(July 25, 2019 at 8:02 am)ReptilianPeon Wrote: We seem to have become sidetracked. I think critiquing a dead person's actions is okay but ideally nobody should be insulting anybody, alive or dead: it doesn't make for good discourse. I assume I'm allowed to voice my dislike for President Andrew Jackson, for example?

Now, getting back on topic, my day to see Rob has been confirmed. Therefore, I can pass on messages people have in person. Hopefully I can make him feel great!

I take your point and you're right, but theres a time and a way to do that tastefully and with some decorum and that wasn't done in this case. 

Please tell Rob that although I cannot in any way subscribe to his new thoughts and point of view on things that I wish him nothing but the very best and hope his depression etc is improving.

Quote:It's been walked back a little bit. Someone said recently that nasty personal insults are "acceptable."

No it has not and no they did not

Quote:But by posting lots of them, people demonstrate that they think it's good to post them.

This does not follow

Quote:Now this is almost scary. That the memory hole can be so deep and so efficient is a surprise, even to me, who has seen it in action before.
Here's what happened:
The guy in question posted a quote from Spinoza in order to make fun of it. It was clear at a glance that there was a mistranslation in the quote, because it contrasted "immanent" with "transient." But that has nothing to do with Spinoza's thought (or anyone else's). The contrasting word is "transcendent."
So I made a joke about how spell-check apps were primitive in Spinoza's time, and provided a more modern and accurate translation, with the link to the published source.
The guy in question spent the rest of the afternoon responding with silly personal insults about how "transient" was really the opposite of "immanent," and how I was a horrible person (expressed in more colorful language), etc.
This is all as clear as yesterday in my memory.
I believe that no one remembers it because at the time it was considered a good and funny thing to do.
I didn't intend to go into detail about his failings, because that wasn't the point I wanted to make. I made, and still am only interested in, the point about the shocking double standard of how we treat in-group vs. out-group discussions. I think it is immoral.

So we ask you over and over again to prove this and the best you have is antidote told only from your biased perspective, And the other party involved can't answer your charge, And I would imagine no one remembers it because it didn't happen or didn't happen as your telling it .

(July 25, 2019 at 8:11 pm)Amarok Wrote: from your biased perspective, And the other party involved can't answer your charge, 

About an hour ago, on another thread, you posted an extremely negative judgment about millions and millions of people, some of whom are recently dead. You didn't give any evidence for your assertions. 

And you typed a personal insult. 

The standards you have for yourself seem to be different from those you demand of me.

Quote:About an hour ago, on another thread, you posted an extremely negative judgment about millions and millions of people, some of whom are recently dead. You didn't give any evidence for your assertions. 

Nope i posted a negative comment about an ideologies  warped views of charity and it's myopia I did not insult individuals let alone dead ones unlike you. Next you gave no evidence of the insult that's a fact .All i did was say charities with ideology attached is not charity what more proof does that claim require ?And that Christianity is myopic I don't see how anyone could disagree with that it virtually baked into the ideologies view of human beings .

Quote:And you typed a personal insult. 

Nope I told you were not a person of facts logic or arguments . That's not an insult that's an assessment based on your comments and of your reasoning not your personage

Quote:The standards you have for yourself seem to be different from those you demand of me.

Nope you insulted a dead person who could not defend himself without proof . I commented an ideology/ Organizations who can defend it's self of charges that require little proof and seem evident to the ideology . I made a opinion of your reasoning and comments not you .And agreed with a comment (though reviewing it i will admit it was judging people which i disagree with but i agree with it that ideological charity is fake charity and Christianity is myopic ) Thus no double standards have been done here .

---

My comments 

Quote:Charity with an ideology attached isn't charity 

Clearly I'm talking about ideology not people .Christianity is predatory even if it's practitioners are not aware of it  

Quote:It not certainly is and no we don't need mind reading to conclude this

This is again not insulting people i'm clearly arguing Christianity is myopic and it's believes about humanity I feel more then demonstrates this

Quote:No your quite the opposite and I don't care about persuading you .Nor do I care really what you opinion of my comment is . So kindly keep your pretentious scribblings to yourself .

Not a personal insult .

Quote:And even then he misses the post and falls flat on his face in the dark .

Not an insult 

Quote:Truth

I agreed with a great deal of the comment this is a response too. That ideological charity is fake and that Christianity is myopic. Though i will acknowledge the comment was a judgement but not mine

---

(July 25, 2019 at 9:15 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 25, 2019 at 8:11 pm)Amarok Wrote: from your biased perspective, And the other party involved can't answer your charge, 

About an hour ago, on another thread, you posted an extremely negative judgment about millions and millions of people, some of whom are recently dead. You didn't give any evidence for your assertions. 

And you typed a personal insult. 

The standards you have for yourself seem to be different from those you demand of me.

Also your attempt to deflect is hilarious

(July 22, 2019 at 5:05 pm)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:Would you be offended by insults against Osama bin Ladin, even though he's not here to defend himself? I think you wouldn't. 

Osama Bin Laden killed thousands of innocent people this is a proven fact . You have yet to provide any evidence of your claim that person said some mean things on the internet .

What about his enemies? we should be very fair and never fear what people say, so I'm trying to be very fair.
Osama bin laden made the mistake of his life when he thought that killing civilians would make him win. But his enemies did the same; and he was taught by them; took lessons from their acts too.

All of us know the western crimes practiced in WW2; we all know the Vietnam crimes; Osama took his lessons from these encounters; and his logic was: "why can't I do the same if the west is doing it??"

That logic might be tempting for some -and the proof is shown that the world suffered from his legacy for decades-; but though tempting to his followers it defies the Quran -from my perspective-: you should never hurt that who didn't hurt you. That's the beef I got with terrorists and Osama: what did infants or innocents dying from bombing ever did to you ? they did nothing that requires penalty.

But the atomic weapons are not in the hands of Osama; they are in the hands of superpowers. And they will use it sooner or later just like they did against Japan; it will be the biggest massacre earth have ever seen. All we need is an Osama; a Trump; a Kim and a blender.

(July 26, 2019 at 6:20 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(July 22, 2019 at 5:05 pm)Amarok Wrote: Osama Bin Laden killed thousands of innocent people this is a proven fact . You have yet to provide any evidence of your claim that person said some mean things on the internet .

What about his enemies? we should be very fair and never fear what people say, so I'm trying to be very fair.
Osama bin laden made the mistake of his life when he thought that killing civilians would make him win. But his enemies did the same; and he was taught by them; took lessons from their acts too.

All of us know the western crimes practiced in WW2; we all know the Vietnam crimes; Osama took his lessons from these encounters; and his logic was: "why can't I do the same if the west is doing it??"

That logic might be tempting for some -and the proof is shown that the world suffered from his legacy for decades-; but though tempting to his followers it defies the Quran -from my perspective-: you should never hurt that who didn't hurt you. That's the beef I got with terrorists and Osama: what did infants or innocents dying from bombing ever did to you ? they did nothing that requires penalty.

But the atomic weapons are not in the hands of Osama; they are in the hands of superpowers. And they will use it sooner or later just like they did against Japan; it will be the biggest massacre earth have ever seen. All we need is an Osama; a Trump; a Kim and a blender.

Pointing to the wests evil does not help Osama . Your doing the same thing Israel does when they are criticized pointing at someone else's flaws to exonerate someone else .

(July 26, 2019 at 7:11 am)Amarok Wrote: Pointing to the wests evil does not help Osama . Your doing the same thing Israel does when they are criticized pointing at someone else's flaws to exonerate someone else .

I'm not helping Osama; he can rot for all I care.
I'm just pointing out to the other fact that people mostly neglect. The funniest thing in all of this is that the bombs used by Osama were in fact; western. The weapons he used he got from the west -and later Russia-. Hell; even the training he got was western; taught to western soldiers, and employed against enemies of the west. That's more of one shooting their own foot.

My words can be validated by looking at the amount of popularity his disgusting way got.

Surely at this point this off-topic stuff needs to be split from this thread? It's got literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.

(July 26, 2019 at 8:05 am)Jello Wrote: Surely at this point this off-topic stuff needs to be split from this thread? It's got literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You have a point.
I apologize.

(July 24, 2019 at 7:30 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 24, 2019 at 3:42 pm)Cod Wrote: insensitive prick

Insensitive prickish statements are applauded, if they're made against people we disapprove of.

Do you applaud such statements?  Or are you the exception?