Disturbing the concensus

[charlou]

'I don't talk to old people. They smell of wee', is but one example of why people dislike you..rather intensely.

I read such comments about as seriously as when any other poster here makes them - seems to be a bit of a sport where Pen's concerned ...

Pen

[Rum]

'I don't talk to old people. They smell of wee', is but one example of why people dislike you..rather intensely.

I read such comments about as seriously as when any other poster here makes them - seems to be a bit of a sport where Pen's concerned ...

Pen

Easy for you to say. Suppose he said 'I don't talk to women, they tend to be dumb'?

[Hermit]

'I don't talk to old people. They smell of wee', is but one example of why people dislike you..rather intensely.

I read such comments about as seriously as when any other poster here makes them - seems to be a bit of a sport where Pen's concerned ...

Pen

Easy for you to say. Suppose he said 'I don't talk to women, they tend to be dumb'?

Got the wrong member there, Rum. That's Coito you're speaking about. Besides, same thing applies: Ridiculous statements - even if made in a serious vein - should not be taken seriously from a personal point of view.

Furthermore: How could you possibly take a person's opinions seriously if he can't spell simple words like "consensus"? Gotta have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, right?

[Rum]

Apologies if I criticised the wrong person.

As to the point Seraph, we are in the borderline territory of 'intention' here surely. If the intent is to belittle, insult and ridicule - or for that matter stereotype, then such statements are more than simply 'ridiculous', they are an intentional insults.

[Hermit]

If the intent is to belittle, insult and ridicule - or for that matter stereotype, then such statements are more than simply 'ridiculous', they are an intentional insults.

Not always. Context counts. Saying "I don't talk to old people. They smell of wee." cannot possibly be taken seriously, and I am not sure about your particular take on stereotyping. To me, it is what you finish up with after reading statistics. "Theists are uneducated in comparison with atheists." "Octogenarian men are a bunch of impotents." That sort of thing. Stereotyping is justified when it is backed up by facts.

By the way, I ignore SC because I regard his contributions to this forum as not worth replying to. May I suggest you do the same?

[Trolldor]

'I don't talk to old people. They smell of wee', is but one example of why people dislike you..rather intensely.

Really, Rum? You're going to take that seriously?
That would explain why you do it so much.
Must be the noxious wee odour affecting your faculties.

I was mildly surprised on this Forum - given both the subject matter and the rather off the wall aprroach to discussions -that my contributions on the economic reality thread appear to have been received so badly.

You make a lot of assertions without any actual substance, provide something solid and opponents will have to argue against that as opposed to what you are insisting is the case. If you continually rely on "No, watch me talk more" then people will react to what you are saying accordingly.

If they've managed to attain a reasonable level of maturity they won't be offended because you aren't anyone important with any real influence saying anything that will dictate any fact or state of their lives. No matter what you say it really just won't mean a thing beyond "oh, a forum post".

[JimC]

Apologies if I criticised the wrong person.

As to the point Seraph, we are in the borderline territory of 'intention' here surely. If the intent is to belittle, insult and ridicule - or for that matter stereotype, then such statements are more than simply 'ridiculous', they are an intentional insults.

It's tricky in Ratz, Rum, as I'm sure you would know. The "I don't talk to old people. They smell of wee." line could easily of been, say, the Dawktor addressing Pen, who would have laughed and called him a cunt...

We might feel that there are subtleties, such as a lack of a long-standing connection which places SC's version into a different category. But they are hard to pin down...

I think Seraph's final suggestion was the best one...

[Pensioner]

'I don't talk to old people. They smell of wee', is but one example of why people dislike you..rather intensely.

I read such comments about as seriously as when any other poster here makes them - seems to be a bit of a sport where Pen's concerned ...

Pen

Folk on this site can call me anything they wont, as long as they do not call me Australian.

[GreyICE]

The real question is that you apparently have no idea what your posting style entails. Assume that people agree with your general points. Given that you've been such a disagreeable fuck, why would the people who agree with you have any real desire to come out of the woodwork and jump up and down to support you?

If you want to splash a cold dose of water in people's face, well, first you're going about it wrong (never start a debate about the specifics of another person's life - they're the experts, you're a chump).

Second, if you splash a cold dose of water in people's face when they're still obviously sleepwalking, don't expect to find a cheerleading squad. If you can't run solo, don't play lone wolf. The lone wolf runs twice as far and eats twice as much, and they don't need any friends - they're a nice asset when they find them, but without them, then... oh well. If you find a burning need for support, play by the rules. If you want to say "fuck the rules" then don't come crying when others go "okay, he said 'fuck the rules' so fuck him too."

[Santa_Claus]

funnily enough this thread had no trolley intent. Comments of interest...........

Can't say I ever see much value in an exchange of views that involves 10 multiquotes and some links - with the intention of proving
(LOL) someone wrong (it's like debating the Bible with a Jehovah. kinda misses the point for both sides, as well as being a waste of time...........far better / simpler to point out they are self-deluded cunts - the proof they may discover for themselves. or not - but the value is mostly can no longer claim universal agreement with their delusions).

But appears that just like many theists, some Atheists also don't like to hear that others think they are wrong. or want it sugar coated. and spoonfed.

I guess it's a human nature thing. build yerself a bubble and cuddle up warm inside.


And, yeah, sorry about da spelling. usually typing one handed. and sometimes we hit some pOT Holesss.

[PsychoSerenity]

Can't say I ever see much value in an exchange of views that involves 10 multiquotes and some links - with the intention of proving
(LOL) someone wrong (it's like debating the Bible with a Jehovah. kinda misses the point for both sides, as well as being a waste of time...........far better / simpler to point out they are self-deluded cunts - the proof they may discover for themselves. or not - but the value is mostly can no longer claim universal agreement with their delusions).

But appears that just like many theists, some Atheists also don't like to hear that others think they are wrong. or want it sugar coated. and spoonfed.

Santa, is this the right thread? Are there others or is that it?

Here is the link you omitted.

Because XC hit the nail on the head in that thread:

The Bankers were one of the enablers, but not the underlying cause. Life is too short to explain, as those who haven't grasped the basics this far into the economic restructuring of the UK (it's not a recession or a depression - both meaningless terms) have clearly chosen ignorance. and nothing wrong with that - because fook all you can do about it anyway

Ah. The old "I know more about it than you do but don't have time to explain and besides, you wouldn't understand it anyway" fallacy. Perleeeeaaaase!

I've read through and you don't seem to have said anything of substance, you've just repeatedly pointed out where you think other people are wrong, without explaining why. How do you expect people to react to that?

[GreyICE]

Thank fucking god, about time someone else agreed on the multi-quotes btw. I can't say I've ever seen a virtue in splitting another post into more than two chunks. If a person was so unfocused that they require three whole different thoughtstreams to reply to, they probably were writing mostly gibberish anyway, and I just focus on what seemed to be actual sensible information.

[Santa_Claus]

Whatever.

[JOZeldenrust]

You're still laboring under the assumption that anyone who has critically investigated the matters you're discussing (I'm not really sure what they are at this point) must necessarily agree with you. As it is, I don't even know what your view is.