I will kindly ask you to stop kindly asking me to stop telling whatever the fuck I tell. You did everything I say you did and everyone knows it.
COC Revisions
Posts
Total:
171
I will kindly ask you to stop kindly asking me to stop telling whatever the fuck I tell. You did everything I say you did and everyone knows it.
I’m sure that you consider it cyber bullying someone asking nicely you to stop inventing accusations that you won’t bother proving. Perhaps if you were not so belligerent, and stopped engaging in repeated and unceasing attacks on people, you’ll face less criticism.
And finally, no one would know whether any of your absurd claims are true, as every single time you’re asked to prove them, you shrivel and wilt like an emasculated puppy.
I think, given your fairly toxic behaviour; your style of repeated unsubstantiated accusations should be explicitly branded as personal attacks.
-->
@RationalMadman
You did everything I say you did and everyone knows it.
Bald assertion, provably false (I don't "know it") annnd... moot.
-->
@3RU7AL
As you are a Religion and Politics subforum hermit I'll let that slide since you weren't around paying attention when he did both things I'm saying.
The evidence is there in the post you just replied to me with, Ramshutu. You can't help but bully me.
The evidence is there in the post you just replied to me with, Ramshutu. You can't help but bully me.
I’m sorry, but pointing out that you’re making a series of unsubstantiated accusations but are never able to mount any defence of these accusations is not bullying. Period. This thread; the former thread (twice), the issue with spam account debates, my voting record: all examples of you constantly making claims, then having those claims embarrassingly demolished - then continuing make the claims at all opportunities but never trying to justify them.
It reminds me of the saying “if the facts are not on your side, pound the law. If the law is not on your side, pound the facts; if neither the law or the facts are on your side: pound the table.”
You’re logic is particularly twisted and false here - I am being critical of your toxic and obnoxious behaviour: and your seeming inability to make meaningful defense of your position, I am belittling your strategy of using accusations in lieu of arguments, and I am criticizing your unwillingness to argue the things you do resoundingly claim to believe in, whilst on a website dedicated to arguing.
I am very much attacking the things you say, and the things you post. I will keep doing that, regardless of whether your feelings end up being hurt.
These are not personal attacks, this is not harassment; because attacking your words and content is expressly and deliberately allowed; your words and actions here will never be protected from criticism because that is antithetical to a debate site. The fact that you feel criticism of you - and take downs of your behaviour, is inseparable from attacking you personally is the very problem with the rules I’m trying to point out.
You seem to be hoping that the rules are changed so that you can request punishment for those who are critical of you, and to stifle criticism of your actions and your content. Unfortunately, that’s not the case: if you wish people to stop being critical of you, then you should stop acting in an overtly belligerent way that invites so much criticism. I can’t make your feelings not be hurt by me being overtly critical of your content; but the appropriate way to avert your feelings being hurt is either to adjust the content.
The reality is that if you “feel like shit” or have hurt feelings when someone point out that the things you say are false, illogical, absurd, or if the way you act is harassing or insulting, or expressly outline disparities or hypocrisy in your behaviour : especially on the back of you deliberately and repeatedly calling people out as you did here - this is no ones problem but yours.
-->
@drafterman
Everything above the cut was off topic.
Ok, are you referring to the parts where I agreed with you?
Off-topic?
It seems to meet this one,Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitudeIt is critical because it attempts to dismiss their presented arguments out-of-hand.Critical statements about arguments are not forbidden.
I agree 100%.
Critical statements about ARGUMENTS. However, the example statement was a comment on the PERSON, not their ARGUMENTS.
It is disrespectful because it attempts to paint the individual as unreliable and or disingenuous.Incorrect.
Please explain what you believe justifies the statement.
If it is not an attempt to paint the individual as unreliable and or disingenuous, was it intended to validate their argument?
Or was it a random, off-topic, non-sequitur.
"You're always fit and healthy, so your advice about what to do when a person is sick isn't valid."It's still, Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude, because it is a statement clearly intended to disqualify arguments by sniping the individual speaker personally, and furthermore it is beyond the accuser's epistemological limits, making it a bald assertion.Irrelevant. Attacking people's arguments is allowed.
Critical statements about ARGUMENTS are allowed. However, the example statement was a comment on the PERSON, not their ARGUMENTS.
Your example would be like telling a doctor their diagnosis was invalid because they hadn't suffered that particular disease personally.
Even a very polite and reasonable doctor would consider this a personal attack (on their credibility).
-->
@Ramshutu
Your logic is particularly twisted and false here - I am being critical of your toxic and obnoxious behavior: and your seeming inability to make meaningful defense of your position, I am belittling your strategy of using accusations in lieu of arguments, and I am criticizing your unwillingness to argue the things you do resoundingly claim to believe in, whilst on a website dedicated to arguing.
Well stated.
-->
@3RU7AL
It's clear that you don't know what an ad hominem actually is and you are resistant to attempts to try and teach you.
-->
@drafterman
It's clear that you don't know what an ad hominem actually is and you are resistant to attempts to try and teach you.
if you wish people to stop being critical of you, then you should stop acting in an overtly belligerent way that invites so much criticism. I can’t make your feelings not be hurt by me being overtly critical of your content; but the appropriate way to avert your feelings being hurt is either to adjust the content.
Imagine if MLK, Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, Gandhi, LGBT activists and so many others thought this way. What a fucking world we'd be living in eh?
Just conform, people are criticising you for your behaviour that annoys them, shut up and stop doing it.
- society and bullies
Last time I checked, MLK, Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, Ghandi and LGBT activists weren’t anonymous internet users who primarily engaged in patterns of personal attacks against other users in the form of accusations they aren’t willing to support; and then repeatedly complaining that people attacking the points they make and behaviour are “cyberbullys”.Imagine if MLK, Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, Gandhi, LGBT activists and so many others thought this way. What a fucking world we'd be living in eh?
So really, there’s little comparison that can be drawn.
In addition; you seem to believe that you conforming to basic norms of intellectual discussion, and decency in order for you not to be constantly offended at everyone being critical of you is somehow a bad thing. In general, I wouldn’t suggest conforming when the difference can be argued to be reasonable. If however, there is no merit to your behaviour, and you can’t defend it; You have to be prepared to consider the possibility that the reason you’re being asked to confirm is because you’re behaviour and content is terrible.
As I have shown that this is the case, and you continually fail to engage in any debate on this matter, it’s wise to consider the possibility that you’re being asked to change not because you’re a special and unique snowflake with a perspective that challenges the status quo and is thus being bullied - but because your behaviour described and post content I have covered is objectively terrible.
The one who is nasty to the other is you, Ramshutu.
If this were me, honestly, is calling someone a bitch really gonna insult someone where we have to report it
Again no; did you not listen? I am attacking your position, your posts and your content.The one who is nasty to the other is you, Ramshutu.
You are repeatedly attacking me, making unsubstantiated accusations which you refuse to justify (in every post so far almost), and do this repeatedly whilst engaging in repeated unsolicited call outs.
Given that my entire criticism of you here is focused on you throwing out accusations; that all you’re able to come up with is another made up accusation that doesn’t fit facts - that you replied with another such accusation is particularly ironic.
Did it ever occur to you that the only reason you think you're 'winning' this is because a user named 3RU7AL who knows next to nothing of the DART-subforum politics decided to show up and is rallying behind you? Everyone else, while not upvoting me, shows up at times like the DART Hall-of-Fame voting and at other times to make you realise that you have support when the limelight shines, but I have support when lights go dark.
Did it ever occur to you that the only reason you think you're 'winning' this is because a user named 3RU7AL who knows next to nothing of the DART-subforum politics decided to show up and is rallying behind you? Everyone else, while not upvoting me, shows up at times like the DART Hall-of-Fame voting and at other times to make you realise that you have support when the limelight shines, but I have support when lights go dark.
We’re having a discussion about your toxic behaviour, repeated call outs, the fact that you never justify any of your accusations and really just shrivel away when given the opportunity.
Even if everything you said were true - nothing I have said would be any less true. Even if you were “more popular”, it doesn’t mean you’re all of a sudden not engaging in toxic behaviour, or clear harassment. It’s just an example of you trying not to engage; and resorting to playground style insults instead of trying to actually show you’re correct.
Also, framing this conversation in terms of “winning and losing”, is very much your own personal perspective here. I’m not sure whether you’re sensitive about losing arguments or you’re projecting your own insecurity and perception of not being able to argue back as me feeling I’m “winning” - but I tend to view arguments not as winning or losing - but being correct or not. Given you have offered nothing to challenge the arguments I’ve presented other than childish insults and playground tactics; I am particularly reassured on that front.
Threatening with mod action.We’re having a discussion about your toxic behaviour, repeated call outs, the fact that you never justify any of your accusations and really just shrivel away when given the opportunity.
Be sure to tell me the result of these discussions, I'm sure they will be insightful.
-->
@3RU7AL
What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.People are weird about what they want done to themselves, so this would not quite work.I agree, which is precisely why the golden rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") is so obviously problematic.The silver rule is a much more comprehensive guideline.
The text I responded to with the weird remark, was the "silver rule" you were suggesting. Strangely, you are now now agreeing it is too problematic, so are suggesting we should use it instead because it is so much less problematic than itself...
ONLY YOUR OPPONENT CAN AWARD POINTSIt would not work, as easily exemplified with a question: In how many of your debates here did you or your opponent concede?There are a few cases where I've managed to convince my opponent with arguments, for example:"Sorry for not having a counter-argument, but you've convinced me that you're right, so I guess you've won." [LINK]And I myself have conceded in the face of a logically sound, well crafted statement.
Of the thousand debates here, you suggest two debates are the norm to be expected (not even getting into how one of those was from years ago on a dead site). Assuming you multiple it by 100, it is still massively in the minority, thus "it would not work" as I previously stated.
Plus, how many people who "spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic" do you really expect to have such high integrity?Well, I think we should give people the option. It would, I believe, lead to much more productive and informative discussions.I try to give people points in the informal (forum) debates by noting, "good point", or "excellent point".If we were in a formal, self-moderated debate, they could tally up those points to determine the winner.
People indeed have the option to concede, but concessions are very rare (not nearly as rare as the stated 500 to 1 you showed, but still the rare exception instead of the rule). That said, if you're right you can easily prove it by having several debates under your proposed system (just state a rule in the description that judges can only reinforce the mutually agreed outcome from the debaters, and are otherwise limited to voting a tie).
>>We’re<<< having a discussion.Be sure to tell me the result of these discussions, I'm sure they will be insightful.
We.
You and I.
-->
@Barney
The text I responded to with the weird remark, was the "silver rule" you were suggesting. Strangely, you are now now agreeing it is too problematic, so are suggesting we should use it instead because it is so much less problematic than itself...
SILVER RULE: do-NOT do to others what you do-NOT want them to do to you.
GOLDEN RULE: DO unto others what you would have them DO unto you.
It's much easier to guess what people do-NOT want (pain and suffering and general discomfort) than to guess what they DO want (chocolate versus vanilla for example).
Do unto others = I like pistachio ice cream so I will give everyone pistachio ice cream! BAD-IDEA.
Do-NOT do to others = I don't like people violating my personal privacy and property rights so I will take steps to protect everyone's personal privacy and property rights. GOOD-IDEA.
-->
@Barney
I provided examples that prove it's not "impossible".Of the thousand debates here, you suggest two debates are the norm to be expected (not even getting into how one of those was from years ago on a dead site). Assuming you multiple it by 100, it is still massively in the minority, thus "it would not work" as I previously stated.
I never suggested CIVIL DEBATE was currently "the norm".
Your argument boils down to "people are jerks and they'll always be jerks so there's no point in trying to build a framework that inherently discourages jerky behavior".
It's the same cookie-cutter argument that has been used to entrench the STATUS-QUO for centuries.
Your claim, "it would not work" is a naked argumentum ad numeram. [LINK]
Description: Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.
-->
@Barney
That said, if you're right you can easily prove it by having several debates under your proposed system (just state a rule in the description that judges can only reinforce the mutually agreed outcome from the debaters, and are otherwise limited to voting a tie).
Good idea. Could I make a rule, "judge by scores noted by the participants, no RFD required"?
-->
@3RU7AL
As previously stated: "...if you're right you can easily prove it by having several debates under your proposed system (just state a rule in the description that judges can only reinforce the mutually agreed outcome from the debaters, and are otherwise limited to voting a tie)."
Update: Yes, your proposed wording for said rule ("judge by scores noted by the participants, no RFD required") would be fine. Technically a RFD would still exist in citing those scores, but that's just semantics.
-->
@David
C. AuthenticityYou may not:Impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner intended to or likely to deceive others. Parody accounts are acceptable as long as they: are clear that they are a parody and not a parody of other Site users;
*coughBrotherDThomascough*
-->
@Barney
Another special case I believe would be warranted is No Contest debates. When someone spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic but doesn't technically forfeit, I see no benefit in demanding voters put in significantly greater effort than the losing debater.I also have a fix for this, CIVIL DEBATE RULE 3 - [LINK]
If "no contest" (as a voting option?) would count as a tie and would not require an RFD, I'm sure it would be a super-popular option.
-->
@drafterman
And yet, it is not a personal attack, it is a comment directed specifically at their argument (making a distinction without a difference).
-->
@drafterman
A statement like, "You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid"<br>Sure, it's neutral.
(IFF) it was neutral (THEN) it would have no bearing on the conversation at hand and would have no bearing on the validity of the arguments presented.
Pray tell, what, exactly such a comment is intended to produce, if not implicit invalidation of that person's arguments on the topic at hand by attacking them (and or their hypothetical credentials) personally (while ignoring their arguments wholesale).And here you concede the point.
Which point exactly did I concede?
An attack is a personal attack if it is directed at the person, rather than their arguments.
Ok.
An ad hominem, taken as a whole, is directed at a person's arguments, it just happens to also contain a reference (an illogical one) to their person.
I'm willing to accept this one-of-a-kind definition of "ad hominem", but I'd just like to point out that this is not the same definition you referred to earlier.
It is essentially saying:"Your argument is wrong because of X."
If and only If that "X" is a reference to the person, their personal experience, their credentials, their mind, their body, their attitude, or some other aspect of their identity.
It is a statement about their argument.
By implicitly drawing a connection between that person's identity and their trustworthiness either on a specific topic or in general.
Sure.
That X is an illogical reference to their person is what makes it the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
You've moved the goal-posts by adding the qualifier "illogical". Whether or not the comment on their identity is seemingly logical or not is moot.
That it is ultimately a statement about their argument,
An implicitly derogatory personal comment crafted to discredit them (and by association their arguments).
Not all personal comments are ad hominem attacks.
It is NOT a violation of the COC to say, "you're obviously a flipping genius and therefore I agree with everything you say".
This is an example of a non-derogatory-personal-comment intended to VALIDATE (instead of invalidate) someone's arguments.
...and since there is no requirement that X be derogatory, means that ad hominems are not forbidden by the CoC.
Even if I agreed with you, you're still technically incorrect.
What you're basically saying is,
ALL personal-attacks are ad-hominem-attacks BUT not all ad-hominem-attacks are personal-attacks.
This is technically incorrect. By definition, an ad-hominem-attack must include a comment on or about the person, and regardless of what that personal comment may or may not mean OUT-OF-CONTEXT, it must be framed in such a way as to attempt to DISCREDIT that person's arguments (which makes ad-hominem-attacks necessarily DEROGATORY, even if they contain otherwise "positive" personal comments).
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the idiom, "back-handed-compliment". [LINK]
I believe you're suggesting that I could say, "you're a gorgeous movie-star, therefore your opinions regarding politics are invalid" without it counting as a personal-attack according to your interpretation of the COC.
And while I agree with you that "you're a gorgeous movie-star" is not, in-itself, a personal-attack (not generally and or necessarily DEROGATORY), it can be PART-OF a personal attack on someone's credibility if the statement suggests that having the identity of "a gorgeous movie-star" somehow invalidates that person's arguments.
-->
@Ramshutu
Arguing that someone has some personal trait or characteristic that invalidates their arguments is an ad-hominem-attack.Your logic is particularly twisted and false here - I am being critical of your toxic and obnoxious behavior: and your seeming inability to make meaningful defense of your position, I am belittling your strategy of using accusations in lieu of arguments, and I am criticizing your unwillingness to argue the things you do resoundingly claim to believe in, whilst on a website dedicated to arguing.
HOwEver, arguing that someone's arguments are unsound (for specific reasons, not simply in general) and suggesting THEREFORE that person may currently be incapable of making sound arguments (or at a minimum is refusing to articulate them)... does not actually appear to qualify as either a personal-attack or an ad-hominem-attack.