Rationalskepiticism,lol.

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Locked
User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by DaveDodo007 » Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:56 pm

Not long ago a lot of people were having a laugh at atheism+ forums over someone stealing virtual hugs, now people are stealing my virtual butthurt and it is not fair. :lay:
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by Robert_S » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:06 pm

No, no, not those panties. Take those off and put on that other pair.
You know, the ones that don't bunch up so easily.
Yeah those. Put those on!
Doesn't that feel better? They sure do look a lot more sexy!

YEAHHH!!!! :naughty:
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:08 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:But then I remember that he's an asshole and I stop caring.
But... what are your specific complaints? I can't be the man of your dreams if you refuse to disclose your needs to me. I can see how much you're not caring.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:08 pm

Paula1 wrote:Oh my, new low reached.

Do ya feel the love? Do ya? Do ya?
What's not to like?
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

Beatsong
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:33 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by Beatsong » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:24 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
Beatsong wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:It's a phenomenon of power. Even when that power is as pathetic as lording it over anonymous internet users. The fact that reasonable people turn into officious douchebags when give a bit of power is not in the least surprising. What's most annoying about the whole phenomenon is the wannabe sycophants who slobber all over their dear leaders and will countenance no accusations of wrong doing against their lords.
Do people do that? Who?
You're kidding, aren't you?? FFS. I don't have a sock at the moment with which I can review the feedback section, but if you review any of my threads you'll see a number of them. One obvious one, who is one of the most obvious trolls on that site, is Redwhine. MoS is another one. Scot Dutchy too.

You can't honestly tell me you haven't seen the line up of suckholes just twitching at their keyboards waiting to produce one of the most inane defences of moderators that gets used all over the web - that is, "They don't get paid for this, they volunteer their time"?!?
I only see people who complain (like you), and people who either don't give a fuck or just like to take the piss out of the people who complain (like me :hehe: )
Well, you're not very good at it.

I wouldn't call you a sycophant, although, you've displayed a lack of critical thinking in this regard before.
I think there must just be a pretty fundamental difference in how we go about the whole thing.

I'm honestly surprised to see the way you and some others dissect and analyse the ongoing posting styles and histories of so many other members. I don't really pay attention enough to get wrapped up in all that. I post on the threads I post on, and reply to the posts that are there. In MOST cases (with a few notable exceptions) I don't even notice or think too much about who the replies are by and what the backstory is. Notable exceptions being someone like SD just because we happen to inhabit a lot of the same (political) threads, he posts such a truly astounding amount of bollox that is so easy to rip the piss out of, and he has such a persecution complex that makes it impossible not to be aware of his ongoing presence.

But you haven't even posted there in what? Six months, a year? And it's still like these people are all characters in a novel you spend your every waking hour obsessing about.

I also probably don't show what you call "critical thinking" about the painfully dissected minutiae of every mod decision for the very simple reason that I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. I just accept that it's an imperfect situation, and somehow manage not to find it difficult to stay within the FUA. I couldn't give a toss if other people are or aren't, under what conditions they could be defined as doing so or not doing so blah blah blah. If they really want to stay within the FUA, it's just not that difficult - as long you don't have an ego problem the size of Everest riding on every fucking interpretation of it.

And as far as my not being very good at taking the piss is concerned, you may well be right about that. So it's just as well you make it so easy. :lol:

Beatsong
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:33 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by Beatsong » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:30 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Beatsong wrote:Incidentally Mr Samsa - I was going to let this go once, twice, three times or however many it was. But since your butthurt is clearly so strong that you're not going to let go of the whole thing until it's forcibly extracted from your sphincter:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
Paula1 wrote:Can you provide an example of me jerking someone off please? I'd like to see what that looks like.
The thread mentioned above is a good example of it! You popped into the thread to defend Beatsong's assertion that The Guardian is a feminist publication
I never made that assertion.
and that I was being dishonest by not accepting that all journalists who write for it are feminists.
Nor that one.

You're lying.
Oh don't try to back down now, Beatsong! I gave you every opportunity to back out of that ridiculous claim and you kept hammering it home, over and over and over again.
Oh well in that case it should be easy. It shouldn't take you long at all to find one of the MANY places in that thread where I described the Guardian as "a feminist publication", and link to it for us.

Unless you're just lying of course. Which you are.

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by Audley Strange » Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:19 pm

:funny:

That's it, fight and bicker!!!

:pop: This is like an ape-lust thread without the parroting of clumsy gender based insults, so far anyway.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74149
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by JimC » Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:21 pm

Bite and lick 'er!
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60724
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:45 pm

Spoiler that shit! :lay:
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
Mr.Samsa
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:06 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by Mr.Samsa » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:44 am

Surendra Darathy wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:But then I remember that he's an asshole and I stop caring.
But... what are your specific complaints? I can't be the man of your dreams if you refuse to disclose your needs to me. I can see how much you're not caring.
My hopes are that you post coherent comments and try to stay on-topic. I'm a simple girl with simple needs.
Beatsong wrote: Oh well in that case it should be easy. It shouldn't take you long at all to find one of the MANY places in that thread where I described the Guardian as "a feminist publication", and link to it for us.

Unless you're just lying of course. Which you are.
Oh my, I certainly don't want to be viewed as a liar. So let's review the discussion: you made a claim about what might be considered a mainstream feminist argument and I said that I hadn't actually heard any feminists claim it, and asked if you had any mainstream feminist sources making that argument. You link to the Guardian - so here, at least implicitly, you are citing The Guardian as a mainstream feminist source. I then ask you to clarify your position and you say: "and it could be reasonably be argued that the Guardian itself is as representative a voice as any of mainstream British feminism (whatever that is).".

If you now agree that presenting The Guardian as a source of feminism itself was a mistake on your part then I'll happily accept that.
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.

Beatsong
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:33 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by Beatsong » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:59 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:"and it could be reasonably be argued that the Guardian itself is as representative a voice as any of mainstream British feminism (whatever that is)."
Which is a million miles from calling it "a feminist publication".

Unfortunately of course, the nuanced and fairly uncontroversial statement that it did make is not sufficient to resolve your butthurt over the thread. So you need to lie instead.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13758
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by rainbow » Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:00 pm

Audley Strange wrote::funny:

That's it, fight and bicker!!!

:pop: This is like an ape-lust thread without the parroting of clumsy gender based insults, so far anyway.
You argue like a girl.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Strontium Dog
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:28 am
About me: Navy Seals are not seals
Location: Liverpool, UK
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by Strontium Dog » Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:04 pm

Beatsong wrote:Notable exceptions being someone like SD just because we happen to inhabit a lot of the same (political) threads, he posts such a truly astounding amount of bollox that is so easy to rip the piss out of, and he has such a persecution complex that makes it impossible not to be aware of his ongoing presence.
Oh really, perhaps then you can relate the occasions that any other members have been:

- warned for "incitement to break the FUA"
- warned and given a month off for posting "off-topic"
- "accidentally" given a week-long ban despite only having two active warnings rather than the requisite three
- trolled by a sockpuppet, the creator of which is only given an advisory
- given a warning for using a phrase that has been used on dozens of occasions, including several against them, without sanction

If so, then you can accuse me of a "persecution complex". If not, then you can at least conclude I've been "unlucky", while observing that "luck" doesn't enter the equation where forum moderation is concerned.
100% verifiable facts or your money back. Anti-fascist. Enemy of woo - theistic or otherwise. Cloth is not an antiviral. Imagination and fantasy is no substitute for tangible reality. Wishing doesn't make it real.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater

User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:06 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by Mr.Samsa » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:00 pm

Beatsong wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:"and it could be reasonably be argued that the Guardian itself is as representative a voice as any of mainstream British feminism (whatever that is)."
Which is a million miles from calling it "a feminist publication".

Unfortunately of course, the nuanced and fairly uncontroversial statement that it did make is not sufficient to resolve your butthurt over the thread. So you need to lie instead.
Ah sure sure, synonyms don't mean the same thing, just throw some insults around to try to distract from the fact that you fucked up. :funny:
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.

Beatsong
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:33 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepiticism,lol.

Post by Beatsong » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:20 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:Ah sure sure, synonyms don't mean the same thing,
It's not even a synonym. You just lied, that's all.

Of course if you wanted to avoid all this, you could have just related what I actually said rather than lie about it. But I think we both know why that wouldn't cut it for you.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests