CheskiChips as well
Banning SAM
- Thread starter CheskiChips
- Start date
- Status
CheskiChips as well
??? why because you don't like us, unlike the three people mentioned before neither me nor challenger are bigots
Oli:
Making false assumptions are what the likes of S.A.M and Tiassa are renowned for, and is one of the main reasons as to why they are so frustrating to have a discussion with.
S.A.M doesn't have any ability to argue. From my own experience, an 'argument' with S.A.M often involves the following:
- She starts from a 'false assumption' (ie. misrepresentation), and even when you correct her, she'll continue to labour under the false assumption. This is blatantly obvious regarding her criticisms of atheism.
- When you ask S.A.M for clarification regarding a relevant issue, she'll make some cryptic remark which requires further clarification, or respond with a remark which is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
- When you challenge S.A.M's viewpoints, she'll derail the thread by mentioning something completely irrelevant. Quite often she'll attack the behaviour of the challenger's nation. For example: "How can you criticise X for Y, when your precious America engages in Z?" Thus the challenger will respond by defending their nation, resulting in a massive thread derail.
- Even when caught with her pants down making a comment which is blatantly inaccurate (eg. The Iraqis have never invaded a country), she will refuse to concede the point, upon which the discussion rapidly degenerates.
- Re-defining terms to suit her agenda. For example, pretty much anything America does is 'genocide'. IMHO, this cheapens the term.
The above are just off the top of my head.
Making false assumptions are what the likes of S.A.M and Tiassa are renowned for, and is one of the main reasons as to why they are so frustrating to have a discussion with.
S.A.M doesn't have any ability to argue. From my own experience, an 'argument' with S.A.M often involves the following:
- She starts from a 'false assumption' (ie. misrepresentation), and even when you correct her, she'll continue to labour under the false assumption. This is blatantly obvious regarding her criticisms of atheism.
- When you ask S.A.M for clarification regarding a relevant issue, she'll make some cryptic remark which requires further clarification, or respond with a remark which is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
- When you challenge S.A.M's viewpoints, she'll derail the thread by mentioning something completely irrelevant. Quite often she'll attack the behaviour of the challenger's nation. For example: "How can you criticise X for Y, when your precious America engages in Z?" Thus the challenger will respond by defending their nation, resulting in a massive thread derail.
- Even when caught with her pants down making a comment which is blatantly inaccurate (eg. The Iraqis have never invaded a country), she will refuse to concede the point, upon which the discussion rapidly degenerates.
- Re-defining terms to suit her agenda. For example, pretty much anything America does is 'genocide'. IMHO, this cheapens the term.
The above are just off the top of my head.
i dont dislike anyone here.
than why make the asseration that me and challenger needed to be banned.
no. I am not even sure if i have registered for facebook.
Oli:
I've already mentioned a reason as to why. You engage in misrepresentations (or if you want to sugar coat it... 'false assumptions'.)
I've already mentioned a reason as to why. You engage in misrepresentations (or if you want to sugar coat it... 'false assumptions'.)
Ah so you assumed that I WOULD misrepresent at some point before I actually made a mistake (or misrepresent if you want to make further assumptions of your own).
Congratulations, isn't that called hypocrisy?
I can completely see why S.A.M. beats the shit out of you, you can't think.
Congratulations, isn't that called hypocrisy?
I can completely see why S.A.M. beats the shit out of you, you can't think.
Oli:
Um, no, you previously engaged in a misrepresentation. Remember this?
I can see why you support a dishonest individual such as S.A.M. You're dishonest yourself. Birds of a feather flock together, yada yada.
Um, no, you previously engaged in a misrepresentation. Remember this?
I can see why you support a dishonest individual such as S.A.M. You're dishonest yourself. Birds of a feather flock together, yada yada.
Neither is required since it wasn't an accusation, it's a personal comment to someone who's demonstrated his inability to form a coherent argument.
Since that came AFTER you decided I wasn't worth having discussions with it sort of makes my point rather than yours, no?
In other words you had already made the decision (post #205) and THEN I made the error querying that decision (post #214)...
So which are you being with that post?
Dishonest or stupid?
John:
Oli is just trying to aggravate me with his passive aggressive behaviour.
Passive-aggressive tactics are commonly employed by the likes of S.A.M, Tiassa, and James R. But admittedly, Oli's attempts are far more transparent than the likes of James R, who at least makes a half-assed attempt at appearing as though he genuinely pities you.
Such nonsense is yet another reason why I no longer have discussions with such people. When debates condescend to petty posturing (as they inevitably do with such individuals), they aren't worth the time of day.
Oli is just trying to aggravate me with his passive aggressive behaviour.
Passive-aggressive tactics are commonly employed by the likes of S.A.M, Tiassa, and James R. But admittedly, Oli's attempts are far more transparent than the likes of James R, who at least makes a half-assed attempt at appearing as though he genuinely pities you.
Such nonsense is yet another reason why I no longer have discussions with such people. When debates condescend to petty posturing (as they inevitably do with such individuals), they aren't worth the time of day.
Oli:
No. Apparently you're having a little trouble grappling with the concept that a viewpoint is sometimes supported by more than just one argument. My initial observation that you weren't worth arguing with was further supported when you misrepresented me.
As to what helped me formulate my initial observation that you weren't worth arguing with, well, that's quite simple. You were talking bullshit.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
No. Apparently you're having a little trouble grappling with the concept that a viewpoint is sometimes supported by more than just one argument. My initial observation that you weren't worth arguing with was further supported when you misrepresented me.
As to what helped me formulate my initial observation that you weren't worth arguing with, well, that's quite simple. You were talking bullshit.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Ah, psychological doubletalk from the idiot/ liar. (Choose which).
Nope. wrong.
Looks like you deserve pity, not being able to recognise your own hypocrisy.
Petty posturing?
As opposed to outright, ummm, hypocritical misrepresentation/ stupidity? (Choose one).
Oh yeah, don't forget all that is coming from the guy that calls people "pussy" with next to no knowledge of them.
syzygs:
SAM shouldn't be banned from any subforum. If we went about banning obtuse and dishonest posters, sciforums would be close to empty.
SAM shouldn't be banned from any subforum. If we went about banning obtuse and dishonest posters, sciforums would be close to empty.
- Status