No.6772[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1596061744601.png (81.27 KB, 398x506, 199:253, A_wtf.png) ImgOps Google
Um... My other thread on Harry Potter wasn't a debate thread. Or alteast, not one worthy of /townhall/'s more stringent rules. What gives?
No.6773
File: 1596062405469.png (216.75 KB, 402x447, 134:149, 5654768768768.png) ImgOps Google
>>6772As I said earlier, I was the one who moved it due to the fact it was simply not appropriate for /pony/. The thread would have been absolutely 100% fine if it was only left to: "Harry potter sucks". Instead of adding another part that you should know would derive into controversial discussion.
No.6775
File: 1596063552583.png (285.62 KB, 497x670, 497:670, 879898709098.png) ImgOps Google
>>6774That topic has always been controversial everywhere I have seen it discussed... I will wait to see if anyone else would like to weigh in on this.
No.6777
>>6774Your assertion that "the creator of Harry Potter has outed herself as a
terrible person" certainly generated controversy in that thread, as anyone could have foreseen.
No.6778
File: 1596063931156.png (145.03 KB, 340x420, 17:21, well, see.png) ImgOps Google
This entire transphobia debate is not a topic, I think, that suits /pony/ and should take place better in /townhall/
You can argue that was not the point of the thread, but it was steered into that quickly, and knowing the public on ponyville, wouldn't have left either.
Harry Potter is /pony/ material, JK controversy and Transphobia is /townhall/
or maybe that LGBT thread that /pony/ has.
No.6779
>>6777Being a bigot makes you a terrible person.
>>6778Good point, /pony/ has an LGBT thread, but that's not considered "controversial".
No.6783
>>6782>It's kind of silly to say that ponyville doens't have an anti-bigotry stanceThat post that you're responding to didn't say that.
>And so why is it "controversial" to say, in a pro-LGBT space, that someone being anti-LGBT is bad?I've replied to that here:
http://ponyville.us/townhall/res/5957.html#6034 No.6786
>>6785Her being a bad person ought to be completely irrelevant, then, so why start the thread with that?
It shouldn't matter to the idea Harry Potter is of poor quality.
Even if she was a great person, a hero, an angel you stood on earth, the quality of the work ought stand on its own
No.6788
>>6787So, you're saying Harry Potter should suck so she doesn't have a platform.
I think many would find that disagreeable.
No.6789
>>6788I'm saying Harry Potter sucks, and we should accept that it does universally so she doesn't have a platform. That's different than what you said. The way you said that, you make it sound like our actions would
make it suck. When it already does.
No.6790
>>6789The point being though, your thread is politically motivated very least. Your drive to make it seem like Harry Potter is bad, is for that particular removal of platform.
Again, somebody's character shouldn't matter in a discussion of whether something is bad. So it should be irrelevant. Unless it is your goal to make it to others out to be bad for this political ends.
in which case, it absolutely belongs on town hall.
No.6792
>>6790No, I'm not "trying to make it seem" like Harry Potter is bad. Harry Potter IS bad. It just exists in that state prior to today. A state of being bad.
My goal is to make it's badness universally known and accepted. Known to those who are unaware of it's badness and accepted by those who hold on to the idea it was good when it wasn't.
In making it universally known and accepted that Harry Potter is bad, then we diminish the power of J.K. Rowling to spread hatred. This is not a campaign to "make" Harry Potter "look" bad. It is a campaign to make the fact that Harry Potter is bad universally accepted. Big difference.
No.6793
>>6791Thread.
I'm on mobile. Sliding finger thing works good most the time, but it can be a major pain at times.
>>6792That's more or less what I was meaning.
Your reason for trying to convince others is political.
By that kind of logic, it probably should stay on the political board, not the general less serious one
No.6799
>>6798The subject is definitely political, though.
If we use that definition, white supremacy isn't political. I hardly think it would be acceptable to make threads about that on pony.
And it's not like the stuff doesn't have influence on laws in the country anyway. Especially the UK, as I understand it
No.6801
>>6800In essence, because it's an item of moral consideration in regards to the standards of our given social systems.
As long as it's not relating to law or government, should I be allowed to make whatever threat on race I please on pony?
No.6804
>>6801I don't know why you would wanna unless there's something you're not telling us.
>>6802"Being a transphobe is bad" shouldn't be a controversial statement, but here we are.
No.6807
>>6806I disagreed with you. Several hours ago.
>>6805Stop bringing up race to try and bait me. That's as direct as I can be.
No.6808
>>6807I am quite obviously not trying to do so. What I am doing is pointing to the standard at inconsistent.
Why do you have to always assume the worst possible motive in everyone you talk to? It's really irritating. I'm trying to be as up front as is possible, but you read into things far beyond any reasonable point
No.6809
>>6808I got in an argument with someone defending racism on /townhall/, so i'm a little on edge. My appologies. Anyway, to answer your question in
>>6801 No, that wouldn't be allowed. But issues of race are political in nature because they are intertwined with the history of government in this and many other countries.
My topic isn't political because expecting people not to be assholes isn't a political statement.
No.6810
File: 1596079807794.jpg (237.85 KB, 1125x1334, 1125:1334, ef8.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6807>I disagreed with you.OK, but please stop acting as if your thread asserted only that "Being a transphobe is bad". The controversial part was asserting that Rowling is "terrible person". You don't get to duck out of that by acting as if you said something much less controversial.
No.6812
>>6809Then the matter of LGBT issues is logically equally political, as similarly, it had a history in most countries and governments in alike measure.
It's probably a bit of why the LGBT thread seems to avoid heavier discussions and the like, being more about positive support for one another, rather than questions, examination, and philosophy on the relevant concepts
No.6813
File: 1596080032647.jpg (345.9 KB, 991x1400, 991:1400, 1463362685112.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6811OK, but now you must be aware that saying "Rowling is a terrible person" is controversial. Just look at all the controversy that it actually generated!
No.6814
>>6809Incidentally, if they incident is what I think, relating to the thread this lot is about in townhall, the characterization there is equally false.
It was likewise, at least if you're referring to what I think you are, an instance of presuming the worst intent.
No.6815
File: 1596081127274.png (17.61 KB, 334x317, 334:317, 268722__UNOPT__safe_rule-6….png) ImgOps Google
>>6813Not gonna lie, I would've assumed it wasn't controversial, either. I've never heard anyone say she
isn't a terrible person, I've only heard of people abandoning Harry Potter entirely and people who think it's okay that she's a terrible person and continue to consume her writing.
But, like you said, I guess it's actually fairly controversial! So...
No.6816
>>6815Well, if you want to say she's terrible for general attitude and demeanor, that would probably be fine. I think where the issue is, is when you get into the idea of she's a bad person because of transphobia, and so we should work to show people Harry Potter is bad to deny the platform.
More or less anyway
No.6817
File: 1596081518227.png (36.69 KB, 412x382, 206:191, I have no idea.png) ImgOps Google
>>6816>the idea of she's a bad person because of transphobiaWell, yeah, that's the part I didn't think was controversial. Or at least wouldn't be on this site, filled with trans people and people who support them.
No.6818
>>6817If she was hitting trans folk with spiked bats, sure, but I'm inclined to believe at least for myself that while bigotry of any kind is bad, it's usually from place of ignorance, and so the individual isn't bad for it. Where that kind of moral judgement for me comes is based on direct intended harm or inconsistency to one's claimed principle.
But I think the main controversy in this regard became from the whole platforming thing.
Oh, and there's also the question of exactly how much wrong outweighs how much good.
If somebody kicks puppies in their spare time, but happens to be a renowned charity worker with several Nobel Peace prizes, multiple orphanages named after them, and has personally raised eight amputee war orphans, does the first act outweigh the rest?
Are they good or bad?
No.6819
File: 1596082035270.jpg (46.96 KB, 990x530, 99:53, Bewitching-Brews-10-Most-U….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6817I really enjoyed the
Harry Potter series, and the accusation that the author is a "terrible person" really rustled my jimmies.
No.6822
File: 1596084473028.jpg (594.87 KB, 809x1169, 809:1169, 1595779384055.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6820>you should be against transphobia.I am! But I don't reduce a person's whole moral worth to only their failings. I consider Rowling a good person
DESPITE her transphobia. And it's not like Rowling is a particularly vicious transphobe either.
No.6824
File: 1596084786303.jpg (32 KB, 636x477, 4:3, snake-1436017879001.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6823That's where I disagree with you. All of us are sinners one way or another. We should try to find the good in other people rather than only condemning them for their failings.
No.6825
>>6824Qt snek.
I've a similar perspective on such things. Though even this I don't really see as a moral failing, since like I said, I don't fault the ignorant as evil.
No.6826
>>6824I feel like we should call people out on their faults, especially if they are promoting harmful ideas. Otherwise people cannot grow or change.
>>6825it's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to constantly assert that your ignorant position is the correct one without admitting to your own ignorance.
No.6827
File: 1596085851198.jpg (934.2 KB, 1280x1920, 2:3, snake-jurassic.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6826>I feel like we should call people out on their faults, especially if they are promoting harmful ideas.You can do that
without asserting that the person is a "terrible person", though!
>>6825Sneks are cuties!
No.6831
File: 1596207012329.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, eyebrows90.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
It was heading that direction.
Mike made the proper decision.
No.6833
File: 1596256389193.png (141.59 KB, 900x787, 900:787, 1572061048114.png) ImgOps Google
>>6832It was controversial even if not political; /townhall/ isn't just for politics.
No.6834
File: 1596340479022.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, eyebrows90.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6832Not all discussions are political.
No.6835
>>6834Only political discussions get quarantined to /townhall/.
>>6833My point I keep coming back to is "Being a transphobe is bad" should not be "controversial", especially on this board in particular, since it's so openly pro-LGBT>
No.6836
>>6781Chain, arguing that AK47 rights are somehow equivalent to human rights makes your position deliberate bad-faith sophistry.
>>6772I recommend elimination of /townhall entirely. Rn theres a thread about whether 5.x mm rounds are adequate to kill personnel targets which is neither controversial or political, but simply inappropriate on this site under any circumstance.
Get rid of the festering pit that is /townhall.
No.6837
File: 1596414276598.png (526.18 KB, 680x1279, 680:1279, 1425341887157.png) ImgOps Google
>>6836>arguing that AK47 rights are somehow equivalent to human rightsUm, I never did that. I disproved an (implicitly) universally quantified statement by instantiating it and showing that the instantiation was false. Like, if you say "for all x, P(x)", but I can show that P(42) is false, then I disprove your universally quantified statement "for all x, P(x)" by instantiating x with 42.
>My point I keep coming back to is "Being a transphobe is bad" should not be "controversial",Nobody in this thread has disagreed with you on that. The controversial part was something else in your thread OP.
No.6838
File: 1596418174446.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, eyebrows90.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6835Wrong.
>>6836>I recommend elimination of /townhall entirelyI actually agree with Lost for once. It was basically a board made for Noonim whose constant whining made the site a lot worse.
No.6839
File: 1596424026500.png (401.21 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 141305120402.png) ImgOps Google
>>6836>5.x mm roundsYou mean 5.56×45mm NATO?
>which is neither controversial or political,Um, I've gotta disagree with that. The Wikipedia page on the cartridge informs us that: "There has been
much debate of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target in regard to stopping power, lethality, and range." And a question that basically amounts to "Did the US government select a round that is inadequate for its purpose?" seems at least a little political.
No.6841
>>6836I don't think that's a good idea. Tensions are high right now, and there's too many right-wing people on the site to not have a place to push back on their rhetoric.
>>6838Didn't he stop using the site some time ago after getting banned from all the boards but /pony/?
>>6839>>6836We really shouldn't be talking about bullets.
No.6842
File: 1596457186411.png (60.3 KB, 463x436, 463:436, 1596066255264.png) ImgOps Google
>>6836I don't think it was intended to be "bad faith". Though I'll agree it'd've been better to point to something pertaining to actual people, as opposed to an item.
Still, as he pointed out in that thread with the definition, relating to people is not required for bigotry.
What's so improper about talking on the efficacy of a given round type for its intended role?
I'm not against removing /townhall/ entirely. Seems to be a complete disaster.
But, I don't really see why that thread's bad.
No.6843
>>6842Applying an egregious false equivalency to an argument is the height of bad faith, disrespecting all parties involved and rationality itself.
Unconscionable for Chain to be doing all the damn time. I love you Chain but, get some perspective on the importance of basic honesty in discussion. Its dehumanizing to be subjected to flagrant logical fallacies that can only distract from truth or fraudulently prove lies or wrong concepts.
*edit: also your own def of bigotry shows that it applies to people, not objects. Shame on you, Soffist.
>dont see whats wrong with bullet lethality thread on happy pony websiteI know im not supposed to use the word sociopathic here but, ANY rational normal person (even me) can see whats wrong with that.
>>6841So basically Moons wont run me off cuz most of his friends are bigots. Which is the honest way to say "right wing". Maybe /townhall should stay and its human beings who dont think talking about how best to kill casually in their pony place, who should go.
Don't answer me; i concede.
*another edit: hey Max, i'd preesh a reality check here. Im prolly just projecting again. Canterlot self-ban for now
No.6844
File: 1596486723128.jpg (322.91 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, kyouko-opening.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6843>*edit: also your own def of bigotry shows that it applies to people, not objects.The key word is "especially". The word "bigot" can certainly be used to describe obstinate/intolerant opinions and prejudices about objects as well as about people.
>Applying an egregious false equivalency to an argument is the height of bad faith, disrespecting all parties involved and rationality itself.Your understanding of my post greatly differs from my own understanding of my post. I did not mean to argue for any equivalency (false or otherwise). I guess some of the blame for this miscommunication falls on me for not being clearer. But I hope you can try to see the argument that I actually intended to make. I was using the word "bigoted" to apply to prejudices about objects as well as about people. Manley was using it to apply only to people. That was a source the confusion between Manley and me.
>>dont see whats wrong with bullet lethality thread on happy pony website/townhall/ is decidedly
not a happy pony website. In fact, many of the recent posts have been about police officers murdering people!
No.6847
>>6843The trouble is I do not consider it to be a "false equivalency".
It is technically applicable, given the definition. The "especially" portion is not required for the primary definition, merely obstinate devotation to one's opinion or prejudice. Both of which can be on an item.
>I know im not supposed to use the word sociopathic here but, ANY rational normal person (even me) can see whats wrong with that.I would completely disagree. There's a massive difference between talking about the efficacy of something that can kill, and saying you want to, or do not care if someone is killed.
Saying "This particular knife is much more effective at stabbing" doesn't mean "I want to stab someone with this knife".
No.6848
>>6843Right wing people are not necessarily bigoted. At least, in theory.
And I agree with you, we shouldn't have threads about how to effectively kill people, or guns in general. Unless it's to debate gun control. This isn't debating gun control, it's gun nuts having a laugh.
No.6849
File: 1596570820386.gif (67.17 KB, 550x240, 55:24, cat-bullet.gif) ImgOps Google
>>6848> it's gun nuts having a laugh.Ahem. Debating whether the US Government fucked up by selecting 5.56x45mm as the standard infantry cartridge
is not "having a laugh". And it's not like they've never fucked up on such things. The original M16 was an unreliable piece of shit that jammed a lot and resulted in unnecessary deaths of our soldiers.
No.6851
File: 1596587799242.jpeg (30.23 KB, 253x571, 253:571, 5.56-vs-.22lr-c7161a8861d….jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>6850>"is this bullet ...".It's more about the cartridge as a whole than just the bullet. The standard 55-grain 5.56x45mm bullet is only 37.5% more massive than a standard 40-grain .22LR bullet. It's the amount of powder/propellant behind the bullet that makes it even remotely acceptable for military use.
>It's framed as "is this bullet sufficient at killing humans". Yes, that is what the controversy about 5.56x45mm centered about: whether it has sufficient stopping power. Its detractors claimed that the bullet was insufficiently lethal, and that enemy soldiers would be hit by it yet continue shooting at our soldiers.
No.6852
>>6851Something else to point out, in regards to the 'sociopathy' argument early, we actually have laws against hunting with insufficient ammunition in many places for certain game. That is to say, I can't go out and hunt deer with a 22 or 9mm in a lot of places. This is because it's deemed cruel to hunt said animals with a cartridge that would cause undue suffering, as opposed to a clean kill;
This could be easily enough applied in regards to military ammunition applications. Especially if we tack in the common rumor that 5.56 was designed to wound intentionally. You could easily say 'This cartridge is bad because it causes undue suffering".
No.6853
>>6851>It's more about the cartridge as a whole than just the bullet.I don't care.
> that is what the controversy about 5.56x45mm centered about: whether it has sufficient stopping power. Which is not something we should be discussing here. The internet is full of dark corners where weirdos can discuss the best ways of killing people.
>This is because it's deemed cruel to hunt said animals with a cartridge that would cause undue suffering, as opposed to a clean kill;The post in question specifically asks about killing humans. Discussing the ethics of hunting is a different topic, one I think should be allowed. but not when discussing the killing of people.
No.6854
File: 1596602367015.jpg (93.24 KB, 608x1136, 38:71, floridian-swamp-cat.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6853>Which is not something we should be discussing here. The internet is full of dark corners where weirdos can discuss the best ways of killing people.Most people aren't pacifists. The warfighter sometimes needs to kill enemy combatants to accomplish the mission. I don't see any reason to refrain from questioning whether the government has adequately equipped our troops.
No.6855
>>6853>>This is because it's deemed cruel to hunt said animals with a cartridge that would cause undue suffering, as opposed to a clean kill;>The post in question specifically asks about killing humans. Discussing the ethics of hunting is a different topic...I think that was supposed to be reply to
>>6852 ?
No.6857
>>6853>The post in question specifically asks about killing humans. Discussing the ethics of hunting is a different topic, one I think should be allowed. but not when discussing the killing of people.You misunderstand the point. You can't hunt with a 22 LR in many places, because this causes undue suffering to the animal, as 22 LR is an insufficient cartridge for large game.
The same reason why we might ban 22 LR for hunting deer could be used in relation to cartridges meant for human targets in a military application.
5.56 could be said to be bad because it causes undue harm, being an insufficient cartridge for killing humans.
>>6856Just because I am not a soldier doesn't mean I am not allowed to have an opinion on weapons used.
You could easily argue the indifference is what is cruel.
I would say that civilian interest in military conduct is important, as if ultimately left to the military, we probably'd still be using things like flamethrowers and chemical weapons.
No.6858
File: 1596663369950.jpg (72.2 KB, 437x600, 437:600, 193704.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6856>Unless you're a soldier it's not your concern how good they are at killing people. In addition to the points made by
>>6857, I'd like to point out sometimes people are just curious about things. One doesn't need a practical reason to care about something to be intellectually curious about it, and people generally shouldn't be shamed for their curiosity.
No.6859
>>6857I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning here. We'd be better off discussing ways soldiers can avoid killing rather than how they can kill more efficiently.
>>6858We aren't talking about model trains. It's a bad sign if someone is curious on
how to kill people more efficiently No.6860
File: 1596668628290.jpg (779.77 KB, 860x1280, 43:64, akari-1362926628865.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6859The military doesn't kill for the sake of killing, but as a means of stopping the enemy. If you could coat bullets with magic fairy dust that would leave enemy soldiers alive (and with no permanent bodily injury) but also cause them permanently surrender, we'd be all over those.
>It's a bad sign if someone is curious on how to kill people more efficientlySome people are curious about this for bad purposes, but not all. In fact, I'd say that most of them are curious about it for innocent reasons.
No.6861
>>6860>The military doesn't kill for the sake of killingDebatable! But this isn't the debate page.
>In fact, I'd say that most of them are curious about it for innocent reasons. I don't think there's anyway to quantify that.
No.6862
>>6861>I don't think there's anyway to quantify that.Then why would you disparage people (who are curious about the stopping power / lethality of 5.56x45mm) based on something that you admit you can't quantify? Especially given that some of your fellow posters on /townhall/
have indicated some interest on this topic!
No.6863
File: 1596872691551.png (163.09 KB, 428x372, 107:93, all ruined.png) ImgOps Google
>>6844The key word is NOT "especially", it is
absurdity.
There was no genuine miscommunication between you and Manley regarding the meaning of the word "bigotry". There was a false equivalency which you deliberately imposed on the conversation by injecting a "object bigotry" concept that is neither valid nor misunderstood by either party, and you did so for the purpose of creating disagreement over minutia where you clearly lacked a valid position to defend.
Absurd.
No.6864
>>6863>There was no genuine miscommunication between you and Manley regarding the meaning of the word "bigotry". But there was! See the following dialogue:
=================
>>>/townhall/6032
>You can still be bigoted and prejudiced against inanimate objects.
>>>/townhall/6033
>when I say "bigotry", I almost exclusively mean bigotry against people or groups of people and on very, very rare occassions, other living organisms besides people.
=================
I was using the word "bigoted" in a way that extended equally to living and non-living things, while Manley was using it in way that extended exclusively to living things.
>There was a false equivalency I never asserted any equivalency. I only asserted that being prejudiced against AR-15s satisfied the definition of "bigotry".
>Do you really believe this website is the appropriate place to discuss bullets, Chain? I think it is appropriate in /townhall/ but not in /pony/. After all, /townhall/ is the place for the 'heavy' topics of conversation.
No.6866
>>6864Yes, your deliberate misuse of the word to apply to objects was a false equivalency to the correct way Manley was using it. And the flawed foundation of your "reasoning". Garbage in, garbage out.
And don't pretend that is somehow not a really insulting thing to do to discussion partners.
No.6867
>>6866It's not a misuse, though. Which is why your presumption of intent is so flawed. You're just assuming his intention because he used a word as he understands it.
If you want to talk about "garbage", maybe jumping straight to wild theories about the true intent beyond what was posted, explained, or reasoned, in order to claim someone's being a dick, is itself rather 'garbage' behavior.
Especially considering how quickly Chain moved on from that particular aspect when Manley clarified his meaning;
>"but just for clarity's sake when I say "bigotry", I almost exclusively mean bigotry against people or groups of people and on very, very rare occassions, other living organisms besides people." No.6868
>>6867You can't just use whatever words you want "as you understand them". Words have specific meaning and usages. And sure, those can change over time, but using a word to mean whatever you want is still being intellectually dishonest at best, and incorrect at worst.
And as I explained earlier. I only "clarified my meaning" because of the rules of /townhall/. I still think the way he used that word is completely absurd.
No.6869
>>6867This is a pretty dick ad hominem attack against me, so you have some nerve claiming im attacking anyone.
Chain's intent to disrupt Manley's reasoning with unfair fake reasoning was clear, and he takes great pleasure in cleverly working out all the possible escapes for a persons statements by rolling out every non-sequitor or other fallacy possible to derail logic into absurdity.
This is far from an isolated occasion. Its constant.
Its not calling him a dick to tell my friend how that cleverness is not "cute" but actually damned unfriendly, and our friendship is worth working on it.
"Wild theories" yes, good use of adjectives to mischaracterize a simple and solidly-proven theory that Chain likes sophistry. I challenge you to disprove it, smart guy. You can't. But try, maybe redefine some words or sonething. Chain's that clever; you're not.
*edit: garbage in/garbage out refers to reasoning, not behavior. You can't start with garbage and turn it into logic, even if it looks like logic the conclusion is still garbage.
No.6870
File: 1597084878831.png (386.18 KB, 459x593, 459:593, 1473524759063.png) ImgOps Google
>>6868>I still think the way he used that word is completely absurd.Well, I still think the dictionary disagrees with you.
http://ponyville.us/canterlot/src/1596457186411.png>>6869>Chain's intent to disrupt Manley's reasoning with unfair fake reasoning was clearWhy do you insist on imputing bad intentions on me? I was arguing a point in good faith. If you think that my logic is flawed or that my definition of "bigotry" is contrary to common usage, that's fair to criticize my posts. Or if you want to criticize me for focusing too much on technicalities instead of going after a steelmanned version of Manley's argument, I suppose you could do that as well. But it sucks to be falsely accused of arguing in bad faith. You don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that post. And there's no way for me to
prove to you that my intentions were good, so these sorts of accusations just produce a lot of bad feelings without actually shedding any light on the controversy. Please try to stick to criticizing arguments instead of criticizing the intentions of your fellow posters who make the arguments.
No.6871
File: 1597085124691.png (60.3 KB, 463x436, 463:436, 1596457186411.png) ImgOps Google
>>6868So, you're saying it was "intellectually dishonest" of you to use "bigot" as though it was exclusive to people?
I think that's a little harsh, personally. Most words hold a variety of definitions that also consequently hold different meanings to different people based on the specific wording of those definitions.
It's why defining your terms is so important. Explaining what it means to
you.
I'd hardly say it's reasonable to call you "dishonest" for applying "bigot" only in relation to views on people as a result.
>>6869If it's ad hominem, then what you did to Chain was the same.
And you
did go on the attacks first;
>>6836>"Chain, arguing that AK47 rights are somehow equivalent to human rights makes your position deliberate bad-faith sophistry."You literally said Chain was
intentionally arguing in bad faith.
Do you not see how hypocritical you're being here?
>Chain's intent to disrupt Manley's reasoning with unfair fake reasoning was clear,Clear to
you.
Not clear to me.
His immediate switch to people when Manley made clear his definitions rather demonstrated that. Someone intentionally trying to "disrupt" would not have done that. They would've stuck to the definition, and argued from that point.
> and he takes great pleasure in cleverly working out all the possible escapes for a persons statements by rolling out every non-sequitor or other fallacy possible to derail logic into absurdity.Again I call you a hypocrite; You're pulling the same "ad hominem" attack, while pretending as though you've never done so.
This aside; You've not based that in evidence. You've only claimed that.
I do not agree.
Maybe that's your perspective on him, but people's opinions are not always reality. There's a lot of people I think are dicks. I would hardly go out and claim that they're evil monsters who intentionally go out to fuck over others, though. I am not them, I cannot see into their head.
>"Wild theories" yes, good use of adjectives to mischaracterize a simple and solidly-proven theory that Chain likes sophistry. Then instead of
CLAIMING it,
PROVE it.
Until you do, it is nothing but a theory. A theory I certainly consider wild.
> I challenge you to disprove it, smart guy. Not how burden of proof works.
Or are you a rapist, now, because you can't prove you aren't?
The exact same unprovable accusation can be leveled against you: You are not here arguing from a position of "friendship" or to seek improvement in others, you're intentionally here to cause pain and misery to others.
Would you consider that a fair characterization?
Should we just accept it as fact, because you cannot prove your intention?
No.6872
>>6871No, I'm saying that applying "bigotry" to anything but living things is absurd, and so uncommon that it would be right to question someone's motives using it to apply to inanimate objects.
>>6870This definition is for "bigot" not "bigotry". It does not tell us if the word "bigotry" can or should be applied to inanimate objects.
No.6873
>>6872"Words have specific meanings and usages".
Maybe you've got a different cultural exposure to the terminology based on where you grew up and hang out with.
I've certainly run in to it before. It's fairly common for, as the definition says, someone really bullheaded in their particular beliefs.
No.6874
File: 1597088532277.png (70.88 KB, 600x600, 1:1, def-bigotry.png) ImgOps Google
>>6872>This definition is for "bigot" not "bigotry".OK, fair enough. Here is a definition of "bigotry".
No.6875
>>6871>Then instead of CLAIMING it, PROVE it.I did. You failed to.
>>6870I have checked your bad-faith arguments enuf that you should by now understand my position. I'm through repeating unsolicited advice, if ypu wish to degenerate arguments into false semantics, i cant stop you.
>>6871Thats a flawed definition and every rational person knows that bigotry applies to opinions about people not objects.
There can BE no factual challenge to my rock-solid proven position. Y'all feel free to sputter without me; im done here.
No.6876
File: 1597092494406.jpg (289.4 KB, 937x631, 937:631, 1494422085176.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6875>I have checked your bad-faith arguments enuf that you should by now understand my position. You keep disparaging my intentions without offering any proof of what I actually had in mind when I wrote my posts.
>>6875>every rational person knows that bigotry applies to opinions about people not objects.Many rational people who don't speak English as their native language don't have any idea what the word "bigotry" means. It's not a very common word. And even many native speakers aren't aware of the precise meanings it has been used to denote.
>There can BE no factual challenge to my rock-solid proven position.You haven't really even engaged with the dictionary definition that has been posted ITT or worked with any citations of the word from any linguistic corpora. You're just repeating your own opinion without citing any objective evidence.
No.6877
>>6876If pointing out bad-faith argument is disparaging then i understand why you have not confronted this within yourself.
>English as second languageSeems a reason why as a person who does understand the meaning of tge word has a greater responsibility not to misdirect using false definitions.
I feel really shit on here for pointing out the obvious. Fuck you all, im done with this site.
No.6878
File: 1597095690477.jpg (2.24 MB, 2046x1447, 2046:1447, girl-in-fishbowl.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6877>If pointing out bad-faith argument is disparagingOf course it is disparaging to accuse someone of (making an argument in bad faith)! If you want to say that someone's argument is flawed, that's fine. But if you claim that someone deliberately made a flawed argument and tried to pass it off as a good argument, yeah, that's going to make the person mad.
No.6879
>>6875>I did. You failed to.You quite literally did not. All you've done is make accusations.
>Thats a flawed definition and every rational person knows that bigotry applies to opinions about people not objects.You speak for everyone?
I do not agree that it does. Therefor not "everyone" agrees with you.
The definition doesn't seem to, so I presume whoever wrote it also doesn't. Again; Not "everyone".
>>6877Literally saying someone is intentionally arguing in a dishonest manner is absolutely disparaging.
>>6836>"Chain, arguing that AK47 rights are somehow equivalent to human rights makes your position deliberate bad-faith sophistry."You said you were "done" already. If you have to announce you're leaving, you probably aren't.
No.6880
File: 1597106364677.png (12.97 KB, 253x329, 253:329, lola30.png) ImgOps Google
Probably should have locked this before now. This kinda isn't the best place for this kind of discussion, I don't think.
