Inflammatory topic post

[wesmorris]

All the tattered banners.

It's just fucking tragic.

I suppose it's not that bad since factually, they don't really exist.

Maybe the tragic part is the lost potential of the sole mind in which they do exist.

*shrug*

I suppose it's just one of those grim realities.

 

[Tiassa]

I fail to see how you have the authority to make that claim.

Well, it reflects in the range of his vision:

• No, you know shit about evolution or any biological science. Or could you list your publications and qualifications in this field please?

• Obviously you dropped out of school early. Obviously 2 +2 = 4, and 2 is always 2.Or did your teacher allow you to make bold statement such as 2+2=5 and 2+3 = 5 because it says so in the bible?

• You are the ignorant one here. You know shit about evolution.

• Did you recently see the light or something? Did an angel whisper in your ears? Why are you offended? Is it an attack on your believes? Do you feel threatened by your own inconsistency?

• No because science doesn't work in separate vacuums. You can?t have your cake and eat it too. He made it perfectly clear. You seem to be the only person who missed that point.

I mean, the fact that he thinks these things have anything to do with anything kind of amazes me.

And hey, he even called you an asshat:

Quote:

Originally Posted by asshat


? Thats like saying you believe in 2, but you don't belive in 2 + 2 = 4. If you believe that 2 exists you have to believe 2 plus 2 equals 4, right?
I mean I can prove it right now if you don't, two dots; .. another 2; .. we're agreed so far right? place them together= .... Thats 4 dots, end of story, case closed.

And when he splits an odd hair, omitting any apparent consideration of the word generalized:

Where is the inflammatory content then? Where is the personal attack? I didn't see any names.

He chooses to split the hair of needing names, yet doesn't recognize an attack that he takes part in:

Quote:

Originally Posted by asshat

If you don't believe in evolution, than you are hearby forbidden from using the word "hereditary"

-- but that's what theses are for: to be demonstrated, supported, proven, or otherwise validated. In support of that thesis, the author follows with a generalized personal attack:

? Now I understand that most people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce that word anyway . . . .

Obviously they can't. They attack a view on evolution that doesn't exist but in their own minds. Or did you think he meant it literally?

Literally or figuratively, "people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce the word anyway," is a pretty useless assertion.

The thing is YOU didn't understand it, I also have the authority to make that judgement.

I think you're the one who doesn't understand, Dr Lou. Really, I do. I know what you were up to. I generally sympathize to a certain degree. Does it change the fact that it's a pile of crass fallacies you put out? No. If you actually follow the discussion in your topic, the point of calling the topic post useless and inflammatory was invested in a discussion I was originally having with others that started with relatively mild considerations of the topic and its form. Even when I first addressed it in sections with you, it wasn't a big deal, but Snakelord insisted, and then you started cheering, so that pretty much clinched the deal. I'm sorry you were expecting ... whatever it was you were expecting instead of this. I still chuckle over your ass-licking comment.

You say I was being inflammatory, if I say no I wasn't then no I fucking wasn't.

And yet some, like Spurious, would like to pretend I was being inflammatory with this topic. Seems an even split.

You have misunderstood, I know what I was "being", why you think you know more about me and my intentions than I do I have no idea.
I was being mean by being brutally honest, the fact i can predict that the truth worded bluntly might hurt some people does not mean I was being inflammatory.

Brutally honest? How is it honest to assert that refusing evolution also requires one forfeit belief in sexual reproduction?

It is innocently inflammatory, I made points that might attack the emotions of some, but I did not attack anyone.

You attacked a group of people (who don't believe in evolution) by asserting that they couldn't even pronounce the word (evolution).

I attacked the concept of not believing in evolution.

As well as the people who don't believe in evolution.

Maybe if facts and logic offend you its about time you were offended.

As I asserted in the First Argument, facts and logic seemed to be devoid from your post. Arguments, such as Spurious', "Obviously they can't," don't do much to lend factual or logical support to your post.

I just put a skateboard on the stairs of ignorance, my intentions with that is anybodies guess, but it is not your place to state my intentions as though you know for a fact what they were.

But what you write isn't a reasonable indication of your intentions? I'll bear that in mind in the future: Dr Lou chooses to represent himself in a manner that is inconsistent with his own perception of himself. Seems rather illusory to me, but whatever spices your noodle.

A source? I am the judge and jury on this matter, the source is my head and there isn't a better one when we are discussing my intentions.
Got it?

Whatever you say, Dr Lou.

Maybe in the future, you will choose to represent yourself according to how you wish to be viewed?

You saw a cucumber in my hand and assumed I was being obsene, i was just holding a cucumber.
Maybe it was to freak out the old women in aisle 4, thats not your call though, and there is no law against holding a cucumber.

No, it's not my call. It's yours. And what you tell me now is different from what you said before.

Two? Two? Four.

History suggests your current façade is most likely as detached in its superficiality.

Next time, Lou, consider the possibility that its taken me a long while to get around to this particular form of topic. Next time, don't encourage the situation; history suggests that I would most likely have left the "inflammatory" aspect to its own after Snakelord was done dragging that part of the discussion out. I don't know what would have happened.

Was it bravado, Lou? What were you expecting? You seem rather upset by getting what you wanted, but of course it wasn't what you really wanted.

If you want real progress that will satisfy almost everybody, just admit the topic was inflammatory and turn the discussion to the matter of degrees and then people will either leave it alone entirely or choose to consider the basis of their standards for those degrees; is it a general state of loathsomeness, or a specific political assignation? In general people seem more tolerant of horsesh@t as long as it smells familiar to them.

Even I, in the grand scheme of Sciforums, consider your inflammatory topic post of minor importance; but just because people sympathize with a fallacy doesn't change the fact that it's a fallacy. Honestly, does the fact that millions of people believe Jesus is the ticket to eternal life mean it's true? Does the fact that millions believe Jesus is the ticket to eternal life change the fact that Biblical faith is fallacious?

Does your intention in any way change the fact that putting a skateboard on the stairs is dangerous to others?

 

[Tiassa]

Logic would dictate that at this stage of the game that a poster would be able to recognize that maybe, just maybe, the argument that no one else on this forum has decent reading comprehension skills is indeed quite a lame argument.

That would be a lame argument. What's your point?

People believe whatever they need to believe T.

Obviously.

You've obviously chosen to insulate yourself from inescapable realities of human interaction by suggesting that anyone who can't see through the intentionally obtuse language you choose, must suffer from inferior reading comprehension skills.

It's the broad brush with which you paint that makes you so grossly inaccurate. Nonetheless, it's a wonderful impressionist rendering of your perspective.

Whatever it takes to get through the day, right? Good luck with that strategy, asshat.

Actually, I find it rather quite disturbing. I haven't figured the alternative yet, so I'm caught between whether people are stupid or just dicks on those occasions that they invest a lot of energy arguing incomprehensible representations of what I write. You might have noticed, back when the Miller debacle was going on, that those people who could explain to me what I was asking them to explain about the situation received reasonable answers. Yet such details are too fine for your broad stroke job.

 

[wesmorris]

tiassa.

how do you know it's not you who is the dick?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Brutally honest? How is it honest to assert that refusing evolution also requires one forfeit belief in sexual reproduction?

Is this a big part of your argument by any chance?
If you don't see how that is honest, then you don't understand, 2+2 is too difficult for you, it seems.
Everytime a baby is born a little evolution just happened, if you believe in generations, you must believe a little more just happened, when in history did people coming into existence by way of sexual reproduction begin? When did the creationing end?
Hell, even if you think it was a hundred years ago, you must concede at least a little evolution has happened.
And if you do think it was a hundred years ago you MUST believe that before that babies weren't being born but rather created, OR something.
Its kind of a messy belief I know but they are choosing it not me.
I'm comfortable to assume the reproduction style of organisms coming into existence is how organisms have always come into existence along the timeline. I do not think that any where along the line did it switch TO organisms being reproduced from parents or a parent FROM some other style, even in the very beginning the reasonable assumption is the parents were the sun and the earth.

You don't seem to understand that my original post was very much cold hard logic that can't be refuted.

If you believe in sexual reproduction as we know it, you at least believe in a little evolution, and if you wish to not believe in alot of evolution, you have to believe that at some stage in history organisms were being created, and only recently did sexual reproduction OR evolution begin.
No matter what it is mandatory that anyone who is aware of sexual reproduction believe that evolution is a real process that happens.
Basically no one can not believe in evolution, they don't have that choice. Especially if they believe in sexual reproduction, and really, they also have to believe in that, because well its obvious.
I think most people do believe in sexual reproduction, thats my point, logic then demands they believe in evolution.
It should not be acceptable that they do not.

Does your intention in any way change the fact that putting a skateboard on the stairs is dangerous to others?

Do I have to care?
They are loitering on the stairs of ignorance, I didn't push them down them.
When they smash into the cold ground of reality and hurt their ego, it was their doing, not mine. They didn't have to step on the skateboard, they saw it there and chose to step on it.
Most, if not all, grabbed onto the rail anyway, while the skateboard that was my post charged down to reality, and they turned away when it hit.

The only danger was getting a grip on reality, and most of them avoided it anyway.
And they still pace up and down those stairs, I plan on continuing to grease them up and do whatever I can to get them off for their own good.
So what if they bump their knees and graze their elbows on the way down? Some things are more important than remaining bruise free, like everything.

 

[Tiassa]

You don't seem to understand that my original post was very much cold hard logic that can't be refuted.

You have a seriously perverse definition of logic, then.

There's a difference between calling someone or something illogical and being logical on your own.

It should not be acceptable that they do not.

Who broke up your chapter of the HJ?

Do I have to care?

No.

Some things are more important than remaining bruise free, like everything.

You have a very tall opinion of yourself. That's a pretty stupid reason to be telling people what they are and aren't allowed to think all so you can have a cheap thrill at insulting them.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You have a very tall opinion of yourself.

You are so funny.

 

[wesmorris]

You are so funny.

It's a kind of dark comedy.

Let's watch him while he cleans up the tattered banners.

 

[wesmorris]

1) Wasn't much of a question.

LOL. Oh yeah? How would you know? Maybe there's something you haven't accounted for? Not possible eh?

(2) What does it matter if I answer your question or not when you don't read my posts anyway?

LOL. I mostly read your posts. I would certainly read the response to a question I asked directly, you fucking dipshit.

(3) The answer is, Of course not. I can't get a coherent answer out of folks like you who have stopped trying.

LOL. Such a pearly prince, yet such judgement. You almost sound like a judgemental little twat there, bitch. At least I admit that I fucking JUDGE YOU eh punk? I forget who is being dishonest here. Hmm. Yeah, it's not me.. so... I haven't seen lou doing it, nor spurious... not 15 either. Hmm.. must be the cunt.

Here is your answer by the way bright boy (which really summarized your entire problem as well):

People aren't perfect. This we know. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this seems to be an excuse to stop trying.

By the nature of the beast, no one has the same idea of perfection that you do, you fucking asshat. Most people probably aren't even able to comprehend what it is that your vivid skew would deem as perfection, let alone be compelled to strive towards it. It is the nature of "good" even in the context of "striving for perfection", to be subjective.

LOL. I wonder how that will sound once you shove it up your twat. *chortle*

And yet you argue and get all pissed off when I point out that you seem to expect the worst potential and aspects in people?

Yeah pretty much because you see yourself as some sort of representation of "people" when really, you're just one dirty little bitch. You are not "people". I see that you are the "worst of people" from my perspective. That does not at all mean "i expect the worst potential and aspects in people", except for that's how it sounds to you once you swill it around in your dirty little cunt for a while. As you wish asshat, but this is clear: you're wrong.

Perhaps if you hadn't been so quick to shove my words up your twat, you'd notice that:

I do not expect the worst potential and aspects in people. I do however recognize them when they are finally exposed, such as in your case, you punkassed asshat.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

It takes two hands to clap.

Remember those occasions you pointed out my own stance on the responsibility of the transmitter to make the communication clear to the receiver?

What makes you think I've changed my mind? The receiver has to be willing to listen for the addage to be pertinent eh? You are more than obviosly unwilling. I keep trying though for two major reasons I think: You do seem worth it at the core, but really fucked up. And secondly, it's fascinating to me to see what kind of horseshit you'll come up with next. A real trainwreck kind of thing, and since no one gets hurt, what the hell.. there's no guilt in the fascination... though it is kidn of sickening a little, I can handle it.

• "I'll gladly be your friend on one condition only: YOU CANNOT QUESTION MY CHARACTER." (Wesmorris, Private Message, 12.22.2003) - What an honest friendship you offer, eh?

That is exactly it, I DO offer an honest friendship and as such, questioning if I am lying or not simply makes us go around and around and around. If you are my friend, I will not question your character. I may question your actions or your words, but if you insist you are not lying, I will give you the benefit of that doubt. Hell, for the most part I give anyone that benefit of the doubt until I start to see evidence to the contrary. You and I had interacted for months prior to the fact that you decided to start talking shit and calling me a liar. If I tell you I am not a goddamned liar and I'm willing to get beligerant with you... I would expect you to at least honestly hear the case, rather than having convicted a motherfucker before hearing the goddmned case, you fucknut. That you would call the above "dishonest" is to me indactive that you and I have a different opinion of what "honesty" is. Seems to me if you hadn't wrongly questioned my character, we wouldn't be in this mess.

• "I just stopped reading . . . ." (ibid) - A constant theme of yours, how, then do you know what you're responding to with such ferocity?

How is that dishonest? I don't remember the context exactly, but knowing me I thought I'd gotten the gist by then.. or I was sick to death of your blather (like in this case) or something. I wouldn't have said that without good reason. Maybe I didn't have the time? Shit I dunno. Was it something you said? Could have been that I was getting a little nauseated by your horseshit.

• "I support this position wholly." (Wesmorris, "Dennis Miller on Politics," 12.22.2003) - You would later back away from it and claim that the position you supported wholly was something other than the text you cited; this "misunderstanding" resulted in much acrimony between us.

Uh huh. Why don't you show me where I "went back"? If your reading comprehension were as legendary as you seem to think, you'd have noticed that I never implied more. I never meant to either. I thought if I quoted something and said "I support this wholly", that was exactly what I meant. That you extend it to its context is something I simply didn't expect. I quoted what I agreed with.. seems to me if I'd agreed with more... I would have quoted more? Wouldn't I? Why would I only quote that, but agree with everything else?

Do you see what I mean that you do not listen? Do you see why I basically say (parphrasing): "continual accusations of lying will get us nowhere", which is basically to me the same as "I'll be your friend, but do not question my character". You don't see it I suppose? I doubt you do. Does that mean it isn't true to me? Please, tell me what your twat thinks.

• "I used to think you had some class bro, but your accusational vehemence and unprovoked attacks on character are simply out of freakin control here." (ibid) - Your use of the word "unprovoked" was never substantiated, and rather an offensive sleight.

I substantiated the shit out of it you jackass. I suppose I should clarify. It was unprovoked from my standpoint. I sure you thought you had good reason, but I illustrated to you quite clearly why your reasons were incorrect. Of course as is your cunt-like nature, you refuse to admit it.

• "I don't want to insult you . . . ." (ibid) - Coulda fooled me.

I still don't if you can believe that, but since I hate your dirty bitch ass, I'm going to. I'd simply rather not have to bother hating you. Perhaps if you were to engage reality it'd be easier. I'm doubting you're capable, so it looks like it's insult city, cunt.

• "You know what's jacked up is that I have a hard time even voicing my opinion about this, as I can see it as a springboard to Tiassa exploding again." (ibid) - Playing the victim at the same time you're seeking to provoke with an inaccurate and condemning post is very dishonest, Wes.

LOL. You don't recognize sincerity eh? That was honest and from the fucking heart you piece of shit. Sorry you can't relate, but that does not nullify the validity of it. Man you fucking suck. Tell me fucknut, why do you think you know what you know? It's probably not because of your hate for me. No grudge in asshatsville eh? FUCKING LIAR. Maybe the goddamn problem is that you're so used to lying and twisting shit around that you can't even see the simple truth for what it is anymore. My words were pure, and look what happened? I didn't realize when I said it that it was a setup.. I was so freaked out contemplating the thousands and thousands of words of utter fucking rubbish I anticipated from you that I just well... it was freaking me out a bit. So I said what I was feeling. How dishonest of me. What an asshat you are.

• "I suppose I'm a liar? Are you going to "firestorm my character" again? What is sad dude, is that if you knew me if you really read what I'd said, if you could feel what I'm saying right now you might see it as wrong, but you simply could NOT question my character. I do not lie T. I am however, frequently mistaken." (ibid) - See prior note. Also consider the titanic magnitude of your "mistakes." At some point, I would think you would break the pattern. The alternative, of course, is to simply consider you so stupid that you can't figure it out.

The "titanic magnitude of my 'mistakes'"? What the fuck are you on about? Looks to me that you're the titanic asshat, making more mistakes that I thought humanly possible while the entire time apparently feeling utterly vindicated in doing so. That's the kind of baffling shit I've come to expect from you and I gotta say, it's fascinating... so at least, thank you for that, asshat.

Oh, and it's completely beyond me that you cannot seem to fathom that those remarks were genuine. How can I defend myself against your attack? You say "you lie" I say "nuh-uh". Very productive.

• "You remember the couple of times where you said "you can't dispute the facts" or whatever? Yeah, you see your interpretation of other peoples words in a manner that isn't as they were intended... that's not a fact. It's your interpretation, which of course you're entitled to, but you prolly owe the author at least a chance to explain himself. You are a child because you don't allow this because you have already decided how you see it, even though it has nothing to do with how it was intended." (Wesmorris, "Dennis Miller on Politics", 12.23.2003) - All else aside, the one thing you never did was provide any sense of fact. Like in this topic, I can't believe you're still disputing the intent of Dr. Lou's post. In his own words, he sought to be mean and to make people feel stupid. I quoted that bit. It's a fact that such was written. For all the dispute you wanted to take with "fact," I find it very dishonest that the one simple thing you could not do while maintaining your vicious assault was provide any simple sense of fact.

Obviously I'm disputing your ability to correctly interpet a fucking thing anyone says you fucking dipshit. Lou's post is indicative of it, all of my posts here - same, spurious.. 15... yeah, what a bunch of jerks everyone but tiassa is eh? What a fucking dumbass. You just can't see it can you? Goddamnit. It is so frustrating.

I've made my point to you over and over: You are a hypocrite, and you do not listen to what is said. It renders you into an asshat, especially given your apparently unwarrented "celebration of self".

It's just like in the anthropic thread:

I say scarcity = "stuff isn't infinite" and how long have you gone on about it?

It's that simple, it's not "only abstract" in any more of a sense of the term that anything in terms of describing systems is abstract. It is wholly applicable as stated, yet you've got on and on with political this and this smart guy said that when you're simply avoiding what was said in favor of your preconception, as you do pretty much all the time. You admitted it yourself.

All the tattered banners. (do you think they saw them as tattered?)

Waiting for a surprise. (really? got it all figured out eh?)

Meh, I'm done for now. You're fucked up tiassa. You need some fucking humility BOY. As far as I can tell, you have a shitload of knowledge, but you entirely lack understanding. Hmm... maybe it's that you can't apply your understanding. Something like that. You certainly fail to apply understanding to the folks around you here. Maybe it's the medium and you're missing vital cues you might have IRL. Regardless, your misperception makes you look and act like a real fucknut... so I judge you as one. Expand your mind bitch.

LOL.

Eh whatever. I do hope you learn to listen.

Now go on about your bizness.

 

[Tiassa]

Wes

I've taken some time to reflect on this latest tantrum of yours and decided that several questions I might ask really are, in the end, irrelevant; Why is this about you? for instance.

Look, the record is clear.

If I am animated, you object:

You know what's sad is that I have no interest in shutting you up, or calling you dumb or blah blah whatever. I don't want to insult you, I want to communicate to you that you're acting like a serious asshole to these dudes and I wish you would stop, because it's a waste of time. They are not learning anythign except that you are a jerk . . . .

. . . . I suppose I'm a liar? Are you going to "firestorm my character" again? What is sad dude, is that if you knew me if you really read what I'd said, if you could feel what I'm saying right now you might see it as wrong, but you simply could NOT question my character. I do not lie T. I am however, frequently mistaken. (click here to review)

Yes, you are frequently mistaken, Wes.

But that's actually beside the point. Because when I'm dispassionate, you object:

Maybe you should try to remember the days before you thought you had the perfect view of all issues... or was there ever such a day? . . . .

. . . . How did it not occur to you that it is inflammatory to call someone who isn't being inflammatory, inflammatory? Since you are wrong, you are being inflammatory so you can now proceed with admonishing your own presumptuous, pretentious and obnoxious behavior. On with it then. (click here to review)

It doesn't seem to matter to you. You just want to object. And your reasons are perfectly clear:

Nope, I just hate you.

So when, as you have in your latest rhetorical explosion, say such things as--

Why don't you show me where I "went back"? If your reading comprehension were as legendary as you seem to think, you'd have noticed that I never implied more.

--I can only laugh because it is demonstrative of your motivation:

No, I was supporting the position that you were actin like an asshole. If an assholed wants to be redeemed, that asshole generally should either explain why they're being assholes or stop doing it and apoligize see? Certainly I could have been more clear, but as I said, I was a little peeved and dreading the thousands of words of explanations I forsaw, regardless of what I said. So I just blurted out a starting point. Not particularly gracefull, but honest - though you couldn't see that because you know what I was thinking. you are more privvy to my intent than I no? (click here to review)

Like I said then, Wes ... say what you mean, mean what you say. In other words, I still don't get why you were so pissed that I took you according to the text you quoted and the words you wrote instead of imagining what, aside from what you wrote, you might have meant.

I just don't get what you expect to accomplish by asking for information you've disregarded in the past. Do you really want to contest it again? Maybe spin out some new framing of the situation that's all well and fine except that it doesn't reflect what you wrote?

That you extend it to its context is something I simply didn't expect. I quoted what I agreed with.. seems to me if I'd agreed with more... I would have quoted more? Wouldn't I? Why would I only quote that, but agree with everything else?

I figured you would have actually just said what you meant.

Imagine that, having nothing better to do, we watched the Trial of the New Century from beginning to end at a bar together.

• If, after the prosecutor's opening statement, you say, "I support that position wholly" . . . .
• If, after the prosecutor rests, you say, "I support that position wholly" . . . .
• If, after the jury says, "Guilty," you say, "I support that position wholly" . . . .

. . . . how exactly am I supposed to guess that you're talking about something else entirely?

You support the prosecutor's assertion that the accused is guilty, but you don't support the case argued? You support the conclusion independently of the facts it alleges to represent?

But then again, you just hate me.

Meh, I'm done for now.

I would applaud that decision, but I won't presume the context of your use of the words "for now."

You certainly fail to apply understanding to the folks around you here.

It's not necessarily the medium, Wes. More than likely, it's just you and your hatred. As far as I can tell from our prior discussions, to "apply understanding" in a manner satisfactory to you is to simply nod and drool and say, "Yes, you're right. Whatever you say is absolutely correct."

Stop and think about it sometime, Wes: You complain that I write too many words; implicit, then, is that the words "fail to apply understanding to the folks" around me; yet you hate me, skim my posts, and demonstrate a contextual failure that is, by circumstance or choice, an issue of comprehension. Just ... think about it sometime. You're not stupid, after all. You'll figure it out eventually.

In the meantime, lighten up and try to enjoy life a little.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Another day of work at the 'writing crap factory' after a relaxing weekend at home.

 

[airavata]

Originally Posted by Wesmorris (Private Message)

Nope, I just hate you.

If that's a private message, there's a reason it was so. You posted a private message you little girl.
Inflammatory post topic? Dr. Lou is free to make his assertions and give his viewpoints. Panzies may construe some of his statements as 'mean', but that's not the point. Are you so unemployed that you have nothing better to do than write a stupid post that spawns 5 pages of even stupider rubbish? Going by your definition, your post is inflammatory you hypocrite.
Moderator my ass. You're behaving like a 6 year old who's had his toy stolen. Shape up man, and act responsible even if you're a dick in reality.

//In the meantime, lighten up and try to enjoy life a little//

Hahaha. HYPOCRITE. Writing long posts of rubbish- enjoying life?
Sad.

 

[Porfiry]

I suspect this thread is no longer relevant to this particular forum.