’)Apparently on hearing about Sen. Kennedy’s brain tumor the Freepers got so bad they had to close the thread. Considering they never do that, it had to have gotten pretty bad.
Breaking News
CBO Report: Health Care Reform Reduces Deficit By $1 Trillion
In an election year, you have to wipe the spittle from your mouth, so that you don’t look insane.
Never heard of the crowd of Texans who broke into cheering upon hearing that Kennedy had been assassinated?
And you expected them to be nice because…?
Wow, since when did Freep turn into Huffington Post? It seems any time they mention Bush or Cheney, they have to close the threads, for similar reasons…
I don’t think I’ve ever read Freep, and now I think I don’t have to.
J.
Had to go all the way to Freep to find someone trashing Senator Kennedy’s illness, huh?
That’s hardly surprising for a number of reasons.
On the other hand, you only have to go as far as Oliver Willis’s obituary of Charlton Heston to be reminded that death does not automatically confer goodness on a person.
Apples and oranges, though… obviously.
Who’s the Supergirl model?
Jay Tea: “Wow, since when did Freep turn into Huffington Post? It seems any time they mention Bush or Cheney, they have to close the threads, for similar reasons…”
Really? I bet you are a fucking liar. Care to prove me wrong?
Well, there’s always the comment boards on the Tribune newspaper sites (Chi. Trib, NY Newsday, etc.)
At least Mark Levin showed some class for maybe the second time in his life, and wished a recovery for the Senator.
Strow, I’m certain you’ll discount this because of the source, but note that there is a link to a PDF screenshot of the comments before they were shut down.
Or, perhaps, you’ll look here.
Sometimes, they don’t bother to purge the really fun comments:
I’m embarrased that this guy hasn’t had a heart-attack yet. The kind that end’s life.
Get a rope for Dick..
hang cheney for war crimes this week.
hang cheney for treason against america this week.
hang cheney.
So, to speak to you in your own language, Strow, take that and shove it up your lying ass, fuckbag.
(My apologies to everyone else for the intemperate language, but I wanted to make sure I was understood, so I indulged in Strow’s preferred lingua.)
J.
“So, to speak to you in your own language, Strow, take that and shove it up your lying ass, fuckbag.”
Wow. You are a fucking retard. Just simply stupid beyond belief.
And because you are fucking retarded, I will have to explain myself in smaller words…
Original Claim (emphasis added): “Wow, since when did Freep turn into Huffington Post? It seems any time they mention Bush or Cheney, they have to close the threads, for similar reasons…”
You came up with three examples. Three. I could come up with three times Republican elected leaders joked about killing people.
Again, I’m asking for evidence to back up your claim, your original claim. One or two examples won’t do. You will need to find an overwhelming pattern to prove what you originally claimed. Either do that, or admit you lied.
JT: It seems any time they mention Bush or Cheney, they have to close the threads, for similar reasons
CSS: I bet you are a fucking liar. Care to prove me wrong?
JT: note that there is a link to a PDF screenshot of the comments before they were shut down. Or, perhaps, you’ll look here. Sometimes, they don’t bother to purge the really fun comments: …
CSS: You came up with three examples. … One or two examples won’t do. You will need to find an overwhelming pattern to prove what you originally claimed.
It might help, CSS, if you clearly state where the goalposts are. That way if a 20 page essay complete with at least 47 references properly footnoted is needed that would be known from the start.
Sean, that’ll never happen. That’d require something like honesty, and Strow’s too busy spraying spittle all over the place to do that sort of thing.
Besides, it would require him to acknowledge that I am not a “subhuman piece of shit,” I believe the phrase is, and again, he could never do that.
I gave concrete examples of the FACT that the psychos over at HuffPo go nuts when Cheney is mentioned. Apparently I need to demonstrate that it happens every single time, without exception, with every single commenter participating, in order to meet Stroke’s criteria — and even then he’ll find some way of denying it.
I don’t really engage him to persuade him of anything, though. The target is the other readers, who can see him go absolutely apeshit psycho when I say things he doesn’t like. It does far more damage to his cause than anything I can say.
J.
Sean D. Martin: “It might help, CSS, if you clearly state where the goalposts are.”
Jay Tea: “Sean, that’ll never happen. That’d require something like honesty, and Strow’s too busy spraying spittle all over the place to do that sort of thing.”
Gee. Maybe the goalposts were clear WHEN JAY TEA WROTE HIS ORIGINAL CLAIM! He made a claim, his first attempt at backing it up fell way short.
Or are you two too fucking stupid to understand that? Seriously, if you don’t get that, fucking get off the internet and get an education.
Jay Tea made a fucking claim, and if you can’t back it up, he is a fucking liar. If Sean thinks I moved the goalposts, then he’s a fucking liar as well.
Here’s a tip Jay Tea, if you don’t want to be called a liar, don’t make claims you can’t back up. There’s no fucking way you are willing to do the research it would take to back up that claim, and if you did do the research, you would find out it wasn’t true. Maybe you would like to rephrase it so it matches reality a little closer. How about it? Then you would only be careless with your language and not a complete liar.
Not that you seem to care CS, but Jay’s claim is on pretty solid ground. Rightie blogs, as you might imagine, point it out as often as they can. HuffPo is indeed one of the most common offenders, probably followed by Kos. Righties don’t have any sort of claim to superiority though, as the original post can attest to. I don’t think its hard to find examples of this from either side.
I would like to point out that this is another example of Sean acting like an idiot because he doesn’t like by debate style. Anyone who read Jay Tea’s original post would realize that three examples do not equate to ‘any time.’ But no, he sees me use profanity and he has to jump in and attack the substance of my argument. The only problem is, my argument is sound.
Haplo9: “Not that you seem to care CS, but Jay’s claim is on pretty solid ground.”
Really? He fucking said, “any time.” “…It seems any time they mention Bush or Cheney, they have to close the threads…” If you think that’s a solid claim, you’re fucking retarded as well.
So fuck you for saying I don’t care, because apparently I’m the only one involved who does care about what was really said.
CS: You have a debating style? Looks a lot like stamping your feet and yelling to me. You made an ill considered challenge, Jay called your bluff, and now you are trying to distract from it by blustering as loud as you can. Noone is fooled. Grow up and move on.
Hello CS,
The “it seems” portion of Jay Tea’s comment indicated – to me, at least – that he was using hyperbole to express the point that people on both sides often publicly comment on the death or murder of those they disagree with politically.
I didn’t think Jay Tea was being particularly subtle in this hyperbole, but one man’s subtlety is another man’s brick through a window, so perhaps you missed it. Either way, if you are truly waiting around for him to link to every single mention of Bush or Cheney in HuffPo’s history, I would certainly make sure you have a healthy supply of food on hand, as it might be awhile.
Though I usually agree with your beliefs more than Jay Tea’s, your debating style often undermines your arguments to a significant degree. In fact, that style has already caused political “opponents” of Jay Tea’s to defend him in this thread – something I doubt you intended.
Well, I guess this is the part where you swear at me for disagreeing with you. Let the f-bombs commence.
jojo, I thought that if I put conditionals such as “it seems” and “pretty much every time” would make it clear that I was using a touch of hyperbole to make my point — not that it was not an absolute, but far closer to the rule than the exception.
I underestimated Strow’s arrogant, aggressive stupidity. I didn’t think for an instant that he’d drop the modifiers and focus his tiny little brain in the “every time” and conveniently overlook the modifiers.
I apologize for giving you too much credit, Strow. For presuming you’d have the necessary intelligence and honesty to recognize common rhetorical devices and simple English. I’ll be more careful about that in the future.
J.
I like how CS has his BS called on and then he changes his tiny mind and says that JT is responsible for showing him every single instance of when it happened.
Just give it up CS. You lost on this one.
Twit.
Many people in my family knew Democrats (albeit conservative Alabama ones) who rejoiced and cheered when they found out Kennedy had been shot. This is nothing new.
Yeah and I remember when there people who were disappointed that Reagan didn’t die when he was shot.
Why do you people believe that only conservatives have a monopoly on such behavior?
Well, I don’t believe they hold a monopoly. I do feel they have a controlling interest in the company.
Conservative humor, at least as it has been for much of the last decade and a half, is built on a foundation of congratulating oneself for an impressive streak of cruelty and mockery–this is why right-wing “entertainers” such as Rush and Savage have no compunctions about attacking Parkinson’s victims or children who don’t readily prop up their agenda.
Liberals have said a great number of unseemly things about conservatives. I won’t deny that. But conservatives have actually made a multimillion-dollar industry out of their ugliness.
CSS: Anyone who read Jay Tea’s original post would realize that three examples do not equate to ‘any time.’
Yes, they would. And anyone who read Jay Tea’s original post wouldn’t understand the point he was making (threads have gotten closed when Cheney is mentioned, too, so this isn’t a one way thing) without having to split hairs on the specific words he used like some child going “nyah nyah” on the playground (“He said ‘any time’ they are mentioned, and it doesn’t happen every single time, so there he’s wrong.”)
Anyone who was not irrationally anal about dismissing anything Jay Tea says with a bombast of profanity while claiming that’s a “debating style” when in actuality it’s just cover for the fact that no real substantive counter argument is being made, that is.
CSS: Really? He fucking said, “any time.” “…It seems any time they mention Bush or Cheney, they have to close the threads…” If you think that’s a solid claim, you’re fucking retarded as well.
Ignoring the point actually being made to focus on and nit pick a specific phrase used in trying to make that point. How Republican of you.
CSS: So fuck you for saying I don’t care, because apparently I’m the only one involved who does care about what was really said.
While caring nothing about the point being made.
jojo: The “it seems” portion of Jay Tea’s comment indicated – to me, at least – that he was using hyperbole to express the point that people on both sides often publicly comment on the death or murder of those they disagree with politically.
Excellent point. And I didn’t even notice that since I got, I believe, the intent of JT’s comment without having to pick it apart word by word.
But please take note of it CSS. If you’re going to focus so strictly on the fact that Jay Tea did say “any time” in his original comment, don’t you also have to note that he proceeded it with “It seems” and (if being honest) acknowledge he isn’t saying that it actually does happen every time?
I can’t believe so many people here are this retarded!
Jojo: “The “it seems” portion of Jay Tea’s comment indicated – to me, at least – that he was using hyperbole…”
No shit he was using hyperbole. He was using hyperbole to try and claim Huffington Post is as bad as the Freepers. And I called him on it. I asked for proof of that. He never came close. This is a line of attack the Republicans have been using for more than a decade. It’s bullshit.
Jay: “I like how CS has his BS called on and then he changes his tiny mind and says that JT is responsible for showing him every single instance of when it happened.”
Not ever single instance, but enough to show a pattern. Perhaps he could take every mention in a week, which is easy to do with Google, and show how many include the type of attacks he says is common.
If he doesn’t want to do that much work, he shouldn’t make the claim.
And he won’t do that much work, because he knows his claim is wrong.
Sean: “Yes, they would. And anyone who read Jay Tea’s original post wouldn’t understand the point he was making (threads have gotten closed when Cheney is mentioned, too, so this isn’t a one way thing)…”
That’s not the fucking claim he was making. He was equating Huffington Post with the Freepers. Got it? He wasn’t saying you could find examples on the left, he was saying things were as bad on the left.
This is the claim he made, and it is a lie. It is a lie that has been used by the right for a long, long time.
A: This is a thing!
B: You are wrong. It is an item.
A: You’re just arguing semantics.
B: Actually, I’m debating terminology.
ROFL, SpiderJ.
And so true.
“A: This is a thing!
B: You are wrong. It is an item.
A: You’re just arguing semantics.
B: Actually, I’m debating terminology.”
No, it’s more like…
A: Huffington Post is as bad as the Freepers.
B: Prove it!
A: Here’s three examples.
B: That doesn’t come close to proving your original claim.
If I said, “It seems like all Americans are retarded.” it would take more than three examples before people would agree that I have proven my claim. There have been 86 references to Bush or Cheney in the past 24 hours (at least according to Google). Even if all three examples were from the past 24 hours, then you would have 3 out of 86 threads, which is a tiny percentage. Jay Tea’s attempt to equate Huffington Post and the Freepers would be proven wrong. And that’s the best case for the evidence he’s given.
Sean: “ROFL, SpiderJ. And so true.”
The only thing funny about it, is you think it’s true.
Fine, CS, it’s not true, and Sean’s a boob for thinking so. But I just watched you expend what seems to be the exact same amount of rampaging passion to fight back against the statement:
“The Huffington Post is just as bad as the Free Press”
as you usually expend fighting back against more important outrages.
They’re online media sites, and for the most part they’re enjoyed only by hardcore political junkies. You are picking nits over what was a poorly phrased attempt to attack an online media site. You’re lashing out at everybody who doesn’t join in your noble efforts to defend an online media site. I feel like I’m watching one of those war films where General Halfcock keeps yelling at his soldiers to take over Hill 487 just to make sure the Japs don’t get it.
OK, CSS. You’ve provided some data on HuffPo but haven’t proven anything either as you’ve provided no data to support the contention that that rate (3 out of 86 threads) is any different than for Freepers.
(Not that I really care, but I want to see CSS waste some time digging up more detailed data.)
In the meantime,
CSS: so many people here are this retarded!
Really? I bet you are a fucking liar. Care to prove me wrong?
I’m violating Napoleon’s edict here of “never interrupt your opponent when he’s making a mistake,” but I can’t help myself.
Someone needs to explain The First Rule Of Holes to Stroke. Using his logic, I didn’t “prove” HuffPo is as bad as Freep, but worse.
The initial thesis was based on a single example of Freepers going bonkers. I responded with three examples of Huffers going equally bonkers. Therefore, the Huffers are three times as worse as the Freeps.
Also, Stroke chooses to set a specific time frame for testing both sites. That is dishonest. The Cheney bits at HuffPo happened in context of Cheney making the headlines, as is the timeliness of the Ted Kennedy piece. Simply picking an arbitrary date for comparing the two is beyond pointless, beyond stupid, it’s dishonest.
Personally, I have no use for either HuffPo or Freep, and carry as a badge of honor that I’ve been banned three times from DU. Whenever I feel the need for a bit of exposure for frothing, spittle-spraying hysteria and hyperpartisan idiocy, I know I can count on Stroke.
J.
Far more often than not (and, no, I’m not going to feel the slightest need to provide any proof to back that up) I disagree with Jay Tea’s view. But…
Whenever I feel the need for a bit of exposure for frothing, spittle-spraying hysteria and hyperpartisan idiocy, I know I can count on Stroke.
not always.
CS, dude, back away from the keys and take a breath.
I’m gonna tell you the same thing I used to tell Frank DeSalle. You’re letting people rent space in your head. That way lies madness.
Let it go.
“OK, CSS. You’ve provided some data on HuffPo but haven’t proven anything either as you’ve provided no data to support the contention that that rate (3 out of 86 threads) is any different than for Freepers.”
Two points:
One…
Now you are shifting the burden of proof.
Step 1: Jay Tea made a claim.
Step 2: I asked for proof.
Step 3: Jay Tea didn’t supply adequate proof.
It sounds like you are finally coming around to understanding that.
Two…
It’s not 3 out of 86. That’s the absolute best case scenario given the piss poor evidence Jay Tea gave, and half that evidence I supplied myself. He has given no evidence to back up his original claim, so I have to give no evidence to defeat it. At this point, all I can do is ask for evidence.
“Fine, CS, it’s not true, and Sean’s a boob for thinking so. But I just watched you expend what seems to be the exact same amount of rampaging passion to fight back against the statement:
‘The Huffington Post is just as bad as the Free Press’
as you usually expend fighting back against more important outrages.”
It’s the “But, but, but Clinton.” argument, which has been going on for a long, long time. So long, that the MSM believe it. It’s the same lie Creationists spread when arguing they deserve equal time with actual science. It is a lie that has become so pervasive that most people don’t even recognize it as a lie.
“Someone needs to explain The First Rule Of Holes to Stroke. Using his logic, I didn’t “prove” HuffPo is as bad as Freep, but worse.
The initial thesis was based on a single example of Freepers going bonkers. I responded with three examples of Huffers going equally bonkers. Therefore, the Huffers are three times as worse as the Freeps.”
Except your claim was based on percentages. You claimed that a very high percentage of times Cheney and Bush are mentioned, HuffPost has to close the comments. You provided three examples, however, you didn’t provide the number of mentions Bush or Cheney get on HuffPost during that time.
Until you provide that evidence, you have failed to support your claim.
Got it?
There’s a whole lot of bullshit comments on Huffpo, just as I’m sure there’s a whole lot of bullshit comments at Freep (I don’t go in there; it’s dark and scary).
Let’s recognize them both for what there are. Bullshit comments from trolls, right and left.
CSS: Step 1: Jay Tea made a claim.
Step 2: I asked for proof.
Step 3: Jay Tea didn’t supply adequate proof.
It sounds like you are finally coming around to understanding that.
Step 1: Jay Tea expresses an impression (“It seems…”)
Step 2: Some support is offered (To support an impression, remember. Not an absolute statement of fact.) but since CSS just doesn’t like Jay Tea it really doesn’t matter because CSS would be frothing at him no matter what he did.
Step 3: Several people offer friendly advice that CSS dial it back since his delivery is interfering with his message.
Step 4: CSS predictably dismisses any advice and revels in having more targets to rant at.
Step 5: Failing to convince anyone, CSS decides to interpret other’s comments as them finally coming around to see his view.
“Step 1: Jay Tea expresses an impression (”It seems…”)”
Bullshit.
Jay Tea didn’t just express an impression, he tried to equate Freepers and the people who post at HuffPost. To say otherwise is to be fatally naive.
Got it?
If not, you are too fucking stupid to debate.
If not, you are too fucking stupid to debate.
Since when have you engaged in debate?
Me: “If not, you are too fucking stupid to debate.”
Sean: “Since when have you engaged in debate?”
Two points…
1.) Look up the word debate. Here, I’ll do it for you…
onelook.com/?w=Debate&ls=a
This is clearly a debate. I offer reasons for my stance on the matter.
While this is not a formal debate, nothing on this site is.
2.) You ignored my point and instead insulted me. You did what you accused me of doing and that makes you a hypocrite. How do you defend yourself?
Stroke said:
Um, Mr. Pot? There’s a Mr. Kettle on line two…
J.
“Um, Mr. Pot? There’s a Mr. Kettle on line two…”
Shut the fuck up, Jay Tea.
Every post I made here I had a point. Every single time I addressed what was said to me. It is possible to insult someone and address their argument at the same time.
Sean, on the other hand, ignored what I said and ONLY insulted me.
If you can’t tell the difference, then you truly are subhuman.
CSS: You ignored my point and instead insulted me.
Where did I insult you? Other than quoting verbatim your own post back at you and thereby betting that you are a “fucking liar” where did I insult you?
CSS: Every post I made here I had a point.
Which, if true (debatable (look it up)) often gets (as many have pointed out) completely obfuscated by your “debating style”.
CSS: It is possible to insult someone and address their argument at the same time.
But not necessary. And when it happens with such regularity it inevitably leads folks to believe you’re more interested in hurling insults than in responding to points. Which is hardly much of step above pure trolling.
CSS: Sean, on the other hand, ignored what I said and ONLY insulted me. [Uh, no.] If you can’t tell the difference, then you truly are subhuman.
Really? All he said this time was that you also ignore points and chose instead to insult. In another thread you got insistent about calling JT a subhuman because (you claim) at yet another thread he’d not placed sufficiently high value on human lives which you viewed as a particularly callous and egregious attitude.
But now, he’s subhuman just because he says he (in your view) can’t tell the difference between an insult and a point being made?
My, how the bar has lowered.
Shut the fuck up, Jay Tea.
Yup, you’re ALL about the debating, aren’t you?
Every post I made here I had a point. Every single time I addressed what was said to me. It is possible to insult someone and address their argument at the same time.
Yes, and the point you had to make is “I have a bigger dick (metaphorically speaking) than you do.” You addressed what was said to you by assailing the other people. (Or, in my case, non-person.) And while it is possible to insult someone AND address their argument at the same time, you certainly haven’t proved it.
Sean, on the other hand, ignored what I said and ONLY insulted me.
In other words, Sean treated you like you treat others? The sheer, unmitigated GALL of him!
If you can’t tell the difference, then you truly are subhuman.
If? IF? I thought you settled that one (as far as you’re concerned) a long, long time ago.
I never argued that particular “point” a long time ago, realizing it was merely the frothing of your deranged mind, but apparently it was still up for debate until this piece. I had no idea you considered it disputable.
Congrats, Stroke. You’ve managed to alienate a good chunk of your base here. Remarkable, how you’ve let yourself be so readily manipulated and controlled by a subhuman like me.
Imagine how much worse I could have done to you had I actually been trying to get you to discredit yourself. Dang, I’m better than I thought.
J.
“And while it is possible to insult someone AND address their argument at the same time, you certainly haven’t proved it.”
You are a liar.
1st post: I challenged the veracity of your post.
2nd post: I challenged the level of evidence you gave. Pointed out that I could find three examples of Republican elected officials who have joked about killed people.
3rd post: I pointed out that your original claim wasn’t you could find an example of the same on HuffPost, but it happened frequently enough to seem like it happened all of the time.
4th post: Point out Sean jumping in to the fight because of profanity while not even understanding the debate.
5th post: Showing that another person who thinks ‘Seems like all the time’ means 3 examples.
6th post: 3-parter including the fact that your claim was not just that you could find an example or two of this on HuffPost, but your claim that Freepers and them are the same.
7th post: Explaining the time line for someone who didn’t understand what had happened so far.
8th post: Explaining how the other side was shifting the burden of proof. They made a claim and now what me to prove it wrong without offering enough proof to begin with.
9th post: Explaining the “But, But, But Clinton” lie and how it has become accepted truth.
10th post: Explaining to you that your original claim was based on percentages, and not just finding one or two examples.
11th post: Sean actually tried to claim that what you said was only an impression, and not an actually claim. I disagreed.
12th post: Sean doesn’t know the meaning of the word, ‘debate.’
13th post: Pointing out that I had a point to every post.
14th post: Showing the evidence (this post).
15th post: Pointing out the insult. (My next post.)
Sean: “Where did I insult you?”
When you claimed I wasn’t debating. It is a clear implication based on the context that you are saying I am only insulting people here.
“Which, if true (debatable (look it up)) often gets (as many have pointed out) completely obfuscated by your “debating style”.”
Here’s the problem with that logic…
The other people are falling for the Style Over Substance fallacy. You do this all of the time. I make a solid point and I swear at the same time. You freak out and defend the person who is clearly wrong.
For instance, Jay Tea compared HuffPost and Freepers implying HuffPost was worse. When I asked for proof, he never once mentioned the Freepers. When you compare two groups, you have to mention both when you provide evidence. This is basic English. There is no way anyone ANYONE who is not functionally illiterate would accept his evidence for his original claim.
Yet many people here actually think he’s given enough evidence to support his original claim. Many people here don’t even know what his original claim is.
By the way, Jay is subhuman because he lacks the empathy needed to be human. He is the one that thinks people should die because the solution goes against his political philosophy. (And this is not my ‘claim.’ He said so in nearly as many words.) I defended Jay Tea on a while when he first arrived here, however, he has clearly shown he’s in the Terri Schiavo category of sub-human. (It takes more to be human than DNA and a heartbeat.) And this is not based solely on this thread, but on numerous threads. To say otherwise, and you did, is a lie.
SDM: Where did I insult you?
CSS: When you claimed I wasn’t debating. It is a clear implication based on the context that you are saying I am only insulting people here.
Really? That’s it? THAT is the insult? Following your profanity laden tirades by asking “Since when have you engaged in debate?”.
Wow. For someone who hardly makes a post which doesn’t insult someone’s intelligence and regularly refers to others as subhumans, fucking liars, retards, etc you really have a sensitive spot to being insulted. Fact is I’ve been far more respectful and considerate towards you on this and other threads than you have shown in return. And then you take even more offense at it being pointed out that you’re not in a particularly good position to complain about being insulted.
Nice, also how you do continue to change the criteria for things. You parse JT’s original post word-by-word insisting he back up exactly what he said (even though you acknowledge he was using hyperbole) but then you jump on me for the “clear implication” you see in what I wrote.
Oh, and speaking of lying:
You freak out
Uh, no. Point to thing I said in my posts that a reasonable person could interpret as “freaking out”. No insults, no swearing, no gratuitous use of exclamation points. Just observations and requests for clarification.
Jay Tea compared HuffPost and Freepers implying HuffPost was worse
Uh, no. “Wow, since when did Freep turn into Huffington Post?” stating they are the same, not implying one was worse.
Yet many people here actually think he’s given enough evidence to support his original claim.
Name four. (I’d make it three, but we know three examples isn’t enough.) Who here has said his evidence proves him right? I’ll even spot you Haplo9’s “Jay’s claim is on pretty solid ground”, so you only need to find 3 more.
CSS: By the way, Jay is subhuman because he lacks the empathy needed to be human. He is the one that thinks people should die because the solution goes against his political philosophy. (And this is not my ‘claim.’ He said so in nearly as many words.) I defended Jay Tea on a while when he first arrived here, however, he has clearly shown he’s in the Terri Schiavo category of sub-human.
First, I have to admit I’m continually impressed by your ability to be so hypocritical within a single paragraph. Calling someone a sub-human because they “lacks the empathy needed to be human” and then following right up with a demonstration of your own lack of empathy for Schiavo.
You’re having a gag with us, aren’t you? Admit it. It’s like Jack Benny playing a miser. You really just write this stuff to see how long we’ll fall for you’re playing the part of an overbearing, hypocritical troll.
Anyway, I’ve heard you say several places that JT is subhuman because of some view he expressed elsewhere, but you have never in all those mentioned said exactly what that view is. Just wondering if you could clarify. I’ve never been comfortable believing someone is an asshole just because someone else says they are. What exactly did JT say that was so bad you keep referring to it without actually saying what it was?
“Really? That’s it? THAT is the insult? Following your profanity laden tirades by asking “Since when have you engaged in debate?”.”
Yeah. Profanity isn’t insulting. In fact, there’s nothing wrong with profanity, other than some people are scared of words. In fact, profanity is based one the superstition that saying certain syllables in the right order can be used to cast magical spell. Seriously. The word, ‘fuck’ is considered impolite in part because people used to believe in real magic. I don’t hold those beliefs.
On the other hand, lying about someone’s character is always insulting.
By the way, I don’t find the insults a problem. I have a problem with you ignoring my point and ONLY insulting me.
“Fact is I’ve been far more respectful and considerate towards you on this and other threads than you have shown in return.”
So lying is being respectful?
Me: “Jay Tea compared HuffPost and Freepers implying HuffPost was worse”
Sean: “Uh, no. Point to thing I said in my posts that a reasonable person could interpret as “freaking out”. No insults, no swearing, no gratuitous use of exclamation points. Just observations and requests for clarification.”
This must be a matter of definition. I can do all of those things and never once freak out.
It’s part of a pattern of your. You’ve argued with me on a subject long past the original person admitted they were wrong. That’s not rational. That to me is freaking out.
Sean: “Uh, no. “Wow, since when did Freep turn into Huffington Post?” stating they are the same, not implying one was worse.”
No. “Turn into” implies HuffPost is worst than Freepers, else they couldn’t become as bad, they would already be as bad. It’s subtle, but that’s how the language works.
“Name four. (I’d make it three, but we know three examples isn’t enough.)”
This is you being a fucking retard. The level of evidence required depends on the claim being made. If you can’t understand that, then there is no point talking to you. You are simply too dumb to be considered human. So, do you want to retract what you said?
“First, I have to admit I’m continually impressed by your ability to be so hypocritical within a single paragraph. Calling someone a sub-human because they “lacks the empathy needed to be human” and then following right up with a demonstration of your own lack of empathy for Schiavo.”
What lack of empathy? She was dead, she died a long time before anyone in the general public new her name. You, they stuff that makes you you is in your frontal cortex. You have no soul, no ethereal mind, you are merely the combined pattern of braincells firing in your frontal cortex. If that changes, you change. If that ceases, you cease. This happened to Terry Shiavo when she had a heart attack and lapsed into a coma. It’s sad, but it doesn’t change the fact that she died a long time before her body did.
“You’re having a gag with us, aren’t you? Admit it. It’s like Jack Benny playing a miser. You really just write this stuff to see how long we’ll fall for you’re playing the part of an overbearing, hypocritical troll.”
I would like to see examples of actual hypocrisy. That would be interesting.
“What exactly did JT say that was so bad you keep referring to it without actually saying what it was?”
Have you read some of his posts? Just today he argued that Obama’s errors over his statements regarding the Holocaust prove he isn’t presidential material. Yet he supports McCain how has made similar gaffes. Now, this is either incredibly stupid, so stupid that he doesn’t deserve to be considered a member of the human race, or he is putting politics over reality. Sub-human is just a short-hand to that. (I also apply this logic to people who consult astrologers before making major decisions, for example.)
SDM: Name four. (I’d make it three, but we know three examples isn’t enough.)
CSS: This is you being a fucking retard. The level of evidence required depends on the claim being made. If you can’t understand that, then there is no point talking to you. You are simply too dumb to be considered human.
So, once again, you are not responding to the actual point being made. To wit: You said “many” people here beleieve JT had given enough evidence to support his claim and, echoing your own original challenge to him, I asked you to back that up. Which, in typical fashion, you choose not to do and instead go for the insults.
That was the “name four” part. The rest was sarcasm which apparently you’re too stupid to recognize or get. And, by the CSS scale, I suppose that makes you too stupid to be considered human.
Now, this is either incredibly stupid, so stupid that he doesn’t deserve to be considered a member of the human race, or he is putting politics over reality. Sub-human is just a short-hand to that. (I also apply this logic to people who consult astrologers before making major decisions, for example.)
Considering the vast,vast number of people who put politics over reality, consult astrologers or hold other similarly no-provable-basis-in-reality type beliefs (e.g., worship some invisible deity in the sky) it would seem to me this is a common trait among humans. Careful, reasoned analysis would actually show that the majority of mankind hold and expose some such belief/opinion/what have you.
So, how rational is it to characterize people who demonstrate a very human trait, one possessed by the vast majority of humans, as something less than human? Isn’t it more intellectually honest to use a more accurate term like illogical, irrational or even deluded?
“So, once again, you are not responding to the actual point being made.”
Actually, I am.
My point it twofold.
1.) The level of evidence required depends on the claim being made.
If you say, ‘Every time…’ then you have to show it happens every time. If you say, ‘Seems like every time…’ Then you have to show there’s an overwhelming pattern. Three doesn’t cut it. If you say, ‘Many people here…’, which is what I said, would need to give examples amounting to a large percentage here, but not necessarily most.
2.) If someone demands unreasonably proof, there’s no reason to give any proof.
“Which, in typical fashion, you choose not to do and instead go for the insults.”
And again you seem to focus on the insult to the exclusion of the point. It’s Style over Substance fallacy.
“That was the “name four” part. The rest was sarcasm which apparently you’re too stupid to recognize or get. And, by the CSS scale, I suppose that makes you too stupid to be considered human.”
Oh! So you actually want proof and weren’t just being an asshole then. Jay Tea, Haplo9, Jay, and you. There’s four.
“So, how rational is it to characterize people who demonstrate a very human trait, one possessed by the vast majority of humans, as something less than human?”
They intentionally gave up what makes them human, they rational minds. That is why they are sub-human. Nothing separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom except our rational minds. Give that up, and you are no better than animals.
what makes them human, they rational minds
Going to have to agree to disagree there, because we’re coming at this from opposite directions. You’re saying having a particular trait is what makes you human, I’m seeing it as people are human and they have a particular trait.
CSS: Actually, I am [responding to the actual point being made].
Nope still not. Oh, we do get “If you say, ‘Many people here…’, which is what I said, would need to give examples amounting to a large percentage here, but not necessarily most.” so clearly you have an idea of what is needed. But you have still not provided it. You’ve yet to provide even one example.
CSS: And again you seem to focus on the insult to the exclusion of the point. It’s Style over Substance fallacy.
Still waiting for you to focus on the point.
CSS: So you actually want proof and weren’t just being an asshole then. Jay Tea, Haplo9, Jay, and you
Ah, finally. Took a while.
And, no. Jay Tea made the original post and I already spotted you Haplo so I grant you those easy ones. But Jay’s is indefinite as to which of the discussions going on by that point “one” refers to and I never said JT proved his case. Go, check.
Enough of you for now. Leaving. You may have the last word. I won’t notice.