Problematic Stuff

Locked
User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:39 pm

Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:Jordan Peterson isn't a lawyer, and his po-faced denunciation of the the Canadian law is based on a misunderstanding of what it actually does.
It's not, actually, since we saw the way administrators believe the law applies in the Lindsey Shepard case, wherein the diversity officer - trained specifically in that area - declared that she had violated the very law that Jordan Peterson was chirping about.
Lindsay Shepherd was not prosecuted under the Canadian law in question. You assert that the 'diversity officer' accused Shepherd of violating that law. You didn't provide a source for that assertion and I was unable to find any confirmation. I did find a quote from one of her professors apparently claiming that making arguments such as Peterson's 'run counter' to the law. Again, this is simply ignorance on the part of the professor, who despite not being a lawyer took it upon himself to interpret the law. Assuming you can support your claim that the 'diversity officer' accused Shepherd of violating the law, that doesn't mean that the diversity officer's accusation is valid.

This was an internal university matter, and in fact the university president and vice chancellor apologized to Shepherd and acknowledged that the university had mishandled the situation. The professor mentioned above made a public apology as well.
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
"People are free to debate or speak out against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups, but not in a manner which is objectively seen to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects," the top court ruled.
I'd love to read that opinion. Because that statement is clear as mud. If you think you know what speech "against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups" is expressed "in a manner not objectively seen [by whom?] to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects" then you're fooling yourself. That's one of the big problems in Canadian law in this area. It's really impossible to know where the line is.
The sentence immediately before the one you quoted appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the court's ruling, the relevant phrase being 'actively encouraging hatred.' Personally I believe that a person should not be prosecuted for expressing or encouraging hatred but unlike you, I don't think it's impossible to know when somebody is doing so.
Forty Two wrote:Sure, but when you have diversity officers at major Canadian universities applying the law as if presenting a discussion of pronoun use and such in a neutral manner was transphobia and hate speech, then they are categorizing exactly what Lindsey Shepard did, for example, as active encouragement of hatred. Without her audio recording, it is not inconceivable that she ultimately would have been drummed out of Laurier for exactly the reasons Jordan Peterson warned.
'Diversity officers' at universities don't 'apply the law.' At most they could refer the case to the proper authorities, and all indications are that if that had happened the authorities would have refused to prosecute, because the referral would have been based on a misunderstanding of the law.
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:What's more, Ontario—where Peterson works—already has human rights protections for transgender people in the provincial human rights code, thanks to a bill, virtually identical to C-16, that was passed by the Ontario legislature in 2012.
Peterson has addressed that many times. That's his main issue - not the text of C-16, but the interpreting guidance from the Ontario human rights commission.
The point is that Peterson has never been prosecuted under the Ontario code, and as far as I know has never even been accused by authorities of breaking that law despite all his grandstanding.
Forty Two wrote:Sure, and things like what lindsey shepard did - playing a 4 minute clip of a conversation about pronoun usage - is then characterized by administrators as transphobic and hate speech.
They can make whatever characterizations they like; that doesn't mean that their interpretation of the law is correct. Nor do they need the support of the law to carry out ridiculous internal hearings.
Forty Two wrote:No, but it is, according to trans activists, and in given examples that actually occurred, in the minds of administrators and professors, examples of "hatred."
Legal ramifications of the Canadian law can be clarified by the courts. That is an entirely separate issue from internal guidelines and their interpretation at universities. If the universities overstep their authority that can also be addressed legally.

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Seabass » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:44 am

Slightly problematic, but obviously not as problematic as some tranny wanting you to use the wrong pronoun.

The U.S. separates a mother and daughter fleeing violence in Congo
A YEAR ago, then-Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly said publicly that his department might separate children from parents caught crossing the border, including those fleeing violence and seeking asylum, as a punitive means of deterring others who might follow. Officials floated the idea again in December, having presented it to Mr. Kelly’s successor, Kirstjen Nielsen. Future families should be aware that “there are consequences to illegal entry,” one official told The Post.

Now, as immigration advocates document such cases occurring nationwide — some said to involve weeping children wrenched from their mothers’ and fathers’ arms — DHS officials profess outrage at suggestions that they would do such a thing “for reasons other than to protect the child.” Claims that the department would be so heartless should be regarded “with the level of skepticism they deserve,” said Tyler Houlton, a spokesman.

So the department stands accused of doing precisely what it said it might do, but assertions that it is actually doing so should be viewed skeptically?

Homeland Security has deployed that tortured logic recently in defending its treatment of a 39-year-old mother and her 7-year-old daughter, asylum seekers who fled Congo, fearing violence. The two presented themselves in November to officials at the border in Southern California, cleared an initial screening interview in which a U.S. official determined that they stood a decent chance of being granted asylum — and, within days, were forcibly separated by immigration agents. The mother, known in court papers as Ms. L., was taken to a detention facility near San Diego; the little girl, known as S.S., who screamed when separated from her parent, was taken to a facility in Chicago.

After the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit last month to reunite the two, DHS officials declined to comment on their case, citing privacy concerns, and insisted that the department does not “currently have a policy of separating women and children.” However, Mr. Houlton said in a statement, the department might sometimes do so, “particularly to protect a child from potential smuggling and trafficking activities.”

Having thereby hinted at Ms. L.’s culpability without actually alleging it — or even, f or four months, testing her DNA or blood to settle any doubts about parentage — the government then released her Tuesday. In court filings, it made no effort to explain the basis on which it doubted that Ms. L. is the girl’s mother. Thus has DHS associated itself with insinuations of guilt without evidence, along with arbitrary detention and release, and professed concern for the welfare of children, while keeping a 7-year-old among strangers. Now the ACLU has broadened its lawsuit to include what it says are hundreds of other cases involving children taken from their asylum-seeking parents.

And what of the little girl, Ms. L.’s daughter? She remains at the facility in Chicago, from which she has been allowed just a handful of telephone conversations with her mother in four months. Ms. L., according to her lawyers, intends to pursue her asylum claim but remains desperate to be reunited with her daughter. Will Ms. Nielsen and her Homeland Security agents continue to traumatize an innocent child, or will they permit the girl to be where she belongs: with her mother?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17882
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:58 am

They're coming to take away our toxicity!

Perspective is an API that makes it easier to host better conversations. The API uses machine learning models to score the perceived impact a comment might have on a conversation.
Introducing Perspective

Perspective is an API that makes it easier to host better conversations. The API uses machine learning models to score the perceived impact a comment might have on a conversation. Developers and publishers can use this score to give realtime feedback to commenters or help moderators do their job, or allow readers to more easily find relevant information, as illustrated in two experiments below. We’ll be releasing more machine learning models later in the year, but our first model identifies whether a comment could be perceived as “toxic" to a discussion.
I can't wait to get my Curse Bot. It'll automatically debit my account when I'm naughty within earshot.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:08 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:Jordan Peterson isn't a lawyer, and his po-faced denunciation of the the Canadian law is based on a misunderstanding of what it actually does.
It's not, actually, since we saw the way administrators believe the law applies in the Lindsey Shepard case, wherein the diversity officer - trained specifically in that area - declared that she had violated the very law that Jordan Peterson was chirping about.
Lindsay Shepherd was not prosecuted under the Canadian law in question. You assert that the 'diversity officer' accused Shepherd of violating that law. You didn't provide a source for that assertion and I was unable to find any confirmation.
From her own mouth on the audiotape of the meeting where they were grilling Lindsey Shepard.
L'Emmerdeur wrote: I did find a quote from one of her professors apparently claiming that making arguments such as Peterson's 'run counter' to the law. Again, this is simply ignorance on the part of the professor, who despite not being a lawyer took it upon himself to interpret the law. Assuming you can support your claim that the 'diversity officer' accused Shepherd of violating the law, that doesn't mean that the diversity officer's accusation is valid.
Not just the professor - the diversity officer, trained in the area. Whose job it is to enforce administration policy in accordance with the law.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
This was an internal university matter, and in fact the university president and vice chancellor apologized to Shepherd and acknowledged that the university had mishandled the situation. The professor mentioned above made a public apology as well.
Carefully worded. Weak apology. No apology would be forthcoming without the damning audiotape.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
"People are free to debate or speak out against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups, but not in a manner which is objectively seen to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects," the top court ruled.
I'd love to read that opinion. Because that statement is clear as mud. If you think you know what speech "against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups" is expressed "in a manner not objectively seen [by whom?] to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects" then you're fooling yourself. That's one of the big problems in Canadian law in this area. It's really impossible to know where the line is.
The sentence immediately before the one you quoted appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the court's ruling, the relevant phrase being 'actively encouraging hatred.' Personally I believe that a person should not be prosecuted for expressing or encouraging hatred but unlike you, I don't think it's impossible to know when somebody is doing so.
It's possible to know, but the concept is purely subjective. So, it's not possible to make an objective or even reasonably objective line. What is "hatred?" Is it hatred to suggest that one race has lower average intelligence than another? Many people say yes. Many say no. Does that "actively encourage hatred?" In the minds of the yes-camp it does, because it's only use is to make one race declared inferior or stupid, and that encourages hatred from the "superior" race.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Sure, but when you have diversity officers at major Canadian universities applying the law as if presenting a discussion of pronoun use and such in a neutral manner was transphobia and hate speech, then they are categorizing exactly what Lindsey Shepard did, for example, as active encouragement of hatred. Without her audio recording, it is not inconceivable that she ultimately would have been drummed out of Laurier for exactly the reasons Jordan Peterson warned.
'Diversity officers' at universities don't 'apply the law.' At most they could refer the case to the proper authorities, and all indications are that if that had happened the authorities would have refused to prosecute, because the referral would have been based on a misunderstanding of the law.
Of course they do. Listen to the audio re Lindsey Shepard. That's exactly what the diversity officer in that meeting is doing.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:What's more, Ontario—where Peterson works—already has human rights protections for transgender people in the provincial human rights code, thanks to a bill, virtually identical to C-16, that was passed by the Ontario legislature in 2012.
Peterson has addressed that many times. That's his main issue - not the text of C-16, but the interpreting guidance from the Ontario human rights commission.
The point is that Peterson has never been prosecuted under the Ontario code, and as far as I know has never even been accused by authorities of breaking that law despite all his grandstanding.
By the police? no. But by his university, yes. He has a letter which he has read.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Sure, and things like what lindsey shepard did - playing a 4 minute clip of a conversation about pronoun usage - is then characterized by administrators as transphobic and hate speech.
They can make whatever characterizations they like; that doesn't mean that their interpretation of the law is correct. Nor do they need the support of the law to carry out ridiculous internal hearings.
It doesn't mean it's wrong either. But the fact that a major university, Laurier, has a diversity officer who was flat out convinced that it was a violation of the law and that it was transphobia and hate speech, is certainly a point in favor of Peterson's position on this. That's how it's being applied in actual fact, on the ground.

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Forty Two wrote:No, but it is, according to trans activists, and in given examples that actually occurred, in the minds of administrators and professors, examples of "hatred."
Legal ramifications of the Canadian law can be clarified by the courts. That is an entirely separate issue from internal guidelines and their interpretation at universities. If the universities overstep their authority that can also be addressed legally.
Their overstepping of authority it may well be. I think Peterson thinks it is an overstep of authority. However, the fact that universities -- professionals hired for the purpose of knowing the rules -- can think that Peterson's interpretation is correct, and apply it exactly that way, goes a long way to show that Peterson is not just tilting at windmills.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:33 pm

Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:Jordan Peterson isn't a lawyer, and his po-faced denunciation of the the Canadian law is based on a misunderstanding of what it actually does.
It's not, actually, since we saw the way administrators believe the law applies in the Lindsey Shepard case, wherein the diversity officer - trained specifically in that area - declared that she had violated the very law that Jordan Peterson was chirping about.
Lindsay Shepherd was not prosecuted under the Canadian law in question. You assert that the 'diversity officer' accused Shepherd of violating that law. You didn't provide a source for that assertion and I was unable to find any confirmation.
From her own mouth on the audiotape of the meeting where they were grilling Lindsey Shepard.
Fine, cite the timestamp in the audio in which this accusation was made. You made the claim; it's your burden of proof. Pointing to a recording without providing a specific point in the recording is like pointing to a book without citing the page number.
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:I did find a quote from one of her professors apparently claiming that making arguments such as Peterson's 'run counter' to the law. Again, this is simply ignorance on the part of the professor, who despite not being a lawyer took it upon himself to interpret the law. Assuming you can support your claim that the 'diversity officer' accused Shepherd of violating the law, that doesn't mean that the diversity officer's accusation is valid.
Not just the professor - the diversity officer, trained in the area. Whose job it is to enforce administration policy in accordance with the law.
You haven't provided any credible source that supports the idea that the accusation was justified by the law, while I've already cited a professor of law who directly refutes Peterson's claim as to the law's significance. By extension, the person charged with enforcing administration policy (Adria Joel, at the time of the hearing 'acting manager of gendered-violence prevention and support') was using a faulty understanding of the law as well, if she actually accused Shepherd of an illegal action. I did some further research in lieu of wading through the entire recording:
Adria Joel had suggested in the meeting that Shepherd had violated university policy and possibly Ontario law by showing Peterson's argument and therefore "bringing (trans students') identity as invalid, or their pronouns as … potentially invalid."
Apparently Joel claimed that it was possible that Shepherd had violated the law, which isn't the same as asserting that a violation had actually occurred. Until you cite in a reasonable manner your evidence that she made an explicit accusation of illegal activity against Shepherd, I remain unconvinced that such an accusation occurred. In any event, as far as I was able to discover, Joel isn't a lawyer and she certainly has no authority to enforce the law. She would have the authority to enforce university policy, but not bring a prosecution against Shepherd. Nor does her position as 'acting manager of gendered-violence prevention and support' give her any credibility in regards to correctly interpreting the law.
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Forty Two wrote:I'd love to read that opinion. Because that statement is clear as mud. If you think you know what speech "against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups" is expressed "in a manner not objectively seen [by whom?] to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects" then you're fooling yourself. That's one of the big problems in Canadian law in this area. It's really impossible to know where the line is.
The sentence immediately before the one you quoted appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the court's ruling, the relevant phrase being 'actively encouraging hatred.' Personally I believe that a person should not be prosecuted for expressing or encouraging hatred but unlike you, I don't think it's impossible to know when somebody is doing so.
It's possible to know, but the concept is purely subjective. So, it's not possible to make an objective or even reasonably objective line. What is "hatred?" Is it hatred to suggest that one race has lower average intelligence than another? Many people say yes. Many say no. Does that "actively encourage hatred?" In the minds of the yes-camp it does, because it's only use is to make one race declared inferior or stupid, and that encourages hatred from the "superior" race.
There are instances when it's possible to objectively determine whether hatred is being expressed or encouraged. Screaming epithets is objectively expressing hatred. Advocating the extermination of an ethnic minority is objectively expressing hatred. Making a speech decrying the supposed vile characteristics of a target demographic of whatever nature and stating that 'something should be done' about them is objectively encouraging hatred.
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Sure, but when you have diversity officers at major Canadian universities applying the law as if presenting a discussion of pronoun use and such in a neutral manner was transphobia and hate speech, then they are categorizing exactly what Lindsey Shepard did, for example, as active encouragement of hatred. Without her audio recording, it is not inconceivable that she ultimately would have been drummed out of Laurier for exactly the reasons Jordan Peterson warned.
'Diversity officers' at universities don't 'apply the law.' At most they could refer the case to the proper authorities, and all indications are that if that had happened the authorities would have refused to prosecute, because the referral would have been based on a misunderstanding of the law.
Of course they do. Listen to the audio re Lindsey Shepard. That's exactly what the diversity officer in that meeting is doing.
Joel cannot apply the law--she doesn't have that authority. She can cite the law (however incorrectly) but beyond that she can only refer to an actual law enforcement agency. Her authority is limited to applying university policy.
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:The point is that Peterson has never been prosecuted under the Ontario code, and as far as I know has never even been accused by authorities of breaking that law despite all his grandstanding.
By the police? no. But by his university, yes. He has a letter which he has read.
A university can make whatever statements it likes but it cannot prosecute. If it doesn't bring accusations against Peterson to the proper authorities then he's not in danger of being prosecuted.
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Sure, and things like what lindsey shepard did - playing a 4 minute clip of a conversation about pronoun usage - is then characterized by administrators as transphobic and hate speech.
They can make whatever characterizations they like; that doesn't mean that their interpretation of the law is correct. Nor do they need the support of the law to carry out ridiculous internal hearings.
It doesn't mean it's wrong either. But the fact that a major university, Laurier, has a diversity officer who was flat out convinced that it was a violation of the law and that it was transphobia and hate speech, is certainly a point in favor of Peterson's position on this. That's how it's being applied in actual fact, on the ground.
What do you mean by 'applied'? In my view suggesting a possible violation (or even an outright accusation of illegal action in the context of an internal university hearing) is not an application of the law. Unless the authorities are notified and a prosecution initiated it's nothing but an empty threat.

I find it hard to believe that you actually think that an 'acting manager of gendered-violence prevention and support' should be relied upon as an authority regarding legal matters, but it seems that is exactly what you're claiming here.
Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:Legal ramifications of the Canadian law can be clarified by the courts. That is an entirely separate issue from internal guidelines and their interpretation at universities. If the universities overstep their authority that can also be addressed legally.
Their overstepping of authority it may well be. I think Peterson thinks it is an overstep of authority. However, the fact that universities -- professionals hired for the purpose of knowing the rules -- can think that Peterson's interpretation is correct, and apply it exactly that way, goes a long way to show that Peterson is not just tilting at windmills.
Until a case is brought against somebody on the basis of Peterson's or anybody else's interpretation of the law that results in a conviction, I will rely on the interpretation of a person whose legal qualifications are unquestionable over Peterson or anybody else.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:33 pm

I don't know why you bother, L'Emmy. This is just a rehash of the same argument we had with him last time. And presumably he'll bring it up again in the future as if no one took his argument to pieces on the previous occasions.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:59 am

I think that there is cogency in some of what Peterson says. His demeanor can be off-putting but I don't think he's a dirt-bag like Richard Spencer, for instance. I watched his interview with the British TV journalist Cathy Newman, which was rather entertaining in that I think she did very little damage to his position and didn't do herself much credit.

If I were in Peterson's situation, I'd take the stance that I would use the singular 'they' personal pronoun willingly given that it's an established part of the English language with centuries of usage, but would not adopt nonce personal pronouns like 'xe,' 'zir,' 'ze,' etc. If somebody in my class isn't a 'she' nor a 'he,' they are a 'they,' now let's carry on with the teaching and learning.

In my view nobody has proposed a respectable alternative to the singular 'they' and I think it will continue to provide a useful neutral response to a divisive topic. Peterson's doctrinaire refusal to acknowledge in his use of language that some people simply do not fit the binary personal pronouns is ridiculous.
pErvinalia wrote:I don't know why you bother, L'Emmy. This is just a rehash of the same argument we had with him last time. And presumably he'll bring it up again in the future as if no one took his argument to pieces on the previous occasions.
I rarely agree with Forty Two but he does make valid points on occasion. I enjoy nearly all of the discussions I have with him.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:11 am

I note that I used an imprecise term in the final paragraph of my post above. If an action is brought against somebody for violating the Canadian Human Rights Code they wouldn't be 'convicted' in the sense of a criminal conviction. The only way that a criminal conviction would occur for use of language alone in this context is if somebody was found to have been advocating genocide and/or publicly inciting hatred, under the pre-existing Section 318 of Canada's Criminal Code.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:24 am

pErvinalia wrote:I don't know why you bother, L'Emmy. This is just a rehash of the same argument we had with him last time. And presumably he'll bring it up again in the future as if no one took his argument to pieces on the previous occasions.
I rarely agree with Forty Two but he does make valid points on occasion. I enjoy nearly all of the discussions I have with him.
You might think differently when it becomes like groundhog day... ;)
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:01 am

pErvinalia wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:I don't know why you bother, L'Emmy. This is just a rehash of the same argument we had with him last time. And presumably he'll bring it up again in the future as if no one took his argument to pieces on the previous occasions.
I rarely agree with Forty Two but he does make valid points on occasion. I enjoy nearly all of the discussions I have with him.
You might think differently when it becomes like groundhog day... ;)
That's already happened with a couple of issues. At a certain point I just dismiss the baloney as not worthy of a response unless it's directly addressed to me.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by rainbow » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:46 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote: I rarely agree with Forty Two but he does make valid points on occasion. I enjoy nearly all of the discussions I have with him.
Me too. I just wish he would grow a pair.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:04 pm

pErvinalia wrote:I don't know why you bother, L'Emmy. This is just a rehash of the same argument we had with him last time. And presumably he'll bring it up again in the future as if no one took his argument to pieces on the previous occasions.
No one did take the argument to pieces. People offered counter-arguments. However, that's not the same thing at all as taking an argument to pieces. This is where your juvenile nature comes through constantly. You think that because someone opposes an argument that they've refuted it (as long as you agree with what you think is a refutation - if you don't, then you ignore it completely). You show yourselve to not participate in discussions - you are a drive by poster. You post something, usually with built in vagueness, without any logical or evidentiary support, and then you invite the opposition to refute you. You refuse to answer clarification questions, and then you divert the thread into a series of personal attacks and insults.

I don't mind that L'emmerdeur and I disagree, or even that L'Emmerdeur thinks some of what I say is worthless. That's fine. I don't find everything L'Emmerdeur says to be persuasive, or some is nonsense. That's all well and good. But we do manage to be respectful and have some decent exchanges. That's about all one can hope for. At least it's not like talking to you, which is like talking to a middle schooler.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:08 pm

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:I don't know why you bother, L'Emmy. This is just a rehash of the same argument we had with him last time. And presumably he'll bring it up again in the future as if no one took his argument to pieces on the previous occasions.
No one did take the argument to pieces.
FortyTwo - never wrong.
I don't mind that L'emmerdeur and I disagree, or even that L'Emmerdeur thinks some of what I say is worthless. That's fine. I don't find everything L'Emmerdeur says to be persuasive, or some is nonsense. That's all well and good. But we do manage to be respectful and have some decent exchanges. That's about all one can hope for. At least it's not like talking to you, which is like talking to a middle schooler.
Stop being disingenuous and deceitful and you'll get treated with more respect. It's a pretty simple equation that even you should be able to get.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:14 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:I don't know why you bother, L'Emmy. This is just a rehash of the same argument we had with him last time. And presumably he'll bring it up again in the future as if no one took his argument to pieces on the previous occasions.
No one did take the argument to pieces.
FortyTwo - never wrong.
Who said that?
pErvinalia wrote:
I don't mind that L'emmerdeur and I disagree, or even that L'Emmerdeur thinks some of what I say is worthless. That's fine. I don't find everything L'Emmerdeur says to be persuasive, or some is nonsense. That's all well and good. But we do manage to be respectful and have some decent exchanges. That's about all one can hope for. At least it's not like talking to you, which is like talking to a middle schooler.
Stop being disingenuous and deceitful and you'll get treated with more respect. It's a pretty simple equation that even you should be able to get.
I would suggest that to you. You're about as dishonest as they come. You're a troll. You don't answer people's questions honestly, fairly, or clearly, and your typical tactic is to evade and divert discussion away from the topic at hand to personal insults and other such issues. You have an overinflated sense of your own intelligence, which is plainly limited (at best). You're a game-player, and you have no interest in honest discussion. When you remedy that, then people will do something other than humor your because they know you're mentally ill.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:16 am

:fp:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests