Women on top

[Forty Two]

PErvin- you deny quote mining, but you took a sentence, cut it in half, posted it, and then argued that the half minus the dependent clause starting with the word “except” doesn’t matter. No matter how much billshit you spew out of your mouth, you can’t change the reality that you are lying through your teeth, and that you know full well that saying, “I have no problem with X” is not at all the same thing as “I have no problem with X, except Y.”

You are wrong. Fuck off.

[pErvinalia]

You really do suck at logic, don't you? I even drew a fucking diagram to show how the part after the comma was irrelevant to what I was referring to. It's irrelevant that you don't like rule breeches. I'm talking about the mean/uncivil things that you don't like, that aren't rule breeches. That's why you are a tone policeman.
(Although, whinging about mean and uncivil thing is tone policing by definition, whether or not they are rule violations.. )

[Forty Two]

The part after the comma changes the meaning of the sentence. By definition it matters. Stop it. Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

You are misrepresenting my view, as usual.

[pErvinalia]

Dude, you unequivocally complained about the tone people were taking in this thread, independent of any rule breeches. You said that questioning Cunt's intent was uncivil. Stop lying, ffs.

[Forty Two]

“You said that questioning Cunt's intent was uncivil.”

Link?

I mean. Questioning his intent might be uncivil. It depends how it’s done. You are uncivil quite often. You have a hard time posting anything without violating the play nice rule or the personal attack rule, and that’s uncivil.

Now, merely, questioning intent is not “necessarily” uncivil. But it can be.

So, refer me to the post where you think I said questioning intent was uncivil. I am sure that would clarify things.

[pErvinalia]

It would clarify fuck. You've never admitting you are wrong no matter how many of your own fucking quotes I throw at you. I will post it when I find it.

[Forty Two]

It would clarify fuck. You've never admitting you are wrong no matter how many of your own fucking quotes I throw at you. I will post it when I find it.

One, you never threw out a quote which stated, the same or equivalent words, that questioning intent was uncivil. You never did that.

Two, in the post above where you did link to my own fucking quotes, all but one were from other threads, and none of them said that questioning intent was uncivil. Almost all of them referred to you as "meanspirited" (which is true, you are meanspirited, and I never argued that you weren't -- in each of those cases, I was responding to your personal attacks, insults, namecalling, badgering, trolling, and other non-nice behavior, and I provided my assessment of your personality in response to your description of what you think of me). Somehow, you think that evidences something you've said here, which it does not.

Now, you can either produce the link that supports your assertion, or not. I know you can't. You know you can't. At best, you'll throw up another diversion with a series of links that don't say what you say they say (like in your signature), and then you'll proclaim victory, relying on what you think is the forum member's trust that what you say is true. You rely on others not delving into the links, which most people won't do. That's at best - I think most likely, though, you will just refuse to provide any support.

It would clarify fuck? You mean, you made an allegation that I said it was uncivil to question someone's intent, and providing a link to a post where I supposedly said it was uncivil to question someone's intent would "clarify fuck?"

[pErvinalia]

You really are a piece of work. You unequivocally tone police. The links all show it. And again, what's with the bullshit goalpost shift about "this thread" only? I wasn't only referring to this thread, so shove those goalposts where they fit. You're not all of a sudden not a tone policer because you did it in other threads but not this one.

Anyway here's where you distinguish between intent and personal attacks. I expect an unprecedented level of equivocation now. Not that it should matter in the slightest, as by definition complaining about mean and uncivil posts (whether they are against the rules or not) is fucking tone policing. But I'm so fucking over you. You are interminable. You have a pathological inability to ever admit that you are wrong. There's something very very wrong with you. Seek help.

My opposition to that, and my pointing out that it's not Cunt but Sean and others - like you - who are not discussing the topic civilly (because they're discussing Cunt's alleged motive, not the topic itself, and personally attacking Cunt).

Only you could take my argument against your and Sean's derail into Cunt's intent, and personal attacks against Cunt, to be "tone policing."

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... y#p1760452

[Forty Two]

You really are a piece of work. You unequivocally tone police. The links all show it. And again, what's with the bullshit goalpost shift about "this thread" only?

It was your assertion: "You said that questioning Cunt's intent was uncivil." Your posts regarding me calling you meanspirited on other threads have nothing to do with your assertion that questioning Cunt's intent (which would have been on this thread, not others, since there aren't any threads where I'm aware that his intent was questioned). That's why it needs to be on this thread. A series of links where you have me doing something else somewhere else will not prove your assertion that i supposedly said that questioning Cunt's intent was uncivil.

Got it?

I wasn't only referring to this thread, so shove those goalposts where they fit. You're not all of a sudden not a tone policer because you did it in other threads but not this one.

If you want to show me where I said questioning Cunt's intent was uncivil on other threads, then do that, too. Go ahead. Where isit?

You're shifting the goal posts, when I say "show me where I said it was uncivil to question Cunt's intent" and then you want to make it about tone policing in general. I am asking you to back up your specific assertion. If you can't, and you want to argue again about general "tone policing," fine. But, at least have the decency to admit that I did not say that questioning Cunt's intent was uncivil, and you were wrong you said it - factually incorrect.

Anyway here's where you distinguish between intent and personal attacks. I expect an unprecedented level of equivocation now. Not that it should matter in the slightest, as by definition complaining about mean and uncivil posts (whether they are against the rules or not) is fucking tone policing.

It's not when the meanness and incivility is namecalling, insult, personal attacks and other rule violation. It's tone policing when someone makes an argument but uses the wrong tone. When you jump into a thread to derail it, namecall, badger people, troll and insult them, because you don't like the topic, that's not merely a defect in tone. That's you being a total asshole, and violating the rules. Yes, it ALSO is a bad tone. It is ALSO mean. It is ALSO uncivil. But your bad tones, meanness, and incivility are done by means that include but are not limited to personal attacks, insults, namecalling and other rule violations.

But I'm so fucking over you. You are interminable. You have a pathological inability to ever admit that you are wrong. There's something very very wrong with you. Seek help.

You're the one that's wrong here, and you won't admit it. Fuck off. You are lying, and you are trying to squirm your way out of it. It's not working. You're full of shit.

My opposition to that, and my pointing out that it's not Cunt but Sean and others - like you - who are not discussing the topic civilly (because they're discussing Cunt's alleged motive, not the topic itself, and personally attacking Cunt).

Only you could take my argument against your and Sean's derail into Cunt's intent, and personal attacks against Cunt, to be "tone policing."

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... y#p1760452

You realize that quote shows you're wrong, right?


That post came in RESPONSE to someone claiming that they were being "shitty back" to Cunt. Cunt's mere posting of a topic you and they don't like is the shittiness, that you and they think warrant personal attacks and such back at Cunt. That's what I'm referring to. And it was in response to someone else calling Cunt uncivil, and I am saying that it is NOT Cunt who is being uncivil, but it is others, like Sean and you, who are in the wrong, and being uncivil -- and I put a paranthetical explaining what that means (discussing his alleged motive, not the topic, and personally attacking him at the same time). That's not tone policing. Tone policing is objecting to an argument merely because of its tone. Objecting to someone failing to address an issue because they are opting to direct an attack on the opponent's motive (logical fallacy) and at the same time personally attacking him in the process is not in the least tone policing

And, as I said, challenging intent is not NECESSARILY uncivil. In this case, however, it plainly was because it involved both diverting the issue to a derail about allegations of bad motive which were part of and in addition to the personal attacks against Cunt.

This appears to be where your brain misfires. You seem to think that if someone is being uncivil when they're questioning someone's motive or intent, and I object to that, then I must be saying that any questioning of motive or intent is uncivil. That's the fingers thumbs logic puzzle that you can't seem to grasp. Saying that YOU and Sean were being uncivil is not the same thing as a blanket declaration that questioning intent is uncivil. In this case, you guys were being total dicks, you were in the wrong, you were violating the rules, blatantly, and without apology - you even bragged about the abuse you dole out -- and you want to pretend that objecting to your miserable behavior and awful personality is the same as an allegation that all questioning of intent is uncivil? Surely you can puzzle out your misfire there?

[Forty Two]

And, you of course, snip the post, conveniently editing out to dishonestly change the meaning:

Here is what I said -

Just take the first link you posted. It's me RESPONDING to Sean's tone policing. He's saying that the "OP is shitty" and therefore it's o.k. to be shitty to and personally attack Cunt. My opposition to that, and my pointing out that it's not Cunt but Sean and others - like you - who are not discussing the topic civilly (because they're discussing Cunt's alleged motive, not the topic itself, and personally attacking Cunt).

Only you could take my argument against your and Sean's derail into Cunt's intent, and personal attacks against Cunt, to be "tone policing."

If I were tone policing, I'd be saying that your discussion of the topic at hand was not done with the proper niceties and in the right tone of voice. I'm not doing that. I'm telling you to shut the fuck up for once - for once - about what you think someone's motive is and and just discuss or argue about the fucking topic. That's not tone policing - that's just asking you to stop personally attacking people, which is what you do on so many threads.

And, of course, the "motive" you asserted was to call Cunt a "bigot." That's you doing that. You're doing the policing. You're trying to shut down the thread. You're the one not addressing the topic at hand, preferring to call people bigots and otherwise whinge on about the evil motive and intent you imagine them to have.

[pErvinalia]

You really are a piece of work. You unequivocally tone police. The links all show it. And again, what's with the bullshit goalpost shift about "this thread" only?

It was your assertion: "You said that questioning Cunt's intent was uncivil." Your posts regarding me calling you meanspirited on other threads have nothing to do with your assertion that questioning Cunt's intent (which would have been on this thread, not others, since there aren't any threads where I'm aware that his intent was questioned). That's why it needs to be on this thread. A series of links where you have me doing something else somewhere else will not prove your assertion that i supposedly said that questioning Cunt's intent was uncivil.

Got it?

...on these boards...

- http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... g#p1760407

I wasn't only referring to this thread, so shove those goalposts where they fit. You're not all of a sudden not a tone policer because you did it in other threads but not this one.

If you want to show me where I said questioning Cunt's intent was uncivil on other threads, then do that, too. Go ahead. Where isit?

You're shifting the goal posts, when I say "show me where I said it was uncivil to question Cunt's intent" and then you want to make it about tone policing in general.

I can't seem to help myself from continuing to respond to absolute stupidity. I accused you of fucking tone policing. You denied it. I showed you the evidence. You denied it. I referred to the "uncivil" incident in this thread as ADDITIONAL evidence that I didn't include. You then called me a liar etc. You then started only referring to "this thread" even though the "uncivil" comment is part of the evidence of you being a tone policer ON THESE BOARDS.

My opposition to that, and my pointing out that it's not Cunt but Sean and others - like you - who are not discussing the topic civilly (because they're discussing Cunt's alleged motive, not the topic itself, and personally attacking Cunt).

Only you could take my argument against your and Sean's derail into Cunt's intent, and personal attacks against Cunt, to be "tone policing."

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... y#p1760452

You realize that quote shows you're wrong, right?

Of course it does. You include questioning Cunt's intent as behaviour that is uncivil. But please, keep equivocating. I'm going to try my hardest to ignore the coming stupidity.

That post came in RESPONSE to someone claiming that they were being "shitty back" to Cunt. Cunt's mere posting of a topic you and they don't like is the shittiness, that you and they think warrant personal attacks and such back at Cunt. That's what I'm referring to.

You don't even know what you are talking about. Sean, who raised the "shittiness" argument, DIDN'T say anything about personal attacks when he raised the issue. It was YOU that equated his use of the term "shitty" with "against the rules". You can't fall back on your own strawman as proof that I'm trying to deceive you. I'm referring to what actually precipitated and started the various issues, not what your biased brain interpreted them to mean.

Tone policing is objecting to an argument merely because of its tone.

What do you think "mean" and "(un)civil" mean?? It's referring to the tone of the argument. It makes absolutely no difference whether that meanness and incivility could be a personal attack as well.

This appears to be where your brain misfires. You seem to think that if someone is being uncivil when they're questioning someone's motive or intent, and I object to that, then I must be saying that any questioning of motive or intent is uncivil. That's the fingers thumbs logic puzzle that you can't seem to grasp. Saying that YOU and Sean were being uncivil is not the same thing as a blanket declaration that questioning intent is uncivil. In this case, you guys were being total dicks, you were in the wrong, you were violating the rules, blatantly, and without apology - you even bragged about the abuse you dole out -- and you want to pretend that objecting to your miserable behavior and awful personality is the same as an allegation that all questioning of intent is uncivil? Surely you can puzzle out your misfire there?

Oh my God, you should be studied at psychology departments at university. You are an equivocator of unprecedented proportions. I've never come across anything like it in all my time on the internet. I really have to stop responding to this utter idiocy. I'm through with this gigantic derail of yours. It's clear that words have different meanings to you than they do to a person proficient in English.

[pErvinalia]

And, you of course, snip the post, conveniently editing out to dishonestly change the meaning:

Here is what I said -

Just take the first link you posted. It's me RESPONDING to Sean's tone policing. He's saying that the "OP is shitty" and therefore it's o.k. to be shitty to and personally attack Cunt. My opposition to that, and my pointing out that it's not Cunt but Sean and others - like you - who are not discussing the topic civilly (because they're discussing Cunt's alleged motive, not the topic itself, and personally attacking Cunt).

Only you could take my argument against your and Sean's derail into Cunt's intent, and personal attacks against Cunt, to be "tone policing."

If I were tone policing, I'd be saying that your discussion of the topic at hand was not done with the proper niceties and in the right tone of voice. I'm not doing that. I'm telling you to shut the fuck up for once - for once - about what you think someone's motive is and and just discuss or argue about the fucking topic. That's not tone policing - that's just asking you to stop personally attacking people, which is what you do on so many threads.

And, of course, the "motive" you asserted was to call Cunt a "bigot." That's you doing that. You're doing the policing. You're trying to shut down the thread. You're the one not addressing the topic at hand, preferring to call people bigots and otherwise whinge on about the evil motive and intent you imagine them to have.

Dude, surely even you can see this is either a red-herring or a tu quoque. Whether i'm a tone policer or not is absolutely unrelated to the question of whether you are one. This is basic logic.

[pErvinalia]

That's definitely it. I'm not responding to any more of this crap.

[Cunt]

Ironic given you've been asked multiple times by multiple people to explain why this stuff is important to you, and as of yet haven't produced a single coherent answer. It's quite laughable, really, watching a troll complain about being trolled, particularly when he won't coherently address his own thread.

Funny how others have found my answer, where you can't.

Even funnier how my motives somehow are important here. I'm guessing if I were to try to use this very plain fact to support any argument, the focus would shift immediately away from how FIRMLY the sexes are divided.

I think all that is left is for pErvinalia, the representative of everyone who wants to argue with me (though I haven't put forward an argument) to abandon the thread, declaring himself (and all his supporters) winner of the thread.

Of course, I still know how many examples you can all easily think of...

[pErvinalia]

Ironic given you've been asked multiple times by multiple people to explain why this stuff is important to you, and as of yet haven't produced a single coherent answer. It's quite laughable, really, watching a troll complain about being trolled, particularly when he won't coherently address his own thread.

Funny how others have found my answer, where you can't.

English is your 11th language, isn't it? I said "coherently address". I found your "answer". It's incoherent as I have clearly explained probably three times now. Three times that you haven't addressed my rebuttal. But keep trolling your little heart out. I'm sure it will work out well for you.

Of course, I still know how many examples you can all easily think of...

Yet again, why is this so important to you? You seem to relish rubbing this point in our faces. Why does this point bring you such satisfaction?