Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[pErvinalia]

He is also one of the best debaters on the net and
if you want to up your game you can do no better than learn from him

As the years go by, your statements just get more and more bizarre. I think you are detatched from reality. You've multiple times asserted that I was banned from ratskep for trolling, despite me repeatedly correcting you. I think you even consider Cito one of the most intelligent people on the web, despite Samsa and I (and others) utterly embarrassing him with his total lack of understanding of what science actually is. Man, I don't know what's going on in your head, but you are a great example of the lack of self reflection regarding intelligence and/or rationality of posters over there, even though you regularly get your arguments torn to shreds both over there and here.

[surreptitious57]

Now as I said I am not as interested in arguments nowadays as I am in simply hearing opinions different to mine so it is less about being right and
more about simply engaging with others. The days of me professing absolute truth are long gone as it has no interest for me anymore. And so the
regularity of argument shredding may become more infrequent if not completely non existent over time. Since if I am wrong now and this can be
demonstrated I simply accept it and move on. Every one that I debate is more educated than me including yourself and so if I single someone out
try not to take it too much to heart if a name mentioned happens not to be yours. But if you wish to think yourself wiser than both Seth and Cito
no one is stopping you least of all myself. I also continue to be amused at the angst that you as a self confessed serial sock experience when ever
trolling is mentioned although I shall plead guilty to the specific charge [ though I think I already have so have no need to do so again ] to relieve
all that pressure building up inside your head. You know I quite like this self reflection thing that you mentioned so I think I shall carry on with it

[pErvinalia]

There's no more angst going on than is the usual level justifiably levelled at people who can't form rigorous arguments. If you think that Seth is one of the best debators on the net, then you really are off your head. He thinks the IMF and George Bush are Marxists! Almost without fail every single one of his posts is full of logical fallacies. I'd suggest you are confusing quantity of words with quality of argument. No doubt he pumps out plenty of information. But most of it is red herrings, or idiotic rants against imaginary Marxists.

[surreptitious57]

No one has a monopoly on wisdom so I am not expecting perfection but both Seth and Cito are none
the less powerful intellects even if one is libertarian and the other is virtually understood by no one
But if you still think that you are better than either of them then fair enough as it is just an opinion
Who do you think are the gurus of rationality then [ you may nominate anyone other than yourself ]

[pErvinalia]

Well clearly Hack was, Brian Peacock, Hermit and JimC. Over there, beatsong, chairman Bill, mazille, fallible, stijn. And me, of course. (there are others, of course, I'm not going to provide a long list).

[Brian Peacock]

I always thought ADParker was among 'The Titans', and susu.exp of course, and our own dear Cali.

[Strontium Dog]

I said I have no desire to go through this with you here for you are no longer a member over there so I will leave it at that
If you wish to discuss your posting history do it with someone who is actually interested in it if you can find anyone who is
So many topics that you could discuss other than what you wrote at the other place in the last five years so think of some

Well, you know, if you want to make the claim that I am THE MOST INCENDIARY PERSON IN TEH WORLD EVAR!!11, then it's not unreasonable that some solid evidence for that is presented.

I recall defending Luis Suarez against bogus claims of racism. I also recall stating that I could empathise with a police officer who punched a woman who racially abused him. That's about as close as I can find to the scenarios you mentioned. Quite why any of this should be considered disruptive is beyond me.

I'm not familiar with your posting at Ratskep, but your posts here have not been anything like surreptitious has alleged. Unless you are Dr Jeckel here, and Mr Hyde over there...

I can assure you that I have no split personality. The absence from this forum of an organised cabal of Labour Party-affiliated trolls baiting, provoking and needling on a daily basis doubtless makes a big difference.

[surreptitious57]

My creme de la creme would probably be hackenslash and Cito and Cali and Samsa as they are all very well versed in science. And just below them I would have
Fallible and Seth and james who are not versed in science but still potent debaters. And Fallible is one of the most brutal uncompromising ones in the history of
the internet. She is not afraid to punch above her weight either and then take on a mighty titan like Cito one of the greatest minds of our time like she did here
when they clashed over something a while back. I myself have had my arse handed to me on a plate more than once by her. And is why I avoid her at all costs if
at all possible. Compared to her I am an intellectual minnow and indeed to all of the others too. But the only way to improve is by engaging with the best which
is why I do it. I need people more intelligent than I who will rip any bullshit of mine to pieces. As anything less and they simply would not be doing it right. Seth
and hack are also world class at this. It is a shame that hack is effectively no longer with us but I learnt a lot from him in the five years I engaged with him. Now
I once avoided a Dunsapy by the skin of my teeth which taught me never to become complacent though I am now more mellow and contemplative so just saying
But I will never turn down a metaphorical shafting if it results in consciousness raising as it amongst other things is what makes me a better person in my opinion

[Scot Dutchy]

What a strange view of ratskep. Really unhinged. It is not the place I know.

[Hermit]

My creme de la creme would probably be hackenslash and Cito and Cali and Samsa as they are all very well versed in science. And just below them I would have Fallible and Seth and james

Seth is not a powerful debater. He is a purveyor of verbose boilerplate texts that have not changed since I encountered his output at the RDF forum, and his arguments are riddled with deviousness, mainly of the goalpost shifting variety. You seem to be confusing pretentiousness and verbosity with intelligence. As far as people I largely disagree with are concerned, Coito ergo sum / Forty Two is miles ahead in intelligence and debating skills. Laklak would be too if he could ever be bothered to engage.

[pErvinalia]

I always thought ADParker was among 'The Titans', and susu.exp of course, and our own dear Cali.

Yeah Cali and susu too. Can't remember much of adparker

[pErvinalia]

My creme de la creme would probably be hackenslash and Cito and Cali and Samsa as they are all very well versed in science. And just below them I would have Fallible and Seth and james

Seth is not a powerful debater. He is a purveyor of verbose boilerplate texts that have not changed since I encountered his output at the RDF forum, and his arguments are riddled with deviousness, mainly of the goalpost shifting variety. You seem to be confusing pretentiousness and verbosity with intelligence. As far as people I largely disagree with are concerned, Coito ergo sum / Forty Two is miles ahead in intelligence and debating skills. Laklak would be too if he could ever be bothered to engage.

Cito and Seth as powerful debaters! It's just utterly comical. Your characterisation of Seth is correct (along the same lines as my description of him). I'd suggest Surr spend some time here reading Seth's output. He's possibly one of the worse debaters I've ever come across for someone who is otherwise intelligent.

[surreptitious57]

I recall defending Luis Suarez against bogus claims of racism. I recall stating I could empathise with a police officer who punched a woman who racially
abused him. That is about as close as I can find to the scenarios you mentioned. Quite why any of this should be considered disruptive is beyond me

You demanded evidence that Liverpool fans used racism in certain tweets when the tweets in question could be seen by absolutely anyone
I defend the rights of those fans to be as racist as they want. Because I believe in absolute free speech without zero limit long as everyone
is made to accept responsibility for what they say which they have to as their words belong to them and no one else. Now whether I agree
with what is being said is completely irrelevant for my personal opinion is of no consequence here. You as a libertarian should also defend
that freedom for you think anyone that denies any basic freedoms is automatically a fascist. Something that you never tired of reminding
everyone of at the other place as if you were the only one who actually believed in freedom. And yet I at least seem to believe in it more
than you do but do not feel the need to be lecturing everyone else about it. Now I do not care what you think for that is your prerogative
but a little bit of consistency would not go amiss here so would be appreciated. So do you or do you not defend the right of anyone to be
as offensive as they want as long as they are made to accept responsibility for it? If you do not then does that not by your own definition
make you a fascist who denies a basic freedom namely freedom of speech? So try to answer this without moving the goalposts if you can

[Strontium Dog]

You demanded evidence that Liverpool fans used racism in certain tweets when the tweets in question could be seen by absolutely anyone

Okay, I did some digging and what you wrote was:

I myself have heard disgusting racist comments from Liverpool fans online.

All I did was ask you to provide a link to the comments, which you didn't do.

I'm not sure what part of this is supposed to be provocative or disruptive on my part?

It's certainly a very far distance from "Denying the racism of Liverpool fans on twitter just because you support them", which was your original claim, since:

i) I never denied any racism, merely asked for a link to the comments
ii) Twitter was never mentioned as the source of the alleged comments
iii) my support or otherwise for Liverpool has absolutely no bearing on the situation

All your comments really prove is that when it comes to things I have written, reality tends to go out of the window so that a person can put their own individual spin on them.

You as a libertarian should also defend that freedom for you think anyone that denies any basic freedoms is automatically a fascist. Something that you never tired of reminding everyone of at the other place as if you were the only one who actually believed in freedom.

I really do think this is a gross simplification of my stated opinions. You make it sound like I was throwing around the term "fascist" at anyone who ever disagreed with me!

So do you or do you not defend the right of anyone to be as offensive as they want as long as they are made to accept responsibility for it? If you do not then does that not by your own definition make you a fascist who denies a basic freedom namely freedom of speech? So try to answer this without moving the goalposts if you can

I've never opposed a person's right to be offensive. Nor, for that matter, do I move goalposts. Being brutally honest, I'm finding it tough following your train of thought on this one.

[surreptitious57]

In the post which you quoted from I made a reference to the hissing directed at Tottenham fans to simulate a gas chamber which you were not remotely
interested in because it was not Liverpool fans who were doing it. As all you were interested in was their racist comments and was why I did not provide
any link. But I am glad that you think the right to be offensive should be universal for indeed it should. So we agree on that much at least if nothing else

By the way you did not just support a black police officer punching a white woman in the face for being racist. You said a woman needs a good slap from
time to time to put her in her place which is a bit of a leap from that specific incident. You only posted once in that thread so were not really interested
in participating in it now. And I have zero problem with what you said for they are your words and not mine. But please stop being so defensive for this is
not Rat Skep now. You are not going to get banned here for saying anything that is politically incorrect as you can be as offensive as you like. Everyone is
thick skinned here and banning is virtually unknown. Only one member I know of has actually been banned. So chill out for Gods sake and just be yourself

You also think anyone who opposes freedom is a fascist which you have mentioned many times so once again stop being so defensive. You once had NEVER
WRONG as your sig for a long time as well though you did later admit to being wrong just the once. Something you share with George Galloway by the way