Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Mr.Samsa]

I say things in jest about others but if I am paying some one a compliment I mean it one hundred per cent. So when I pay you one I mean it just as much
as when I pay Cito one.

I get that, and that's the problem. Paying me a compliment and then paying Cito the same compliment means that your judgement is fucked.

The fact that you think Cito is mentally ill and so by implication your intellectual inferior

Hold up a second there. He's not my inferior because he's mentally ill. He's mentally ill and he's my inferior. Why would mental illness make someone inferior? You're going to have to explain your logic there as that's a pretty horrific assumption for you to make.

is a wonderful example of the inability
to judge character that you ironically accuse me of.

Except you present no evidence, support, or reasoning for this claim. Practically everyone agrees that Cito is a moron. The fact that you disagree doesn't magically make you right.

But as I do not have a problem with either of you then I can be objective in my assessments of both
of you. You however cannot be objective because of your ridiculous opinion of Cito

Two points here:

1) just because you think you're being "objective" doesn't mean you're right. Someone can be objective and still reach the wrong conclusion. I'd also urge you to question how "objective" you are but I've had this discussion with you before and I know you refuse to admit you aren't as unbiased as you'd like to believe.

2) your assumption that my opinion of Cito biases my view of him has things the wrong way around. I used to like Cito and got along well with him. When RDF shut down, I was the one that reached back through my private correspondence with him and dragged him to Rationalia, and then told him to join us at RatSkep. So if I had any bias towards him then it would necessarily be positive. So what's more likely - that my positive bias towards him leads to my skewed perspective that he's a moron, or him being a moron changed my view of him?

I am sad to see you once again using ablest slurs. Even more so as someone with more than a basic knowledge of social justice you ought to know better
As ableism is no more acceptable than racism or misogyny or homophobia.

Pointing out someone's mental illness is not "ableist". Using it as an insult or a judgement of their character would be, but that's not what I've done.

Before you got suspended over at Rat Skep you wrote in a post that Cito was
mentally ill and you rightly got called out on it.

Your completely objective memory seems to be failing you here. Find a post where I accused him of being mentally ill on RatSkep that I got warned for. I promise you won't find it because it doesn't exist.

I said that his writing was so incomprehensible that it reads like something a schizophrenic would write - i.e. disjointed, confused, and delusional. If I said that his writing was obsessive, would I similarly be accused of "ableism" and calling him mentally ill because obsessiveness is a symptom of OCD? Of course not.

Do you think it is acceptable to regularly engage in this type of ad hom or is it alright because it is only
Cito you are talking about ?

No ad hominem has taken place, I'm just insulting him. I'm pretty sure I've corrected you on this point multiple times but please, for the love of all things holy, stop using "ad hominem" as a synonym for insult. They aren't the same thing. And insults are okay for whoever.

If Cito is not mentally ill then that is an entirely false slur against his character and if he is then what right have you got to
mock him in such a way ?

He is undeniably mentally ill. It's not necessarily a bad thing but it does make his posts incomprehensible when he's off his meds.

He may be sarcastic but he does not engage in the type of ad hom which you do. You can do so much better than that Samsa
If Cito s arguments are wrong then all you have to do is point that out. No more no less

1) I haven't engaged in any ad hominem. I'm just insulting him.

2) any time he does present an argument (it's rare because he struggles so much stringing words together), I do demolish them. I also insult him in places where there are no rules against such insults because he's a moron.

It is a shame because you were responsible for formulating the FUA over at Rat Skep with regard to how members should behave toward each other. It
is a shame you could not hold yourself to the high standard you expect of others.

Why is it a shame? I held myself to the standards in the FUA, the standards the mods set for themselves, and the standards the mods asked of me. That's why they had to start inventing new rules and new interpretations of rules to warn me.

But I still think you are one of the more learned posters that we ever
hand in spite of your blatant ableism. And Cito is as learned as you as well. And so along with Cali and hack of course you four represent the very best

Don't worry, there's no ableism in my post, you should read up on the comment some more. And seriously, you're going to suggest Cito is learned? For fuck's sake.

If Cito is getting to you then why can not you put emotion to one side and just engage him logically. For I leave it behind when I am online. And so no
reason why you can not as well.

Most of the time I deal with him I do. Other times I find it fun to take the piss out of him.

And oh god, please stop it with the idea that you're "objective" and "unemotional".

Your background in psychology should I would have thought help you out here. Cito recently gave me a bollocking for
I was talking about some thing he was more knowledgeable on than I.

Holy shit, if Cito knew more than you then you must be a moron too...

And so instead of accusing him of being mentally ill I just accepted I was wrong
and he we was right.

Don't worry, I avoid accusing people of being mentally ill as arguments as well.

And so consciousness raising without any ad hom. If I can do it then so can you.

Again, I insult him here, no ad hominems. But obviously I can engage with him without insulting him - look at every single post of mine over at Ratskep where I talk to him. You won't find a single insult against him.

For there is simply no need for you to engage in
this type of behaviour. I am disappointed in you Samsa. I expect better of you. But ultimately it is you and you only who can decide how you conduct
yourself from now on. I am simply suggesting that it is entirely wrong so there is no need to do it

I'll be honest - if you hold Cito in high regard then your opinion of me is completely irrelevant.

I realise you may come back with some wonderfully sound logical reasons as to why it is entirely acceptable for you to engage in ableism against Cito
but I am not interested in arguing this ad nauseum. For I am actually impartial in all of this. I am merely telling you how it is. For it has zero bearing
for the high regard I hold you in. But it would be nice if you listened to what I am saying here as there is absolutely no justification for it whatsoever

Again, to be clear, no ableism has occurred. And again, as for you being "impartial", maybe you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. You are one of the most emotional, whiny, and clearly biased people I have ever met. The fact that you think otherwise is laughable.

The very fact that you think I've insulted Cito in my posts over at Ratskep instead of logically demolishing his points shows that you have a complete detachment to reality...

[surreptitious57]

There is no point in arguing about this any more for we are obviously not going to agree with each other. But I will correct you on one thing with regard to my own emotional frame of reference when posting. However my words come across either to you or to others I can state quite categorically that I post the overwhelming majority of the time in a neutral state of mind. Lack of body language can make it difficult to accurately interpret emotional state. For as you have demonstrated
here it is possible to get it completely wrong. So while I might come across as emotional and whiny to you that is not the frame of mind I am in when I am actually posting. Now it matters not whether you believe me or not as I am not trying to convince you of any thing as such. For all I am doing is just stating the fact as it is

On a more general level I find myself avoiding having fixed opinions on any thing and even the things on which I do have fixed opinions on matter only to me. I am
as detached from life as it is possible to be within reason which belies your notion of me being emotional and whiny. I have no time for anger at all. As far as I am concerned it is an entirely useless emotion. I am also only passing through which also belies the notion of me being emotional and whiny. Now I am only human so
there will be relapses. But over all I am satisfied with the lack of detachment I have when posting online. As I have made my peace with death so am ready to die
at any time as long as my passing is painless. All I am doing till then is just biding my time. Nothing really matters in the end. So that is where I am right now and
where I will continue to be for as long as I am alive. And so as I say whether you believe me or not is entirely up to you. In fact nothing I say is meant to convince
anyone of anything. I am just passing the time waiting for death. So do not take anything I say too seriously. I may mean what I say but I do not say it to convince
others since that is not something I can actually do. So I thought I would just correct you on that false assumption you made. But if you do not believe me then so
be it. Since when both of us are dead none of it will matter any way

[Mr.Samsa]

There is no point in arguing about this any more for we are obviously not going to agree with each other. But I will correct you on one thing with regard to my own emotional frame of reference when posting. However my words come across either to you or to others I can state quite categorically that I post the overwhelming majority of the time in a neutral state of mind. Lack of body language can make it difficult to accurately interpret emotional state. For as you have demonstrated
here it is possible to get it completely wrong. So while I might come across as emotional and whiny to you that is not the frame of mind I am in when I am actually posting. Now it matters not whether you believe me or not as I am not trying to convince you of any thing as such. For all I am doing is just stating the fact as it is

Oh I see. So when you judge other people as being emotional it's because you're objective and can correctly make such judgements, but when others make the same observations of you, they're obviously wrong because it's too difficult to determine emotional state through text.

That makes perfect objective unbiased sense.

On a more general level I find myself avoiding having fixed opinions on any thing and even the things on which I do have fixed opinions on matter only to me. I am
as detached from life as it is possible to be within reason which belies your notion of me being emotional and whiny. I have no time for anger at all. As far as I am concerned it is an entirely useless emotion. I am also only passing through which also belies the notion of me being emotional and whiny. Now I am only human so
there will be relapses. But over all I am satisfied with the lack of detachment I have when posting online. As I have made my peace with death so am ready to die
at any time as long as my passing is painless. All I am doing till then is just biding my time. Nothing really matters in the end. So that is where I am right now and
where I will continue to be for as long as I am alive. And so as I say whether you believe me or not is entirely up to you. In fact nothing I say is meant to convince
anyone of anything. I am just passing the time waiting for death. So do not take anything I say too seriously. I may mean what I say but I do not say it to convince
others since that is not something I can actually do. So I thought I would just correct you on that false assumption you made. But if you do not believe me then so
be it. Since when both of us are dead none of it will matter any way

Beep boop I am Rationaldroid 2.0 beep boop, emotions are for lesser beings beep boop.

Lots of words just to say you get emotional when people suggest you're emotional.

[DaveDodo007]

I don't think this Dave person knows anything about Mr.Samsa at all. Both Rachel and DD have lady boners for Samsa. And Samsa is the goto white knight for all things feministy , not to mention social justice thingies.

You still don't get it do you, it is the censorship I'm against. Supporting the free speech only of people who agree with you is not supporting free speech at all.

[Scott1328]

I don't think this Dave person knows anything about Mr.Samsa at all. Both Rachel and DD have lady boners for Samsa. And Samsa is the goto white knight for all things feministy , not to mention social justice thingies.

You still don't get it do you, it is the censorship I'm against. Supporting the free speech only of people who agree with you is not supporting free speech at all.

You don't get it. Not a single person at that forum has stopped you from spouting your bigoted bullshit. Your ideas are merely, freely and openly mocked just as they are here. You are just butt hurt that no one takes you seriously. That doesn't make the site a "left wing circle jerk", it just means that the commentariot knows bullshit when it posts. Case in point: Nicko appears to hold some views in common with you, but he argues his points extremely well. You should emulate his style.

If you are going to criticize RatSkep, do it for its actual faults: which center around inconsistent moderation, and lack of owner participation. Hell, you could even make a case that it suffers from parochialism.

FWIW: I agree that Samsa was suspended for trumped up reasons, and Mick should not have been banned. JamesT openly confessed to his transgression, and is in no way fighting the suspension.

Also, note that if you and Samsa got into it over the misogynist crap you spout, he would hand you your ass. And you would complain about manginas and circle jerks here on Rationalia as well.

[Seth]

It demonstrates that your ability to judge character and intelligence is absolutely fucked so any comment you make about me is meaningless

I say things in jest about others but if I am paying some one a compliment I mean it one hundred per cent. So when I pay you one I mean it just as much
as when I pay Cito one. The fact that you think Cito is mentally ill and so by implication your intellectual inferior is a wonderful example of the inability
to judge character that you ironically accuse me of. But as I do not have a problem with either of you then I can be objective in my assessments of both
of you. You however cannot be objective because of your ridiculous opinion of Cito

I am sad to see you once again using ablest slurs. Even more so as someone with more than a basic knowledge of social justice you ought to know better
As ableism is no more acceptable than racism or misogyny or homophobia. Before you got suspended over at Rat Skep you wrote in a post that Cito was
mentally ill and you rightly got called out on it. Do you think it is acceptable to regularly engage in this type of ad hom or is it alright because it is only
Cito you are talking about ? If Cito is not mentally ill then that is an entirely false slur against his character and if he is then what right have you got to
mock him in such a way ? He may be sarcastic but he does not engage in the type of ad hom which you do. You can do so much better than that Samsa
If Cito s arguments are wrong then all you have to do is point that out. No more no less

It is a shame because you were responsible for formulating the FUA over at Rat Skep with regard to how members should behave toward each other. It
is a shame you could not hold yourself to the high standard you expect of others. But I still think you are one of the more learned posters that we ever
hand in spite of your blatant ableism. And Cito is as learned as you as well. And so along with Cali and hack of course you four represent the very best

If Cito is getting to you then why can not you put emotion to one side and just engage him logically. For I leave it behind when I am online. And so no
reason why you can not as well. Your background in psychology should I would have thought help you out here. Cito recently gave me a bollocking for
I was talking about some thing he was more knowledgeable on than I. And so instead of accusing him of being mentally ill I just accepted I was wrong
and he we was right. And so consciousness raising without any ad hom. If I can do it then so can you. For there is simply no need for you to engage in
this type of behaviour. I am disappointed in you Samsa. I expect better of you. But ultimately it is you and you only who can decide how you conduct
yourself from now on. I am simply suggesting that it is entirely wrong so there is no need to do it

I realise you may come back with some wonderfully sound logical reasons as to why it is entirely acceptable for you to engage in ableism against Cito
but I am not interested in arguing this ad nauseum. For I am actually impartial in all of this. I am merely telling you how it is. For it has zero bearing
for the high regard I hold you in. But it would be nice if you listened to what I am saying here as there is absolutely no justification for it whatsoever

I find it exceeding ironic that you would say this.

[Seth]

Pointing out someone's mental illness is not "ableist". Using it as an insult or a judgement of their character would be, but that's not what I've done.
...

2) ... I also insult him in places where there are no rules against such insults because he's a moron.

That, however, is "abelist." Just saying...

[Mr.Samsa]

That, however, is "abelist." Just saying...

Technically true, but whilst it has historical connotations I'm not sure it's considered a current slur.

[DaveDodo007]

I don't think this Dave person knows anything about Mr.Samsa at all. Both Rachel and DD have lady boners for Samsa. And Samsa is the goto white knight for all things feministy , not to mention social justice thingies.

You still don't get it do you, it is the censorship I'm against. Supporting the free speech only of people who agree with you is not supporting free speech at all.

You don't get it. Not a single person at that forum has stopped you from spouting your bigoted bullshit.

That is quite a claim, the bigoted part of course, examples please.

Your ideas are merely, freely and openly mocked just as they are here. You are just butt hurt that no one takes you seriously. That doesn't make the site a "left wing circle jerk", it just means that the commentariot knows bullshit when it posts.

Lol, show were I'm wrong and then mocking me would be fine, saying am wrong by fiat just shows them to be atheists creationists. As for being butt hurt well if you think rustling the jimmies of the atheist creationists isn't fun then you should try it some time.

Case in point: Nicko appears to hold some views in common with you, but he argues his points extremely well. You should emulate his style.

Yeah I like Nicko and I do have some sympathy for the MRAs but it is a lost cause as nobody cares about men and boys and any issues they have, hence, why am MGTOW.

If you are going to criticize RatSkep, do it for its actual faults: which center around inconsistent moderation, and lack of owner participation. Hell, you could even make a case that it suffers from parochialism.

Ratskep is just part of the problem with atheism in general, most have just swapped religion for a (left wing) ideology. At ratskep I almost pissed myself laughing when Sandraks ran crying to the feedback part of the forum saying that nobody should be allowed to question feminism. How to prove my point.

[FWIW: I agree that Samsa was suspended for trumped up reasons, and Mick should not have been banned. JamesT openly confessed to his transgression, and is in no way fighting the suspension.

and Seth, Rainbow and so many others for not being part of the groupthink 1984 crap. Can't you see it is a systemic problem and nothing to do with individuals. Rationalia is full of the same bullshit though Pappa in his infinite wisdom knows that the market place of ideas is where the truth will flourish. I doubt even Pappa knows how rare he is (and this forum) in a world full of pseudoskeptics.

Also, note that if you and Samsa got into it over the misogynist crap you spout, he would hand you your ass. And you would complain about manginas and circle jerks here on Rationalia as well.

He is more than welcome to visit my thread showing most atheist feminists are no better than creationists, the proof being in the pudding and all that.

[DaveDodo007]

Personally, every one of my posts is a carefully constructed logical and rational Socratic argument intended to stimulate thought and debate in those with a wit-factor greater than 1.

That's a real shame, because without you actually saying this, one could operate under the illusion that you were a clever guy merely pretending to be a complete fucking moron.

Ah, well.

Oh do fuck off, you are full of it as you just swapped religion for an ideology. Look at me I pwned a couple of creationists, well whoopie doo. If you looked up moron in the dictionary there would be a picture of you. There is no evidence for god or gods and that fact as given you the ego that you don't deserve. You are still a gullible twat as only a feminist could be. Come at me bro.

[Scott1328]

I don't think this Dave person knows anything about Mr.Samsa at all. Both Rachel and DD have lady boners for Samsa. And Samsa is the goto white knight for all things feministy , not to mention social justice thingies.

You still don't get it do you, it is the censorship I'm against. Supporting the free speech only of people who agree with you is not supporting free speech at all.

You don't get it. Not a single person at that forum has stopped you from spouting your bigoted bullshit.

That is quite a claim, the bigoted part of course, examples please.

Your ideas are merely, freely and openly mocked just as they are here. You are just butt hurt that no one takes you seriously. That doesn't make the site a "left wing circle jerk", it just means that the commentariot knows bullshit when it posts.

Lol, show were I'm wrong and then mocking me would be fine, saying am wrong by fiat just shows them to be atheists creationists. As for being butt hurt well if you think rustling the jimmies of the atheist creationists isn't fun then you should try it some time.

Case in point: Nicko appears to hold some views in common with you, but he argues his points extremely well. You should emulate his style.

Yeah I like Nicko and I do have some sympathy for the MRAs but it is a lost cause as nobody cares about men and boys and any issues they have, hence, why am MGTOW.

If you are going to criticize RatSkep, do it for its actual faults: which center around inconsistent moderation, and lack of owner participation. Hell, you could even make a case that it suffers from parochialism.

Ratskep is just part of the problem with atheism in general, most have just swapped religion for a (left wing) ideology. At ratskep I almost pissed myself laughing when Sandraks ran crying to the feedback part of the forum saying that nobody should be allowed to question feminism. How to prove my point.

[FWIW: I agree that Samsa was suspended for trumped up reasons, and Mick should not have been banned. JamesT openly confessed to his transgression, and is in no way fighting the suspension.

and Seth, Rainbow and so many others for not being part of the groupthink 1984 crap. Can't you see it is a systemic problem and nothing to do with individuals. Rationalia is full of the same bullshit though Pappa in his infinite wisdom knows that the market place of ideas is where the truth will flourish. I doubt even Pappa knows how rare he is (and this forum) in a world full of pseudoskeptics.

Also, note that if you and Samsa got into it over the misogynist crap you spout, he would hand you your ass. And you would complain about manginas and circle jerks here on Rationalia as well.

He is more than welcome to visit my thread showing most atheist feminists are no better than creationists, the proof being in the pudding and all that.

Amazing a complete pack of self serving lies.

[DaveDodo007]

I don't think this Dave person knows anything about Mr.Samsa at all. Both Rachel and DD have lady boners for Samsa. And Samsa is the goto white knight for all things feministy , not to mention social justice thingies.

You still don't get it do you, it is the censorship I'm against. Supporting the free speech only of people who agree with you is not supporting free speech at all.

You don't get it. Not a single person at that forum has stopped you from spouting your bigoted bullshit.

That is quite a claim, the bigoted part of course, examples please.

Your ideas are merely, freely and openly mocked just as they are here. You are just butt hurt that no one takes you seriously. That doesn't make the site a "left wing circle jerk", it just means that the commentariot knows bullshit when it posts.

Lol, show were I'm wrong and then mocking me would be fine, saying am wrong by fiat just shows them to be atheists creationists. As for being butt hurt well if you think rustling the jimmies of the atheist creationists isn't fun then you should try it some time.

Case in point: Nicko appears to hold some views in common with you, but he argues his points extremely well. You should emulate his style.

Yeah I like Nicko and I do have some sympathy for the MRAs but it is a lost cause as nobody cares about men and boys and any issues they have, hence, why am MGTOW.

If you are going to criticize RatSkep, do it for its actual faults: which center around inconsistent moderation, and lack of owner participation. Hell, you could even make a case that it suffers from parochialism.

Ratskep is just part of the problem with atheism in general, most have just swapped religion for a (left wing) ideology. At ratskep I almost pissed myself laughing when Sandraks ran crying to the feedback part of the forum saying that nobody should be allowed to question feminism. How to prove my point.

[FWIW: I agree that Samsa was suspended for trumped up reasons, and Mick should not have been banned. JamesT openly confessed to his transgression, and is in no way fighting the suspension.

and Seth, Rainbow and so many others for not being part of the groupthink 1984 crap. Can't you see it is a systemic problem and nothing to do with individuals. Rationalia is full of the same bullshit though Pappa in his infinite wisdom knows that the market place of ideas is where the truth will flourish. I doubt even Pappa knows how rare he is (and this forum) in a world full of pseudoskeptics.

Also, note that if you and Samsa got into it over the misogynist crap you spout, he would hand you your ass. And you would complain about manginas and circle jerks here on Rationalia as well.

He is more than welcome to visit my thread showing most atheist feminists are no better than creationists, the proof being in the pudding and all that.

Amazing a complete pack of self serving lies.

What is more amazing is the complete lack of evidence showing that I am lying. Part of the course for atheist creationist though so I'm not surprised.

[pErvinalia]

I don't think this Dave person knows anything about Mr.Samsa at all. Both Rachel and DD have lady boners for Samsa. And Samsa is the goto white knight for all things feministy , not to mention social justice thingies.

You still don't get it do you, it is the censorship I'm against. Supporting the free speech only of people who agree with you is not supporting free speech at all.

You don't get it. Not a single person at that forum has stopped you from spouting your bigoted bullshit. Your ideas are merely, freely and openly mocked just as they are here. You are just butt hurt that no one takes you seriously. That doesn't make the site a "left wing circle jerk", it just means that the commentariot knows bullshit when it posts. Case in point: Nicko appears to hold some views in common with you, but he argues his points extremely well. You should emulate his style.

[pErvinalia]

Personally, every one of my posts is a carefully constructed logical and rational Socratic argument intended to stimulate thought and debate in those with a wit-factor greater than 1.

That's a real shame, because without you actually saying this, one could operate under the illusion that you were a clever guy merely pretending to be a complete fucking moron.

Ah, well.

Oh do fuck off, you are full of it as you just swapped religion for an ideology. Look at me I pwned a couple of creationists, well whoopie doo. If you looked up moron in the dictionary there would be a picture of you. There is no evidence for god or gods and that fact as given you the ego that you don't deserve. You are still a gullible twat as only a feminist could be. Come at me bro.

Dave's on the piss again!

[Seth]

Rationalia is full of the same bullshit though Pappa in his infinite wisdom knows that the market place of ideas is where the truth will flourish. I doubt even Pappa knows how rare he is (and this forum) in a world full of pseudoskeptics.

Now that is a very significant and important truth.

All hail Pappa!