Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Strontium Dog]

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.

No, it was because I'm already fully aware that such taunts are aimed at Spurs fans. Why would I demand evidence for something I already know occurs?

You should really stop making assumptions about my motives since you invariably get them wrong. Why not just ask me why I think X or Y? I always do my very best to respond honestly wherever possible.

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.

Are you just making stuff up now? Can you provide an exact quote because Google is returning nothing remotely like this.

You are not going to get banned here for saying anything that is politically incorrect as you can be as offensive as you like.

No, I don't "like". I have no intention of being offensive, nor of being "politically incorrect". I will be exactly the same here as I am at every other forum I'm a member of.

You also think anyone who opposes freedom is a fascist which you have mentioned many times so once again stop being so defensive.

Still a simplification, but at least we've moved on from me apparently believing that anyone who disagrees with me is a fascist.

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.

I will never believe that freedom is ever wrong. I won't apologise for that.

[pErvinalia]

This is getting ridiculous. SD doing his black is white routine, and Surr doing his passive aggressive routine.

From my (and a lot of other peoples perspective) you've said some really tasteless and bigotted shit over the years, SD. And the reason it is often considered trolling is that you do it in serious threads. If you did it in the fun and games section that would be a different matter, perhaps. The interesting thing is that bigotted and tasteless jokes are fine here, as they are in any group of alternative-minded friends. But the key criteria for that is that everyone involved is known to be not actually bigotted. The problem with you is that it's not very clear that you aren't a bigot. You'll still be able to get away with those jokes here, but you'll be treated differently like 42/Coito and Tyrannical are. Prove to us that you aren't actually a bigot, and you can tell rape jokes all day and no one will care.

[Strontium Dog]

I plead guilty to having a dark sense of humour. And I'm aware that possession of any sense of humour is a dangerous thing when you're surrounded by the genuinely humourless.

I'd certainly like to know what fits your criteria of "tasteless and bigotted shit" that I'm supposed to have come out with.

[pErvinalia]

You've had a crack at pretty much every minority and/or prejudiced segment of society over the years. I personally remember cracks at fat people, poor people, disabled people, ugly women, women in general, gays, and I'd be willing to bet Surr is round about on the money about blacks.

I think you'll find people here will leave you far behind in the humour stakes, but as I said, we are comfortable with each other's progressiveness and non-bigotry to know that it isn't meant with any malice or harm.

[Strontium Dog]

Your memory is flawed. Like I say, specific examples would be welcome, because when Surr provided examples for his, we discovered they didn't actually say what he claimed either.

So far as malice is concerned, none has ever been intended. A joke is a joke. If you want to talk about harm being done by words, focus your ire on the folk who openly want other forum members to be burnt to death, or who make libellous comments about your friends being molesters or thieves. Those people are the real trolls.

[surreptitious57]

Police officers are human too. I don t blame anyone for dispensing some natural justice now and again

She was handcuffed and he punched her full in the face and gave her a massive shiner as a result. You cannot have police
officers doing that and he was a nineteen year veteran and so should have known better. One hundred and sixty hours for
what he did is a joke. He should have been sacked. And you stop being needlessly provocative with your stupid comments

FROM THE MIAMI COP PUNCHES HANDCUFFED WOMAN IN THE FACE THREAD ON 06 MAY 2015 / MY COMMENT GOT FOUR LIKES
NO ONE AGREED WITH SD AND HE THEN LEFT THE THREAD AFTER HIS RIDICULOUS COMMENT ABOVE WAS TOTALLY DEBUNKED

[Strontium Dog]

Oh well, if you got four likes, that settles it

I'm sorry that you see my empathising with the victim of racist abuse as being somehow provocative. I'm sure you'll explain how it's provocative, any time now...

[surreptitious57]

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

I will never believe that freedom is ever wrong. I won t ever apologise for that

And here we have a classic example of a debating tactic commonly used by SD

Now it is admittedly very subtle but he employs it so often that it is very easy to spot after a while and it is moving the goalposts

Notice how his response in no way correlates to my actual statement because nowhere did I mention freedom so neither should he

He does it to deflect attention from what I said since he knows it is true so has to employ the aforementioned logical fallacy instead

This is why it is very frustrating to debate him because he does not do so in good faith and he apparently intends to carry on regardless

I sincerely hope he will drop the persecution complex he had at the other place and engage in productive discourse but only time will tell

I do not want you to be anything other than yourself so you carry being just as you are but you can still change while being yourself if you want to

I said I would not debate your posting history over at the other place and yet here I am talking about nothing else because you just refuse to let it go

It is going to be very predictable if that is all you can think of talking about so I hope that you can find something else to talk about instead so please try

[Strontium Dog]

And here we have a classic example of a debating tactic commonly used by SD

Now it is admittedly very subtle but he employs it so often that it is very easy to spot after a while and it is moving the goalposts

Notice how his response in no way correlates to my actual statement because nowhere did I mention freedom so neither should he

You didn't directly mention freedom, but you were referring to my signature, which itself was a direct reference to freedom.

What on earth did you, or anyone else, think that "never wrong" referred to if not my belief in liberty?!

[Seth]

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.

And yet, knowing this (even though it's not true) you still can't formulate a cogent rebuttal to anything, which doesn't speak highly of YOUR intelligence.

[Hermit]

Police officers are human too. I don t blame anyone for dispensing some natural justice now and again

She was handcuffed and he punched her full in the face and gave her a massive shiner as a result. You cannot have police officers doing that and he was a nineteen year veteran and so should have known better. One hundred and sixty hours for what he did is a joke. He should have been sacked. And you stop being needlessly provocative with your stupid comments

FROM THE MIAMI COP PUNCHES HANDCUFFED WOMAN IN THE FACE THREAD ON 06 MAY 2015 / MY COMMENT GOT FOUR LIKES
NO ONE AGREED WITH SD AND HE THEN LEFT THE THREAD AFTER HIS RIDICULOUS COMMENT ABOVE WAS TOTALLY DEBUNKED

Cheeses fucking crust, Surr, that's well over a country mile away from Strontium Dog

Justifying the routine punching of women in the face when they get too mouthy to show them that men are in charge.

I notice how your accusation in no way correlates to SD's actual statement because nowhere did he mention women, men, mouthy or routine, so neither should you. And don't try to argue that your interpretation accurately describes what SD means with the words he did use. It won't wash. What it does do is to put such a spin on what SD said that it would do the best hack journalist in the gutter press proud. You should apologise to SD for grossly misrepresenting him.

Looking forward for more "substantiation" ( ) of your assertions.

[pErvinalia]

Your memory is flawed. Like I say, specific examples would be welcome, because when Surr provided examples for his, we discovered they didn't actually say what he claimed either.

So far as malice is concerned, none has ever been intended. A joke is a joke. If you want to talk about harm being done by words, focus your ire on the folk who openly want other forum members to be burnt to death, or who make libellous comments about your friends being molesters or thieves. Those people are the real trolls.

Except we all know that's not what happened. It's a shame CB and Beatsong aren't here to set the record straight.

[pErvinalia]

And here we have a classic example of a debating tactic commonly used by SD

Now it is admittedly very subtle but he employs it so often that it is very easy to spot after a while and it is moving the goalposts

Notice how his response in no way correlates to my actual statement because nowhere did I mention freedom so neither should he

You didn't directly mention freedom, but you were referring to my signature, which itself was a direct reference to freedom.

What on earth did you, or anyone else, think that "never wrong" referred to if not my belief in liberty?!

WTF?!? How do you make that link? This is the specious sort of nonsense that Surr refers to. On a debate site "Never wrong" most logically refers to debating arguments.

[pErvinalia]

Police officers are human too. I don t blame anyone for dispensing some natural justice now and again

She was handcuffed and he punched her full in the face and gave her a massive shiner as a result. You cannot have police officers doing that and he was a nineteen year veteran and so should have known better. One hundred and sixty hours for what he did is a joke. He should have been sacked. And you stop being needlessly provocative with your stupid comments

FROM THE MIAMI COP PUNCHES HANDCUFFED WOMAN IN THE FACE THREAD ON 06 MAY 2015 / MY COMMENT GOT FOUR LIKES
NO ONE AGREED WITH SD AND HE THEN LEFT THE THREAD AFTER HIS RIDICULOUS COMMENT ABOVE WAS TOTALLY DEBUNKED

Cheeses fucking crust, Surr, that's well over a country mile away from Strontium Dog

Justifying the routine punching of women in the face when they get too mouthy to show them that men are in charge.

I notice how your accusation in no way correlates to SD's actual statement because nowhere did he mention women, men, mouthy or routine, so neither should you. And don't try to argue that your interpretation accurately describes what SD means with the words he did use. It won't wash. What it does do is to put such a spin on what SD said that it would do the best hack journalist in the gutter press proud. You should apologise to SD for grossly misrepresenting him.

Looking forward for more "substantiation" ( ) of your assertions.

What it does show is most conservatives (and yes, you are a conservative, SD) have utter contempt for people with less power in society and basically worship elite power structures. Some economic liberals might actually believe they support policies for social freedom, but I feel certain the vast majority of elites who support it support it because it entrenches their elite position in society.

[surreptitious57]

What on earth did you or anyone else think that never wrong referred to if not my belief in liberty

You and everyone else who ever debated you at the other place knows full well that it was a statement pertaining to your perceived infallibility on all
issues you commented on not just a particular one. It is a shame you can not publicly admit it. You are not fooling me and if that is your intention you
are completely wasting your time. I know it is hard for you but please try to engage in productive discourse. You never know you might actually like it