Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Let them eat cake (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Let them eat cake
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In any case, good lord, Daruma, you really do see the world through a finely calibrated lens. It must get tiresome seeing only a couple shades of a couple of colors all the time, and I'm genuinely sad for you.
Daruma has a life-changing epiphany every couple of years. He's due for another one in a few months. *crosses fingers*

[ August 11, 2010, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, every single time someone complains about this Administration you go through three steps of poor arguing to defend them nearly every time:

Step 1: Compare the bad behavior to a previous administration and state that because it has been done before, it should be accepted now.

Step 2: Distract the issue; Ask a question that takes one part of a quote way out of context and try to belabor the point to sidetrack the issue. (Daruma called you out on this earlier, you ignored and continued) You also will ask a question that has already been answered a few different ways somewhere in the thread in an attempt to stonewall.

Step 3: Speak condescendingly about the person who argues most strongly against you as if he wasn't present. (See above post)

None of this helps your argument at all. You need to address the substance of people's arguments instead of doing all this other nonsense. If you can actually bring a coherent argument together you might convince people. The strategy your currently using only makes people give up on posting their arguments, not the arguments themselves. It does nothing to help anyone see your side of the argument.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1) I am not saying that it should be accepted. I am saying that it is hypocritical to complain about it now. As someone who complained about it then, I would at the very least like an apology from the people who dismissed my complaints back in the day. So far, apologies have not been forthcoming. But I've learned to live with that.

Far more importantly, though, to insinuate that this is some symptom of some horrible character flaw in Obama -- uniquely Obama, some trait of his tendency to be a "ruling class," some deep and personal well of insincerity, or some high-born patrician impulse -- is blatantly ridiculous. Any hidden tendency that this sort of thing reveals in Obama must, by virtue of the fact that every previous president in my life (except perhaps Carter) has engaged in similar behavior, be a tendency shared by every one of those presidents.

That's not a justification of the behavior itself. That's an observation that the character assassination the complaints about behavior are being used to justify is remarkably unfair.

2) I completely disagree with this unfounded claim, I'm afraid. I didn't take anything Daruma said (for example) out of context; nor have I brought up anything distracting or off-topic. That you sometimes fail to follow my argument is, I submit, not necessarily a failure of my argument. [Smile]

3) Daruma is hardly the person who disagrees with me most strongly in this thread. In fact, what Daruma and I disagree about -- whether or not women are whiny harridans who seek to drag down their men, and whether men should constantly defend against any challenge from their women or risk their masculinity -- isn't even the point of the thread. It's an irrelevant distraction that he brought into the thread, but which is only relevant to someone who shares his personal biases. I think it's unfortunate he feels that way, but I don't think it reflects on Obama's character at all (except, perhaps, positively: as someone who's not afraid to marry a woman who does not slavishly dote on him). I argue about it with him only because I'm personally not a huge fan of kneejerk misogyny.

[ August 11, 2010, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1) Stay on issue. If someone dismissed your complaints back in the day and they were wrong that's water under the bridge. Address the issue at hand today, not the hypocrisy of other posters. This will keep the thread moving smoothly instead of everyone going back and pointing out how everyone else was wrong before. As far as character flaws being unique to Obama, I don't think anyone is insinuating that. Even if they were, it's irrlevent to the issue at hand. Start a new thread about that, but don't bring that up when it is irrelevent.

2) I Know you do, or else you wouldn't do it. (You also pulled a stonewall here just now...it's not unfounded and you know it. It's based on just about every single question you've asked in this thread and others. By making me "found it" your distracting from the rest of the issue.) I am pointing it out so maybe you'll take a look at the stuff your asking and decide if it's a good question or just something that doesn't really matter right now.

3) You just did "number 2" with this response. The important part wasn't whether or not Daruma is the one who argues with you the most, it's that you condescendingly talk about (whomever) in an attempt to further your argument. Let's make an attempt not to do that because it doesn't help the argument, slows down the thread, and makes other posters mad.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is gonna sound condescending, please trust me when I say I don't mean it that way; Don't respond to these last two posts, just think about what I've said, and try to get yourself to believe that it's possible that something I've said here is the truth.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Stay on issue. If someone dismissed your complaints back in the day and they were wrong that's water under the bridge....As far as character flaws being unique to Obama, I don't think anyone is insinuating that. Even if they were, it's irrlevent to the issue at hand.

Question: what makes you think you can tell me what I should or should not care about? Or, for that matter, what is or is not irrelevant?

quote:
it's not unfounded and you know it
Wrong. It is unfounded. Insisting that I know otherwise is, I assure you, rather pointless.

quote:
it's that you condescendingly talk about (whomever) in an attempt to further your argument.
You're guessing at motivations here, and I submit that you have neither the evidence nor the wisdom to guess correctly.

-------

quote:
try to get yourself to believe that it's possible that something I've said here is the truth
I would rather not trust your opinion of my motivations, thanks. Because I know what they are, and I know you don't.

I'll offer this suggestion in the same spirit you offered yours: how about you just reconsider your opinion of my motivations? Because, I assure you, you're clueless about them.

[ August 11, 2010, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Frown]
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Edgmatt, I have noticed the same exact pattern you elucidated so well, but I've always assumed is was intentional.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no doubt that people who do not understand the points I'm actually making think they're meaningless distractions from what they think is important. That is not, however, my problem to address.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It most certainly is, if you want your points to be taken into consideration. Otherwise your are just speaking a different language here, and what would be the point of speaking Chinese to a crowd if all they understand is French?
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No no no NO. I fell for it again.

We are not misunderstanding your points. You are avoiding, dodging, and distracting away from the points. You just did it again and I took it hook line and sinker.

I'm done.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
你的妈妈之说中文.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
==>"你的妈妈之说中文. "

My Spanish is a little rusty, but I think that is a Chinese aphorism that says, "The mind is curved like space, grasshopper, so all straight arguments end up back where they started from. Therefore, what edgmatt says means everything or nothing." Or else it is a sign in an alleyway by the garbage bins behind a dim sum restaurant that says, "No dumpling."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You are avoiding, dodging, and distracting away from the points.
You can certainly keep repeating this claim.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly. But the fact that what edgmatt says means nothing is precisely why it means everything. As the Chinese say: "Go to mountain; hit tiger."
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TomD talks condescendingly to just about everyone.

We have lots of folks who take passive aggressive behaviours - sarcasm, condescension, back handed compliments, deliberate misconstruing of arguements, hyperbole, feigned offense, almost to an art form.

[ August 11, 2010, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is nothing passive about me. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
你的妈妈之说中文.

This translates to
"Your mother is said in Chinese" on dictionary.com's translator.

hmmm...

Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
There is nothing passive about me. [Smile]

Hah! You are the epitome of the passive-aggressive debater! Your standard tactic is to act as if you're asking some harmless, singular question to try and bait the person into making an answer for which you can than pounce upon them with your point you purposely withheld as your "trump card."

You don't speak plainly. You think that your aggressive portion of your debate tactics means your not "passive-aggressive."

You argue like a bitch, and it's good that other people are finally starting to call you on it.

Fun - as I said, based on the sum totality of the comments, actions, behaviors and such of Michelle towards her husband is what makes me come to the conclusion that Michelle Obama rules her roost. I may be mistaken about that...but there's no need to be sad for me. [Smile]

It's my opinion that that is not very masculine to be under the thumb of your spouse in which she acts as his MOTHER rather than his wife.

Is that "simplified" and a singular lense?

Perhaps.

But there are some things I've come to understand when it comes to observing human behavior...and a pussywhipped male is one of the worst fates a man can allow himself to fall into. And it certainly affects the state of his masculinity to allow himself to become a spineless supplicant bending to the will of his wife to try and appease her emotional state.

I also notice that those types of relationships usually reveal both a deeply unhappy husband and wife. It's a gender role reversal that makes both people unhappy.


TomDouche - Daruma has a life-changing epiphany every couple of years. He's due for another one in a few months. *crosses fingers*

[Roll Eyes]

I've had precisely ONE. I realized that partisan politics is nothing more than a weapon of mass distraction. I stopped drinking the Red Koolaid of the Repulicon ideology.

But I didn't start drinking the blue koolaid of the Donkeys as some sort of answer either.

I just stopped drinking the kool aid period.

You're too drunk off the blue stuff...and you're also getting a hangover as you become aware of just how much Obama had you buffaloed into voting and believing in the kool aid he was peddling...

...but you just can't quite put it down.

You act as if everyone else is a dumbass - but you're the idiot that has stated numerous times that you regret voting for him - yet jump to his defense at every criticism made of him. No wait...you'll agree with criticism, as long as it's from a fellow blue kool aid drunkard. But if a red kool aid drunkard dares notice ANYTHING negative about the man, in comes TomD with his snarky quips, passive-aggressive rhetorical traps and condescending arrogance.

Maybe you too one day will have a "life changing epiphany." But I doubt it. You're too addicted to the taste of your blue kool aid served up by the donkeys.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hah! You are the epitome of the passive-aggressive debater!
I wouldn't say I'm passive at all, actually. Nor would I say that I don't speak plainly.

Have you ever had difficulty understanding me, Daruma?

quote:
No wait...you'll agree with criticism, as long as it's from a fellow blue kool aid drunkard.
This is not quite accurate. So as to avoid leading you unfairly, I'll give you a chance to look back over the objections I have made to criticisms of Obama and see if you can identify the common thread. Note: it is not "Tom objects to criticisms made by Republicans."

I leave this exercise to you in particular because I think you might find it enlightening. But if you're not interested, let me know.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Hah! You are the epitome of the passive-aggressive debater!
I wouldn't say I'm passive at all, actually. Nor would I say that I don't speak plainly.

Have you ever had difficulty understanding me, Daruma?

No, I see right through your passive aggressive debating tactics quite clearly. Just because you think it isn't P-A, doesn't make what other people easily recognize is most certainly a passive-aggressive technique.

Your attempt to get me to focus on a singular point of my initial argument, about showing vulnerability is the classic example of acting passive to bait me into a rhetorical trap for which you have your aggressive response ready to try and bludgeon me with.

I have no need to go back and search the archives. I've been reading and writing on this forum for years now. I know precisely how this crap works with you.

If Al or Pyrtolin or Wayward were to write something about how Obama dissappointed them, you have no problem commiserating with them.

But if G2 or flydye or cherry Dares to point something out...here comes Tom and his passive-aggressive rhetorical traps and snarky-condescension to the defense of Mr. Hope and Change.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your attempt to get me to focus on a singular point of my initial argument, about showing vulnerability is the classic example of acting passive to bait me into a rhetorical trap...
No. First off, it's not passive at all. Secondly, it's not a trap: it's an open attack on a weak ideological position.

What you're complaining about is that, historically, one point of your initial argument always sucks donkey balls, and I reliably strike at it first instead of, say, addressing the entire edifice of your delusion.

I recognize that this approach probably makes it much harder to justify your bad arguments. And it must be frustrating to not have me say "Is not! Is so!" with you, over and over again, on assertions as broad as "women will all be evil shrews if men let them."

But let's face it: you made a weak argument or two in an attempt to bolster the grand edifice of your Main Argument. And if I can point out the flaws in every single one of your small arguments -- and believe me, I've certainly done that sort of thing before -- what's left of the Main Argument when you're done? Empty, baseless assertions.

Again, I can understand why this frustrates you. But it is neither diversionary nor passive-aggressive. It is the only feasible way to address arguments as huge as "there is a conspiracy at the highest levels of society to manipulate sheeple;" it becomes necessary to establish what "sheeple" are, which levels of society are involved, what the conspiracy wants, who the conspiracy is, etc. -- and each one of these requires dozens of questions on what might seem like niggling points.

quote:
If Al or Pyrtolin or Wayward were to write something about how Obama dissappointed them, you have no problem commiserating with them.

But if G2 or flydye or cherry Dares to point something out...

I submit that there is a difference far more acute between these two "camps," as named and listed, than simple partisanship. I'd even imagine that you can guess what it is.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is the only feasible way to address arguments as huge as "there is a conspiracy at the highest levels of society to manipulate sheeple;" it becomes necessary to establish what "sheeple" are, which levels of society are involved, what the conspira

Oh bull****. None of my participation in this thread had anything to do with my "main argument" for which you think is weak. What does my opinion of Michelle Obama being a ballbuster of her husband have to do with "conspiracy theory?"

And, btw, you have never deconstructed or disproved anything to do with my "main" argument other than attacking me with ad hominem (dumb, weak, crazy, etc.) and snarky condescension.

You think my argument that public schooling is in fact a deliberately implemented system to dumb down the masses...is weak?

Yet you've never even attempted to address my source material. You engage in the bull**** "I'm only attempting to take on your dumb arguments one small piece at a time."

No, you're acting like a weasel.

I see the recurring theme here: Daruma talks about how mass media culture and public education are all designed to herd the masses of people into specific behaviors - hence the term "Sheeple" - and those of you who are utterly beholden to liberal/progressive orthodoxy think I'm a paranoid lunatic and every subsequent argument or point of view that I out forth is tainted with that view that I'm just resorting to mindless ad hominem when I use the term "Sheeple."

I arrived at my conclusions precisely because I recognized how much this cultural and institutional brainwashing has shaped my own behavior and thought patterns most of my life.

When I talk about the public schooling system, I'm also referencing my own experiences within the system from Kindergarten to graduation from my State University.

When I read such works as the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America and the Underground History of American Education, I was able to immediately connect the dots with what the authors were revealing and my own experiences in the public schooling system.

And what they reveal does in fact corroborate with the overall view that our society is in fact influenced by an elite class of rulers who exert enormous influence on the population through control of the educational system and mass media.

Yet you and others like you, seek to marginalize all of my points I raise on ANY topic here as the equivalent to UFOs, reptile aliens and all other sorts of lunacy that people immediately associate with the term "conspiracy."

Your reaction to "conspiracy" is in fact a conditioned, Pavlovian response implanted by a mass media that saturates the public sphere with misinformation precisely to get sheeple like you to shut your mind to the truth.

Therefore, when a Charlotte Iserbyt puts forth a book that connects the dots and shows exactly how the power elite have purposely shaped our educational and mass media culture through grant funding, people like you don't even bother to read it and try to understand it's primary point and the evidence it presents objectively. You immediately ignore and marginalize it as "conspiracy theory moonbattery."

And you think I'm the fool? lmao

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
None of my participation in this thread had anything to do with my "main argument" for which you think is weak.
Perhaps you do have trouble understanding me; I was using the "massive conspiracy" example as exactly that: just one example. You may insert any large, multi-headed sociological argument of your choice.

quote:
And, btw, you have never deconstructed or disproved anything to do with my "main" argument other than attacking me with ad hominem (dumb, weak, crazy, etc.) and snarky condescension.
Then it is not at all surprising that you dismiss what I have to say as distractions. Luckily, I do not post here to persuade you of your wrongness, in the main. [Smile]

quote:
Yet you've never even attempted to address my source material.
This is untrue. However, it is true that I rarely address your source material. This is for a variety of reasons.

quote:
Your reaction to "conspiracy" is in fact a conditioned, Pavlovian response implanted by a mass media...
I can understand why it is comforting to believe that. It is not, however, likely to be correct.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps you do have trouble understanding me; I was using the "massive conspiracy" example as exactly that: just one example. You may insert any large, multi-headed sociological argument of your choice.

No, it is you who is obviously incapable of understanding me. You may insert any snarky, vague allusion of your choice to try and appear like you are the intellectual superior.

Then it is not at all surprising that you dismiss what I have to say as distractions. Luckily, I do not post here to persuade you of your wrongness, in the main.

Why yes, how lucky.

This is untrue. However, it is true that I rarely address your source material. This is for a variety of reasons.

[LOL]

Keep using your passive aggressive debating techniques. Vague references to reasons for why you refuse to address subjects in a straight forward manner. I see right through your pretensions.

I can understand why it is comforting to believe that. It is not, however, likely to be correct.

lol

You just can't help yourself...even though you think you're not passive aggressive at all, it's plain for all to see in almost every post you make.

I can understand why it is comforting for you to believe you are not passive-aggressive.

[LOL]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Hah! You are the epitome of the passive-aggressive debater!

Giggle

Shall we take a vote on that? Wanna new thread? With Evy pretending he's "PSRT" I doubt that even Ev will defend you on that count.

[ August 11, 2010, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Vague references to reasons for why you refuse to address subjects in a straight forward manner.
See, again you misstate the issue. I provided "vague references" to reasons for why I rarely challenge your source material.

This is not synonymous with "address subjects." I am -- and most people are -- perfectly capable of "addressing subjects" without challenging source material. In general, as you've noted, I prefer to let the "other side" of an argument retain their own sources, and usually challenge their material only when I feel it's absolutely necessary. Rarely do I feel that this puts me at a substantial disadvantage, as it's generally my experience that genuine "source material" is rarely as clear-cut in its interpretation as the people who cite it often think.

quote:
I can understand why it is comforting for you to believe you are not passive-aggressive.
I'm not passive-aggressive, Daruma, because I am flat-out aggressive. It is not passivity that you perceive; it is a willingness to permit you your own opinion, while making my own clear. Moreover, I am not being falsely polite, with the expectation that my "politeness" will win me bonus points with you or any hypothetical audience; I word things the way I do because they are better and more precisely worded my way than according to some hypothetical alternative.

These are not, for example, "weasel words." The term itself implies that I'm trying to weasel out of something -- but what? What, exactly, am I not facing by using a tone that falls short of, say, your own histrionic vitriol?

[ August 11, 2010, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A fight? In the right corner wearing the vehement red trunks, the Popeye-an Hawaiian, throwing roundhouse rights but never raising his left hand to protect his head and suffering multiple concussions in every fight, a man with many seconds in his corner but no time to think through his arguments, is Da-rOOOOm-ah. In the left corner, wearing the light blue demeanor and exposing his softer side to constant abuse while delivering sculpted left-hand jabs, the man who side-steps with grace and grammar, and moves forward and backward at the same time, seconded only by Al, King of the English, Wessex is long Tom Davidson!

Oh, this is a cockfight? Sorry...I didn't realize. Keep tearing each other to shreds...

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

This is not synonymous with "address subjects." I am -- and most people are -- perfectly capable of "addressing subjects" without challenging source material. In general, as you've noted, I prefer to let the "other side" of an argument retain their own sources, and usually challenge their material only when I feel it's absolutely necessary. Rarely do I feel that this puts me at a substantial disadvantage, as it's generally my experience that genuine "source material" is rarely as clear-cut in its interpretation as the people who cite it often think.


Let's see...you called my "massive conspiracy theory argument" weak. What was the term you used....so one of my key contentions I've belabored here is the direct evidence that such a "conspiracy" exists is a book...which contains source recitations to public records from the Department of Education and other such documents.

And I post the link to a free copy of this book on line.

Yet you offer the following rationale as to why you need not address the source material -

"Rarely do I feel that this puts me at a substantial disadvantage, as it's generally my experience that genuine "source material" is rarely as clear-cut in its interpretation as the people who cite it often think."

Ah yes Tom. Your logic is unassailable.

In essence, you're deflecting this with: "I'm right, you're wrong, and your source material is not what you think it is."

It's not as if I'm the only person here pointing out your arrogant, condescending, jack-ass tone you reliably resort to in almost every interaction on this forum.

I'm quite positive plenty of people here think I'm an *******. Good. I don't pretend to be otherwise. You, on the other hand, are chock full of pretensions and it bleeds through in everything you write. You're an ******* who acts like his **** don't stink...even when everyone else is telling you that it's nauseating.

What you're complaining about is that, historically, one point of your initial argument always sucks donkey balls, and I reliably strike at it first instead of, say, addressing the entire edifice of your delusion.

Ah, see, "my entire edifice of my delusion."

The entire edifice of your delusion comes from this place in which you use passive-aggressive debating tactics...and than when you're called on it, you say "No, it's AGGRESSIVE."

Yeah Tom...I'm not the only one that has pointed this out.

I guess it's everyone else, not you!

I can see why you're comfortable clinging to the edifice of your delusions.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In essence, you're deflecting this with: "I'm right, you're wrong, and your source material is not what you think it is."
Would you like, the next time you bring up the fraud that you believe is at the heart of the public education system, for me to focus my criticism on your sources? In this particular instance, I have not done so because my quibble is generally not with the citations, but with the conclusions drawn from the citations; that person X said Y about subject Z does not necessarily imply (or demand) conclusion A. Rather that nitpick at you on these points, then, I have generally preferred to simply let them stand; you are, after all, entitled to draw your own conclusions, as uncompelling as I find the same material. If you would rather, however, I could nitpick the next time it comes up; I suspect it'd be a bit of a tedious exercise, but I'm willing to grin and bear it if it'd make you marginally happier.

quote:
You're an ******* who acts like his **** don't stink...even when everyone else is telling you that it's nauseating.
Yes, this is entirely correct. I believe I behave appropriately, and think that my critics are largely incorrect in their assessment of both my behavior and the motives behind that behavior. I am thoroughly and completely unapologetic about this.

quote:
The entire edifice of your delusion comes from this place...
FYI: the reason I do not straight-up attack the "entire edifice of your delusion," Daruma, is that I believe most people's delusions are dependent on far too many incorrect assumptions to be effectively challenged via a single line of attack. If you think you can sum up, in a nutshell, the source of someone's "entire edifice of delusion" and effectively neuter it with a simple assertion or negation, it's probably not much of an edifice.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Marriage. Commitment. Foreplay. The dark side are these.
-Yoda

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps what Daruma means by "passive-aggressive" (correct me if I'm wrong, Daruma) is that Tom doesn't really stand for anything or say anything so much as snipe at others' stances and try to prevent anything significant from being said. One would expect an "aggressive" person to actually proactively stand for something.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, you're doing the passive-aggressive thing here, too. To paraphrase Neil Young, this thread was pathetic when it started, and has pretty much fizzled out altogether now. Let it go.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom doesn't really stand for anything or say anything
I would be very surprised indeed if people here, polled on my various beliefs and political positions, could not guess with a fair degree of accuracy what they are.

I am not a single-issue poster. And certainly I am not a strong advocate of anything except government transparency, which I think is one of the most pressing issues facing modern democracy. But to assert that I don't stand for or say anything is frankly ridiculous. What I don't do is link to sources, which annoys people who think that argumentation is all about pitting one source against another one; I find that sort of "argument" tiresome in the extreme, and don't engage in it.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I don't do is link to sources, which annoys people who think that argumentation is all about pitting one source against another one; I find that sort of "argument" tiresome in the extreme, and don't engage in it.

And yet to a tiresome degree, you do demand sources of others. And you cite your "memory" as definite proof that someone else said something that they maintain that they never said. [Eek!]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And yet to a tiresome degree, you do demand sources of others.
No, I don't. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else. I demand reasons. If someone chooses to provide sources as their reason, that's their choice -- but I don't think you'll find many cases of my demanding a link to anything.

quote:
And you cite your "memory" as definite proof...
I don't believe I've ever said that anything I've ever said is "definite proof" of anything. If you're taking it that way, I'm not sure why.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've had a life-changing epiphany yesterday -- apparently I was overdue. [Roll Eyes]

Yesterday was a rather non-productive way to spend my time. It wasn't entertaining, and entertainment is the only reason I read and post here.

Perhaps you have confused me with someone else. I demand reasons.

No, you lay rhetorical traps.

Someone makes argument X, Y, Z

Aggressive (as you think you are - but that's only after you get upset.) - "X, Y, Z are wrong. Here is why...

P-A - "Why do you think X? I'm just curious as to why you would think so..."

You act passive in an attempt to bait someone with innocuous, reasonable sounding questions - usually with a dose of sarcasm or irony.

You are the person that says nice things to someones face with a smile, but your body language betrays your thoughts of arrogant condescension. It's passive-aggression.

Than when someone calls you on it, you come out hyperventilating that "No, it's not passive aggressive, it's aggressive.

Sorry, your pattern is long established here. You can't fool any long time reader of this forum, just as Ev couldn't help but reveal himself through his writing while participating under a new screen name.

Good day TomDonkeyBalls, I'm done "debating" with you.

[ August 12, 2010, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh, he said donkey balls.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, compare your tone, choice of words, and detail in the posts in this thread (pre-us all coming down on you) with your most recent posts on the ICE Chiefs slammed.... thread.

In the other thread, your concise and specific, your tone is one of conversation not of condensation. You lay out your opinion, you don't ask any questions unrelated to the subject, and you don't distract. You make some good points, and you back it up as to why you feel the way you do. All together is makes for an interesting thread that has stayed on topic.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm glad you think so, edgmatt. Which of my questions here (pre-dogpile) do you believe were unrelated to the subject?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1