02-15-2012, 08:37 AM
Quote:And funny, but up until his last few days posts, I actually wouldn't have had much qualm with your statement about Jace.
I would say the same of you, Eye2. Other than the mentioned replete self-annotations of yours, I never had problems with you, and I could just skip over it happily.
But you backed an assholes play, and I don't apologize to you for calling you on it in equal course. My beef was with stU alone, not over Deism, Atheism, or any other convolution, but respectful and accurate discussion. First responses I ever gave him were FACTUALLY based critiques to his points, and you can look them up if you wish to dispute them.
You never ran this ad hominem crusade against me as "Defender of the Forum" when I ran Outofstate's troll ass out of here for being an inane pratt and offering nothing, or for very gently and very respectfully stepping in to give NonE a (gratefully and graciously received) look into the mirror, on the "Proof of God" thread, where I very clearly did not attempt to promote Logan's position, either.
If it's a matter for derision that those who would not waste time with a "divisive" subject matter, then you are as tarred by the baby as the rest. I had no beef with you, still don't much care, but I see you whine like a pussy and bring my name up in derision on forum threads I'm not even involved in. Where do I go around defaming you not directly to your face and not directly towards the matter at hand?
You show to me that stU was somehow being accurate to the facts about equating a 1-1 ratio of initiating violence compared between priests and judges, and that I was somehow wrong in (very civilly and concisely pointing this out, twice, before being at all impolite), and I'll apologize to you both.
I'd be more than happy to know I can just go back to skimming your posts until I hit the meat of it, but since you seem to think so much of me, I suppose I'm obligated to pay you some attention.
My only beef with you was backing stU without (apparently) going back to the beginning or doing your homework on me as to how I always start from a place of respect and patience.
You took what I said to be far more personally directed at you. You're quite wrong. You backed an asshole. An openly discredited asshole. I don't care about your views or arguing with you. If I had, you and I would have sparred long...long ago.
So if you want to actually see the degree of consistency, factual integrity, and personal integrity your buddy showed on his arrival to the forum, I suggest you return to the start.
And as well return here:
And witness how I always conduct myself to stick with cordiality and reason, so long I see it being actually taken (at very least) for the intent of good faith in which it is offered.
And I'd like you to consider how you yourself react when, from all the facts as you understand them, those you are communicating with don't show any sign of giving a good damn about what anyone else presents, no matter how considerately you attempt to do so.
You think I've somehow stepped over some line? Show me how and when the precedent wasn't set, by the opposing party, for it in such case, and that I ever jump upon so readily or at all happily.
The way you continue to piss and wail on about me, you'd think I had some actual pattern of using such strong language as I came to to make my point. I'd love to see you or anyone dredge up enough evidence of that here, from any other topic and compare it to how regularly you yourself get into pissing matches with other board members. I can still count on half a hand the number of members I've ever tussled with, and that's because the others were openly exposed for the trolls they are and left.
Even stU isn't attacking me as childishly as you are. Grow up for two seconds and look at the facts. Cause we all acknowledge it matters who started it, do we not? Or is the NAP somehow not extend able to slanders or attempting to pass of sloppy logic to blanketly paint a whole group of people as psychopaths?
Had you taken a moment and looked at your new mate's behavior, you might have seen that more of what I said in my now infamous post was directed towards his bullshit. It was simply sparked by seeing someone like you who, I had thought, at least prided himself on getting the record straight, jumping in as you did while so obviously missing the point and lending him a veneer of legitimacy to hide behind.
I dare you to show how anyone who initially responded to stU's post on psychopaths did so in any disrespectful of god-promoting way, and that we did not simply address factual and logic consideration your little mate very sloppily left out.
Quote:I say Priests and Ministers are scumbags with a robes on, a dress on.
Those are the facts[?].
This is the thesis statement your boy has tried to pass as logical (and not as an opinion statement in ANY way) since the first. Point out the one very tiny, inconvenient fact, that not every single priest or minister uses violence to do their jobs every day, but all judges must (to remain employed) and apparently anyone who does so is simply an irrational religion-toting fight-picker.
I come here to learn and discuss things I can't get most other places and from people I expect to understand that this drivel is being "discussed" all over the place already. I expect a little more understanding of division of specialization, and at the very least more damn integrity in cordial and ACCURATE communication of the facts and the record.
So if you still think, now, (if you got of your own high horse long enough to at all examine my position from my POV without projection), that I was not in any way justified is saying "Fuck off!" to the party (and his supporter) who very self-centeredly attempted to steer this board away from the far smaller market of agorism toward the over-saturated hell-scream of religious/anti-religious twaddle, then I repeat it again to both of you.