James R: The S.A.M Issue

no worries, i question yours too
i like to think misguided but malicious is also on the table
for instance, the muslim titty pic in this thread
you allow it to stand in order to create an hostile and sexist environment for sam

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is it really S.A.M.'s job to show both sides of the argument?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its not her job to try and refute her own arguments. This is just excuses that your giving to refrain from cracking down on the rampent bigotry and propaganda of the pro-Israeli people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That would a be a lie, from someone else who doesn't think lying is a problem.

 

Sam is the Islamic propagandist and the bigot here, but you make good bedfellows.

 

I have never lied but than again anything that vindicates SAM must be lie

 

link

thug #?

 

At best, pj, you could argue "some of". And you'd need examples.

Enough of the sweeping generalizations, please.

 

perhaps you can expand on that a bit more. my conceptualization is probably gonna be stunted

how about the "competing hypotheses" angle?
if i favor one, can i not present that exclusively and leave others to come up with their own versions if they dispute my conclusion? is that not the entire purpose of this board? to have a discussion b/w various schools of thought?

i mean, sure i can touch on other hypotheses but if it really has no relevance to mine, why am i being forced to present it?

i see where james is coming from. he probably prefers a productive dialogue or none at all. however squashing the rhetoric put forth by the respective ideological divide simply means he allows the status quo to exists

the implications of that?

a possibility of genocide

 

nice

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

james's m.o​

*he initially issued a statement
*subsequently attempted to defend his position
*failed so abandoned the defense entirely
*ignores most if not all requests and questions
*refers these back to the statement ​

in thru one ear, out, the other

 

Gustav​

*mocks administrator James R. thinking will get away with it
*starts this thread knowing of the war between SAM supporters and non-supporters as a result of it
*failed to read through administrator's hints on own's "questionable purity"
*uses perky flashy cheesy weezy *is that a word?* punk as* colored text to get self noticed
​

in thru one scapegoat, out, the other

 

Yes, that's what you and Sam keep stating, yet your posts demonstrate quite clearly that you are both lying.

But, then again, as a compulsive liar, you most likely will never admit to it.

 

Just showing some intellectual honesty might be a good start. We can work our way up to arguments once Sam has an inkling to understanding that.

 

I doubt that James meant that people should present both sides of every argument when posting here---one need only look to the ``Formal Debates'' forum, where James has sparred with a number of different members. There is no need for a dialog if you present all sides of an argument.

I believe that the objection is not so much about the fact that S.A.M. presents only one side of the argument, but rather the way in which she goes about presenting her arguments. And to be sure, S.A.M. is not the only guilty party in this respect, although she is probably the most intelligent.

 

True. She has a troupe of Islamic propagandists here and could easily be considered the "most intelligent" amongst them, but that doesn't say much at all, considering what we've seen so far.

 

To Gustaf:

I take it that your answer is yes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

you start off questioning and end up an apologetic

so there is a discordance b/w the actual rhetoric and practice?
shit like that is usually characterized as hypocrisy, yes?

 

No worries, Sciforums is well known in the virtual world as 'Hypocriforums.'

 

No reading comprehension?

Besides, who isn't a hypocrite?