisping, the pants-judgementalism, and the complete obliviousness to anything non pop-oriented. Sorry but Abba and Madonna still suck, and tight pants never looked good on anyone with balls or a perpensity for facial hair.

I love the idea of homosexual rights
I hate the idea of annoying cliches who just want to preen.

BrockRitcey wrote:I'd like to point out that there are plenty of liberals who hate gay people. California passed prop 8.

And I'd like to point out that there is a difference between a liberal and a Democrat.

And I'd like to point out that not everyone in California is a liberal.

And I'd like to point out that almost all of the Democrats who voted for Prop 8 were conservative Democrats.

And I'd like to point out that many people who voted for Prop 8 were mislead about the consequences of gay marriage by a deliberate campaign of lies perpetrated by conservatives.

And I'd like to point out that, if not for conservatives, Prop 8 wouldn't even exist.

But mostly I'd like to point out that this is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my first post. Here we have a conservative, Brock, castigating "liberals" for opinions held by a small subset of conservative Democrats, all while ignoring that the conservative movement -- from base to leadership -- has relentlessly pursued an overt anti-day agenda for decades now.

But I think pointing those things out will have no effect, because conservatives never listen. They just make stupid, silly excuses for their behavior, like this nonsense you've posted here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Stop derailing this nice person's fun thread.

You're the one derailing it. You singled out my comment and attacked it, and me, remember? Not the other way around.

5th edtion makes my blood boil.... i miss 4th

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Stop derailing this nice person's fun thread.

You're the one derailing it. You singled out my comment and attacked it, and me, remember? Not the other way around.

To be fair, he disagreed with you in a condescending manner ('skippy'). It wasn't him who devolved into simple mudslinging...not first anyway.

ChrisWWII wrote:

BrockRitcey wrote:
I'd like to point out that there are plenty of liberals who hate gay people. California passed prop 8.

Eh, there's actually a lot of conservatives in CA. They just get voted down in most regular elections...Prop 8 passed thanks to a mass influence of support from Mormon groups that really mobilized the conservative group.

I'd like to point out that while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the LDS church or Mormons, did "mobilize" its members in support of prop 8 and we did reach out to the community, and we did donate to http://www.protectmarriage.com/, there are approximatly only 800,000 members of the LDS church in California. California has a population of around 36,961,664 (Jul 2009). The population of LDS church members is around 5,000,000 in the United States, 11,000,000 worldwide. Prop 8 passed with a 52.24% vote. 7,001,084 voters, voted yes. Now, even if all 800,000 members of the LDS church were of voting age (which they aren't) 800,000 of 7,001,084 votes is 11.4%. It's likely that not even half of that number could vote. On top of that, not every member of the LDS church voted in favor of prop 8. So, it's more likely that 400,000 members of the LDS church voted and the majority probably did vote yes. So, around 5.5% of the votes.

What I'm trying to point out is, that yes the LDS church really did their part in supporting prop 8, but it wasn't solely because of their membership that prop 8 passed. 94.5% of the yes votes came from other demographics. 800,000 church members out of a population of 36,961,644 and a nationwide membershp of 5,000,000, it is just an overgeneralization that prop 8 passed mainly because of the LDS church. The LDS church is an easy target for prop 8 hate.


Respectfully,
DarkAngelHopeful

P.S. Sorry for hijacking the thread.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:

BrockRitcey wrote:
I'd like to point out that there are plenty of liberals who hate gay people. California passed prop 8.

Eh, there's actually a lot of conservatives in CA. They just get voted down in most regular elections...Prop 8 passed thanks to a mass influence of support from Mormon groups that really mobilized the conservative group.

I'd like to point out that while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the LDS church or Mormons, did "mobilize" its members in support of prop 8 and we did reach out to the community, and we did donate to http://www.protectmarriage.com/, there are approximatly only 800,000 members of the LDS church in California. California has a population of around 36,961,664 (Jul 2009). The population of LDS church members is around 5,000,000 in the United States, 11,000,000 worldwide. Prop 8 passed with a 52.24% vote. 7,001,084 voters, voted yes. Now, even if all 800,000 members of the LDS church were of voting age (which they aren't) 800,000 of 7,001,084 votes is 11.4%. It's likely that not even half of that number could vote. On top of that, not every member of the LDS church voted in favor of prop 8. So, it's more likely that 400,000 members of the LDS church voted and the majority probably did vote yes. So, around 5.5% of the votes.

What I'm trying to point out is, that yes the LDS church really did their part in supporting prop 8, but it wasn't solely because of their membership that prop 8 passed. 94.5% of the yes votes came from other demographics. 800,000 church members out of a population of 36,961,644 and a nationwide membershp of 5,000,000, it is just an overgeneralization that prop 8 passed mainly because of the LDS church. The LDS church is an easy target for prop 8 hate.


EDIT: Also, not everyone who voted for prop 8 hates Homosexuals.

Respectfully,
DarkAngelHopeful

P.S. Sorry for hijacking the thread.

Well, once again, what should have been just a light hearted thread, one that perhaps might raise a wry chuckle has descended into the usual pointless attacks and settling of old scores.

How unusual.

DO BETTER.

Please..think of the children, think of all the PG rated films that orphans have missed out on.