Page 8 of 8 [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 602

09 May 2021, 5:21 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:

Not tolerating intolerant speech is not the same as advocating for censorship. (Jesus Christ! This is like having a debate with a child!)


How exactly does one "not tolerate" intolerant speech without engaging in some act that someone can claim is censorship?


By debunking it.


How does one debunk opinions? You can pick apart what underlays the opinion and the rationalizations used to defend it just change.


If I said to you that I believe the white race is superior to all other races, wouldn't you be able to debunk such nonsense?


Sure is cool how you answer questions with questions.

Well gee mister, you sure make it sound easy to "debunk" things. And as clever an example as you think you've come up with, it really isn't. If the person responds with "yes" they can , then your simple solution of "dEbUnK iT!" gets a false sense of effectiveness. If they say "no" they can't, then you get to claim "WeLL yOu MuSt NoT Be VeRy GoOd ThEn!" or even "tHeN mAyBe YoU'Re WrOnG!" or similar.

Realistically, there is no "evidence" that is so compelling that it cannot be undermined by an outright denial. There is no source or statement of fact that cannot be claimed is a fake or a lie. There is no logic so flawless that it cannot be undermined by an outright denial. All that needs to be done is say something like "that's preposterous!" It completely side-steps all logic and reason. "No iT iSn'T!! !" And you say I'M like debating a child... :roll:

Just because you used a fancy word like "preposterous!" doesn't change the fundamental nature of the statement. "ThAtS sTuPiD! ThAtS sTuPiD! ThAtS sTuPiD!"

Nothing can "win" against "tHaTs StUpId!" Even if you pop in a monocle and say "My word! Ballyhoo and tomfoolery! That's preposterous!", it's still "tHaTs StUpId!"

The earth is round.

"ThAts StUpId!"

No, we know this from science. We've been to space and seen it.

"tHaTs StUpId!"

We've also done calculations based on light and shadows here on earth. Math confirms it.

"ThAtS StUpId! YoUrE sTuPiD. LOL DoNt Be So StUpId! EaRtH iS RoUnD, YeAh RiGhT! If EaRtH iS RoUnD hOw cOmE We DoNt fALl OfF tHe BoTtOm?!"

Because of gravity.

"OMG MaGiC cAlLeD GrAvItY LoL ThAtS So PREPOSTEROUS!"

Since you apparently argue with children, I'm surprised you've never encountered this while doing so. I'm surprised someone as wise and knowledgeable as you didn't already know this. Adults do this too. I'm surprised you didn't know that either.

"DeBuNk It!"

Right, like it's just that easy :roll:

I can quote Snopes all day long, "ThAtS JuSt a PrOpAgAnDa SiTe!"

Dr Faucci said... "I dOnT bElIeVe HiM!"

Most scientists believe... "ThEyVe bEeN pAiD tO sAy tHaT!"

We've known for a while now that... "ThAtS JuSt wHaT THEY wAnT yOu To BeLiEvE!"

"DeBuNk It!" In other words, calmly explain to the bully why they should stop bullying, and hope you're compelling, but don't actually DO anything about it. Toothless.

"DeBuNk It" just becomes "express your easily dismissible disapproval" at that point. "Tell me why you disagree. See? I let you speak. Free speech! Still gong to ignore and deny everything you said, but I let you say it, so free speech for you too! I still get my way though, and you have to accept it. But you got to express your disapproval of it, so it's totally fair! I get to act however I want, and you get to say you don't like it! FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE!"

So far you seem to have three response categories. Answering a question with another question, dismissing a question outright rather than addressing the substance of it, and short vague meaningless E-Z non-answers that either harp on minor pedantic details or offer as much substance as a Nike slogan. "Just Do Debunk It". I wonder which you'll use next...

And lastly...

VegetableMan wrote:
Limiting speech never leads to anything good, unless you think authoritarianism is good.


EXCEPT...

VegetableMan wrote:
Speech that incites violence isn't protected under the First Amendment. Duh!
And if it's slanderous, I have the legal right to sue.


When it incites violence. Or is defamatory. Then limiting it is A-OK. 8)

Or

VegetableMan wrote:
I don't agree with it.


You have a very questionable definition of "never".


Perhaps you'd like to present a counter argument to the points I declared "preposterous. " I didn't see anthing in your post but some absurd analogies.

I can wait. Take your time. Please explain to me where I am wrong.


Why even bother to quote things you clearly have no intention of addressing. You could just hit "reply" and type "NUH-UH!" over and over. It would amount to the same thing. And I'm sure you will wait. It saves you from having to add anything yourself. Weird flex from someone who seems to have no intention of explaining themselves beyond making claims and acting smug.

Also, lovely job at shifting the burden. Heaven forbid you have to prove you own points (you can't, so you run and hide), so instead you shift the burden to other people to DIS-prove you. Surely a big smart brain like yours already knows that's not how that works. So you want me to explain myself, AND explain you, FOR you - just for you to inevitably tell me that I'm wrong, and my conclusions are preposterous - but never having to defend your points the same way that you expect others to defend their points.

Adding "absurd" to "preposterous" doesn't change the fact that you're still just doubling down on "yOuRe StUpId ThAtS StUpId YoUrE sTuPiD!! !"

I guess that means you went with option number two, "dismissing a question outright rather than addressing the substance of it". You sure demand a lot of answers for someone who's so very tight-lipped with their own.

It's almost like you have nothing, and rely on keeping other people talking to hide the fact that you have nothing.

I'm glad you have a thesaurus and can look up alternate words for "stupid", but sitting there and bouncing like an excited toddler going "ThAtS sTuPiD tHaTs StUpId ThAtS aBsUrEd ThAtS pRePoStErOuS sTuPiD StUpId WAAH! WAAH! EVERYTHNG IS STUPID!! ! ThAtS StUpId YoUrE sTuPiD ThAtS sTuPid!" doesn't actually prove anything, other than your absence of anything meaningful to say.

And besides, since you just parrot and squawk "tHaTs StUpId!" to everything, what good is it going to do to "PrOvE iT!" to you when all you have to is call that explanation "stupid" too.

It's kinda hilarious that you compared people to children, and then use "YOU'RE WRONG! THAT'S STUPID! PROVE IT!" as both sword and shield, exclusively.

Also, expecting everyone else to both prove themselves AND disprove you, while you just "say things" and act like they're true, is delightfully pretentious.

In the sprit of your own style, since you persist in calling things "preposterous", without bothering to explain WHY it's preposterous, or HOW it's "preposterous", and simply leaving it with the lazy sound bite that it just "is preposterous!", I shall give you a counter argument identical to yours.

"It isn't preposterous."

Now, if you can bust out that big-boy vocabulary and tell me WHY it's preposterous, I'd be happy to pick it apart and respond. We both know you won't. We both know you'll just tell me I'm wrong and expect me to counter-argue your one-trick schtick of "ThAtS sTuPid!" You can replace "stupid" with preposterous, absurd, ridiculous, asinine, silly or even the mighty ludicrous - you're still just saying "tHaTs sTuPid!! !" and expecting it to stand in it's own as a valid defense.

Surely a smart guy like you knows what an ad hominem is, and wouldn't resort to using them by, for example, responding to everything by calling it "preposterous", without offering any explanation beyond that. Surely you also know that a negative can't be disproven, and would never resort to avoiding your own burden of evidence by expecting everyone else to DISprove things you've make no attempt to prove in the first place.

So, which response is it going to be THIS time?

1- Answering a question with a question

2- "ThAtS sTuPiD / aBsUrD / PrEpOsTeRoUs!"
or
3- ignore everything, throw out a sound-bite and act like it actually answers anything

*spins the wheel*



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,354
Location: Illinois

09 May 2021, 6:37 pm

Look...I'm not going to indulge you too much longer. Fun is fun, but this is ridiculous. I've already stated my position on why I'm anti-censorship further back in this thread. What I'm awaiting is two counter arguments to two specific points. Do you even remember what those were? Do some back reading to refresh your memory.


_________________
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -- Jiddu Krisnamurti


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 602

10 May 2021, 4:42 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Look...I'm not going to indulge you too much longer. Fun is fun, but this is ridiculous. I've already stated my position on why I'm anti-censorship further back in this thread. What I'm awaiting is two counter arguments to two specific points. Do you even remember what those were? Do some back reading to refresh your memory.


Ooh, this must be your last hurrah, you've combined all three -

Answering a question with a question - "But what about MY questions?! Do you EVEN remember them?!"

"ThAtS sTuPiD!" - "this is ridiculous"

Ignore everything, throw out a sound-bite and act like it actually answers anything - "Look, I don't wanna play anymore, and anyways, I already answered your questions..."

Perhaps you're the one that need to read more. You already tried the "guessing game" strategy. It's didn't work before. It's cute that you think it'll work now. Put on them big boy underoos and use your adult words to actually say things instead of expecting people to play "guess the argument I'm thinking of".

Kinda funny having someone demand specific answers, when the answers they give are "tHaTs StUpId!" or "I aLrEaDy AnSwErEd ThAt!" or "jUsT dEbUnK iT!" or "lol nO iT iSnT" or "GuEsS wHiCh tHiNg Im TaLkInG aBoUt!"- or do you consider those to be specific? Since when do guessing games constitute specificity?

If that's the case, I already answered your questions, go back and read, find the answers for yourself. 8) See? I can say that too. But despite having literally just used that same strategy, you'll likely complain about me having done it. If you dare to mention it at all, at risk of drawing attention to your own double standard there.

Your initial tone implies that you no longer wish to engage in this conversation. I was wondering when your monocle would slip and you'd harumph and bluster, "I doNt WaNt tO PlAy ThIs GaMe aNyMoRe!" and what form it would take. I see you've added "ridiculous" to your list of replacement words for "sTuPid!"

Nobody is keeping you here. Nobody demanded you stay. You're the only thing keeping you here. Nobody is forcing you to respond. You can leave this conversation whenever you want. If this is becoming too much for you, by all means, go, take breather. If you no longer find the conversation palatable, you're welcome to find a different conversation that doesn't offend your tastes.