Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
#26

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
What do you mean "do we really need chew toys"?
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgQuRQVXMqWedF6HNW2Bp...IeT-vWtO_g]
The following 8 users Like unfogged's post:
  • Dom, adey67, Mathilda, JesseB, EvieTheAvocado, KevinM1, Mark, Kim
Reply
#27

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
I'd much rather converse with thoughtful articulate theists than any other kind. Challenging your beliefs by discussing them with someone who disagrees and can argue against them succinctly is always enlightening even if neither of you agree at the end.
The following 8 users Like Tiberius's post:
  • adey67, Mathilda, airportkid, abaris, EvieTheAvocado, Mark, Kim, Catholic_Lady
Reply
#28

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
Chew toy activity is too close to what Trump does; but I've never liked it before Trump made it popular either.  Those kinds of "dialogues" stop being dialogue and turn into endorphin festivals, fun if that's the kind of fun you crave, but otherwise pointless.
The following 1 user Likes airportkid's post:
  • Mark
Reply
#29

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(11-30-2018, 07:09 PM)airportkid Wrote: Chew toy activity is too close to what Trump does; but I've never liked it before Trump made it popular either.  Those kinds of "dialogues" stop being dialogue and turn into endorphin festivals, fun if that's the kind of fun you crave, but otherwise pointless.

You mean like children at school all ganging up on a single person and everyone joins in because it's better that someone else is the target? I think there can a bit of that, but I don't think it's the whole story.
The following 2 users Like Mathilda's post:
  • EvieTheAvocado, Kim
Reply
#30

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(11-30-2018, 05:08 PM)Mark Wrote:
(11-30-2018, 08:17 AM)JesseB Wrote:
(11-29-2018, 10:22 PM)Mark Wrote: This is a legitimate question because many atheists are walking wounded as a result of being raised in and then feeling betrayed by their communities.  Maybe for them it is therapeutic?

But I'm going to take the other side and say 'getting it all out' at substitute targets for the ones who wronged us isn't really all that beneficial.  I don't expect everyone to agree but I really don't think rude outbursts are all that restorative.  For me it just seems to prolong the agitation and does not lead toward anything like equilibrium.  Those who have a lot to get out should consider hitting a pillow with a bat; your blood pressure will be less adversely affected and you won't feel crappy about yourself after.  Someone said living a good life is the best revenge.  I endorse that sentiment.

Naturally there is a class of believer who seems not to get out much, has no real idea what we believe and is hell bent on keeping us out of hell in order to get his ticket to heaven stamped.  But how would those missionaries respond to a polite no-thank-you along with a reminder regarding the forum rules?  It would be as easy to ban them with reluctance as with gusto, and send a better message at the same time.  Instead of going away confirmed that we are all immoral louts, he'd be forced to see us as fair and his own behavior as loutish.  Maybe.

The path to healing and recovery does not include running away from the world. In fact that's the path to debilitating illness. Just ask any alcoholic or experienced behavioral psychologist. 

Sides, I would think those with wounds would find quite a bit of healing in seeing others like them stick up for them against the abusive behaviors that hurt them. If that makes sense.

So I take exception to the core premise of your post.


Well thanks for responding.  This is something I'm mulling over for myself.  I wonder what you take to be the core premise of my post and  if your exception amounts to more than disagreement with my position.

I did not say it was "THE" core premise, but "A" core premise. Or perhaps "underlying assumption" may be more accurate. If that helps clarify.


Edit^ Oh I did say the, well that was a typo.
Reply
#31

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(11-30-2018, 07:09 PM)airportkid Wrote: Chew toy activity is too close to what Trump does; but I've never liked it before Trump made it popular either.  Those kinds of "dialogues" stop being dialogue and turn into endorphin festivals, fun if that's the kind of fun you crave, but otherwise pointless.

Bullshit mate, it's not In the same or even close to what Trump does. Trump attacks vulnerable  people for no good reason and because he is mentally ill as in a malignant narcissistic dick wad,  I'm not seeing anyone here suggesting we just savage people for our own benefit or just for pleasure, but this is an atheist forum and  therefore the religious come here of their own volition, we should be fair and welcome them but absolutely not pander to them, how many Christian forums offer the same to us? The answer is none, most will not allow us to post at all and while it may be emotionally satisfying to have the moral high ground for many it just increases and reinforces their sense of privilege. We are fortunate that we have really good religious members here at the moment, I welcome them and hope they have great experience here as members but no to special treatment, just no.
The whole point of having cake is to eat it Cake_Feast
The following 6 users Like adey67's post:
  • JesseB, EvieTheAvocado, TheGentlemanBastard, M.Linoge, Kim, TheGulegon
Reply
#32

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
Yeah, I've never seen that kind of thing over here, and I wasn't a regular over at TFTSNBN for long enough to even witness that sort of thing even if it did occur there.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
The following 1 user Likes EvieTheAvocado's post:
  • JesseB
Reply
#33

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
You mean I have to choose between Aliza and Q?       >runs and hides<

I think that you may be asking the wrong question. I'd like to have theists that we can talk to reasonably but I wouldn't bet a bent penny that we won't get the other kind. I think that what would be more useful is some way to help ensure that newcomers who are theists and might be interesting to talk to don't start out on the wrong foot and don't attract excessive fire until they've had a chance to seriously earn their place in the dog's toy box. Gnaw the legs off the shrieking proselytizers all you want, but give the n00bs the benefit of the doubt. Some times we're the first atheists they've ever spoken to and they don't yet know how to interact with us without being abrasive.
The following 6 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • adey67, Dom, Deesse23, Unsapien, Kim, JesseB
Reply
#34

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
I thought I'd also point out that: Atheists can be chew toys too.

I strictly operate under a NO CHEW TOYS ALLOWED worldview, though, so I can't empathize here. Deadpan Coffee Drinker
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#35

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(11-30-2018, 07:47 PM)adey67 Wrote:
(11-30-2018, 07:09 PM)airportkid Wrote: Chew toy activity is too close to what Trump does; but I've never liked it before Trump made it popular either.  Those kinds of "dialogues" stop being dialogue and turn into endorphin festivals, fun if that's the kind of fun you crave, but otherwise pointless.

Bullshit mate, it's not In the same or even close to what Trump does. Trump attacks vulnerable  people for no good reason and because he is mentally ill as in a malignant narcissistic dick wad,  I'm not seeing anyone here suggesting we just savage people for our own benefit or just for pleasure,

Well that is good to hear because that pretty much happens regularly at AF.


(11-30-2018, 07:47 PM)adey67 Wrote: ..but this is an atheist forum and  therefore the religious come here of their own volition, we should be fair and welcome them but absolutely not pander to them, how many Christian forums offer the same to us? The answer is none, most will not allow us to post at all and while it may be emotionally satisfying to have the moral high ground for many it just increases and reinforces their sense of privilege. We are fortunate that we have really good religious members here at the moment, I welcome them and hope they have great experience here as members but no to special treatment, just no.

All true but my preference would be to have a neutral space where Christians aren't running the show by their rules and atheists aren't smacking their lips in anticipation of an opportunity to humiliate theists.  Still, so long as it is less vicious than at AF it is still an improvement.  Sold!
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 4 users Like Mark's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, adey67, EvieTheAvocado, Kim
Reply
#36

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(11-30-2018, 11:27 PM)Mark Wrote:
(11-30-2018, 07:47 PM)adey67 Wrote:
(11-30-2018, 07:09 PM)airportkid Wrote: Chew toy activity is too close to what Trump does; but I've never liked it before Trump made it popular either.  Those kinds of "dialogues" stop being dialogue and turn into endorphin festivals, fun if that's the kind of fun you crave, but otherwise pointless.

Bullshit mate, it's not In the same or even close to what Trump does. Trump attacks vulnerable  people for no good reason and because he is mentally ill as in a malignant narcissistic dick wad,  I'm not seeing anyone here suggesting we just savage people for our own benefit or just for pleasure,

Well that is good to hear because that pretty much happens regularly at AF.


(11-30-2018, 07:47 PM)adey67 Wrote: ..but this is an atheist forum and  therefore the religious come here of their own volition, we should be fair and welcome them but absolutely not pander to them, how many Christian forums offer the same to us? The answer is none, most will not allow us to post at all and while it may be emotionally satisfying to have the moral high ground for many it just increases and reinforces their sense of privilege. We are fortunate that we have really good religious members here at the moment, I welcome them and hope they have great experience here as members but no to special treatment, just no.

All true but my preference would be to have a neutral space where Christians aren't running the show by their rules and atheists aren't smacking their lips in anticipation of an opportunity to humiliate theists.  Still, so long as it is less vicious than at AF it is still an improvement.  Sold!


Like I said, like all other members, theists reap what they sow. Just hang around and see. Besides, between the ones from TTA and the ones from AF, we have a few here now and I see no issues at all.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 8 users Like Dom's post:
  • Mark, adey67, EvieTheAvocado, Thumpalumpacus, Paleophyte, Mathilda, Kim, JesseB
Reply
#37

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(11-30-2018, 11:27 PM)Mark Wrote:
(11-30-2018, 07:47 PM)adey67 Wrote:
(11-30-2018, 07:09 PM)airportkid Wrote: Chew toy activity is too close to what Trump does; but I've never liked it before Trump made it popular either.  Those kinds of "dialogues" stop being dialogue and turn into endorphin festivals, fun if that's the kind of fun you crave, but otherwise pointless.

Bullshit mate, it's not In the same or even close to what Trump does. Trump attacks vulnerable  people for no good reason and because he is mentally ill as in a malignant narcissistic dick wad,  I'm not seeing anyone here suggesting we just savage people for our own benefit or just for pleasure,

Well that is good to hear because that pretty much happens regularly at AF.


(11-30-2018, 07:47 PM)adey67 Wrote: ..but this is an atheist forum and  therefore the religious come here of their own volition, we should be fair and welcome them but absolutely not pander to them, how many Christian forums offer the same to us? The answer is none, most will not allow us to post at all and while it may be emotionally satisfying to have the moral high ground for many it just increases and reinforces their sense of privilege. We are fortunate that we have really good religious members here at the moment, I welcome them and hope they have great experience here as members but no to special treatment, just no.

All true but my preference would be to have a neutral space where Christians aren't running the show by their rules and atheists aren't smacking their lips in anticipation of an opportunity to humiliate theists.  Still, so long as it is less vicious than at AF it is still an improvement.  Sold!

Absolutely agree with you mate, no argument from me there.
The whole point of having cake is to eat it Cake_Feast
The following 3 users Like adey67's post:
  • EvieTheAvocado, Mark, JesseB
Reply
#38

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
I bloody love this website. Off-topic of me to say so, but hopefully tolerated!
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#39

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
I've learned a massive amount of information about the bible from the banter between chew toy theists and atheist forum members.   I really knew nothing about religious people until I started reading debates between some of the nutty theists and atheist forum members.  It's really astonishing and sad how much information is was lost from the other forum,  and a lot of that information was tightly  packed into the debate threads  between chew toys and forum members.
                                                         T4618
The following 5 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • JesseB, M.Linoge, adey67, Kim, Paleophyte
Reply
#40

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(12-01-2018, 02:35 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote: I bloody love this website. Off-topic of me to say so, but hopefully tolerated!

I'm liking this site. long as I'm not ordered to censor myself or change my behavior from what was considered acceptable on TTA I'll continue to like this place. I try to be reasonable and fair, up until the point someone crosses a line. I will not submit to someone demanding I become vapid and nice to everyone. So far so good, on that front but this whole AF thing has me concerned. People who are scared of insults concern me. Greatly. 

Don't go to AF know nothing about the site. I do know what kind of people tend to bitch about the meanies that told a lying cunt to go fuck themselves. They are the type of lying cunts that want to get away with their dishonesty. I have no respect for such people. But hey, maybe AF has attracted nasty trolls that are just being senselessly mean for no reason. Fuck if I know.

I think it's more important to be consistent, ethical, and reasonably fair, than to be nice.
The following 1 user Likes JesseB's post:
  • adey67
Reply
#41

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(12-01-2018, 08:08 AM)JesseB Wrote:
(12-01-2018, 02:35 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote: I bloody love this website. Off-topic of me to say so, but hopefully tolerated!

I'm liking this site. long as I'm not ordered to censor myself or change my behavior from what was considered acceptable on TTA I'll continue to like this place. I try to be reasonable and fair, up until the point someone crosses a line. I will not submit to someone demanding I become vapid and nice to everyone. So far so good, on that front but this whole AF thing has me concerned. People who are scared of insults concern me. Greatly. 

Smile

Quote:Don't go to AF know nothing about the site. I do know what kind of people tend to bitch about the meanies that told a lying cunt to go fuck themselves. They are the type of lying cunts that want to get away with their dishonesty. I have no respect for such people.

Can you give me an example of who precisely you're talking about? Who exactly is a lying cunt who needs to go fuck themselves?

If you can't tell me here then perhaps by PM?

Quote:I think it's more important to be consistent, ethical, and reasonably fair, than to be nice.

I agree but although niceness isn't necessarily consistent ... it can be reasonable, depending on the definition of "reasonable", and it's usually more ethical than unethical.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#42

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(12-01-2018, 08:34 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote:
(12-01-2018, 08:08 AM)JesseB Wrote:
(12-01-2018, 02:35 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote: I bloody love this website. Off-topic of me to say so, but hopefully tolerated!

I'm liking this site. long as I'm not ordered to censor myself or change my behavior from what was considered acceptable on TTA I'll continue to like this place. I try to be reasonable and fair, up until the point someone crosses a line. I will not submit to someone demanding I become vapid and nice to everyone. So far so good, on that front but this whole AF thing has me concerned. People who are scared of insults concern me. Greatly. 

Smile

Quote:Don't go to AF know nothing about the site. I do know what kind of people tend to bitch about the meanies that told a lying cunt to go fuck themselves. They are the type of lying cunts that want to get away with their dishonesty. I have no respect for such people.

Can you give me an example of who precisely you're talking about? Who exactly is a lying cunt who needs to go fuck themselves?

If you can't tell me here then perhaps by PM?

Quote:I think it's more important to be consistent, ethical, and reasonably fair, than to be nice.

I agree but although niceness isn't necessarily consistent ... it can be reasonable, depending on the definition of "reasonable", and it's usually more ethical than unethical.

1. The writer of the OP, I don't know them but they strike me as distrustful on the face because of the OP itself. It concerns me even if I'm wrong about this. I was after all wrong about you @EvieTheAvocado much to my pleasant surprise.

I have a long history with people like that both online and in real life. I'll give you one really good example that I know very well. My youngest brother.


My youngest brother acted like a piece of shit all the fucking time. Look you can say whatever you want about me and I'm not going to have a problem with you for doing it. You can be mean to me, you can insult me, you can even lie about me. I'm going to call you the fuck out if it's not deserved and I hate liars. However, there's still hope of reconciliation. You can apologize if you were in the wrong and I'll move on. But when you lie about someone then hide behind "rules of civility" or "politeness" or whatever bullshit fake pretty facade you want to put on it, you're effectively acting like my little brother. He'd punch you, and my brother was quick he wouldn't even let you punch him  back just as soon as you moved to hit him back he'd run to an adult and whine that you hit him, you'd be positioned to hit him so the lie would be believed. Even if you did hit him though, it would have been justified. he initiated the violence. He'd only ever fight people who couldn't fight back. He only ever got in trouble for it once. He choked a kit until the kid passed out and intended to kill him, how did it happen? Well the kid my brother didn't like, but the kid didn't take the bait just kinda stood there ready but not moving, so my brother acted all "nice" and passive, other kid stood down, turned to walk away and my brother grabbed him from behind and proceeded to choke him with the intention to kill. Did a lot of damage. However this was his common tactic he always treated people nice to their faces then stabbed them in the back socially. He let his anger get the better of him that one time and his fighting style reflected the shit personality he has. 

On this forum @"Wolfen" behaves the exact same way. He'll stab you then run behind his walls screaming about how it's not fair that you tell him to go fuck himself for repeatedly insulting and not even bothering to make an argument just insulting. Because in his world he's right to insult people and they are wrong to defend themselves. Because by default he's just right because he's perfect in his own mind.

It's called being a dishonest manipulative cunt. And it's all the rage right now. It's difficult to stand up to because they deny you the right to defend yourself. And it depends on lies and manipulation. Instead of facing an opponent outright, or offering a well reasoned argument, they send PM's to people they've manipulated until they get the person they don't like kicked from a forum. And if they can't do that they scream that the forum is full of meanies and try to run to another forum where they plan to manipulate the leadership into adopting rules that can be easily manipulated by such people. 

You see the same thing in real life too with legal systems and terrible laws being passed designed to allow the most reprehensible scumbags to be able to manipulate it to send innocent people to jail.


Hell even in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia this was a common tactic. Don't like someone? Just tell the SS or the KGB that said person was saying bad things about the government, no evidence required. Perfectly legal murder by government.


Now I"m not saying the OP wants this, only that his OP concerns me and hints that that may be the goal. I'm no mind reader. I do know risky dangerous ideas when I see them however. And the complaints about AF raise a lot of red flags. Many people with the OP's concerns don't realize what a bad idea their proposed rules are. Some however are actively trying to create a world they can take advantage of to harm even legally murder people they don't like. Those ones are dangerous but damn near impossible to directly identify.



Also as to your third point. Niceness is almost never ethical. Honesty is ethical and honesty is not always nice, in fact honesty is almost never nice. Honesty is consistent though. Again to be nice requires lies and being fake with people. It is dishonest by it's very nature. If you want people to be nice to you it's very simple, be nice to them, in that capacity you can be nice and ethical. The moment you demand nice from others while being manipulative and harmful towards them niceness becomes dishonest. And being nice to people you don't like is inherently dishonest. It may be needed sometimes because not every battle needs to be fought, however the expectation of niceness is what I take exception too. A fair system relies on the ability to be not nice to people who deserve it.

respect, niceness those things are earned, not demanded. The moment you demand such behaviors you are wrong.

Niceness is vapid, vacuous. fake, meaningless. I feel like the kid from fucking catcher in the fucking rye just having to point out how fucking obvious this is.

Honor, respect, honesty, ethics those things have meaning and power. They are much harder to pervert. Far better goals.






Both videos are relevant
The following 2 users Like JesseB's post:
  • M.Linoge, adey67
Reply
#43

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
@JesseB

Thanks for your response. It's appreciated.

(12-01-2018, 09:00 AM)JesseB Wrote: I was after all wrong about you @EvieTheAvocado much to my pleasant surprise.

I'm glad of that!
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
The following 1 user Likes EvieTheAvocado's post:
  • JesseB
Reply
#44

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(12-01-2018, 09:07 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote: @JesseB

Thanks for your response. It's appreciated.

(12-01-2018, 09:00 AM)JesseB Wrote: I was after all wrong about you @EvieTheAvocado much to my pleasant surprise.

I'm glad of that!

Keep in mind, I think the nicest thing I can do when someone acts like a dishonest cunt, is to tell them they are acting like a dishonest cunt. So..... Nice can mean many things to many people, again it's vapid, vacuous, meaningless. If you're nice to everyone people think you lack the ability to think for yourself, they think you're a pushover, easy to manipulate or control or simply lacking a personality of your own.

And in fact most people who scream the loudest about "nice" aren't nice people at all. They are nasty horrible people. They value the fake clean pretty view of heaven pretending it's "Nice" that god rapes and murders and tortures trillions of people for all eternity. That's what nice is, the real question is can you be honest enough with yourself to recognize this fact. That if you're advocating for nice, this is in fact the world you will create. Even if it's not the world you want to create.
Reply
#45

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(12-01-2018, 09:26 AM)JesseB Wrote: Keep in mind, I think the nicest thing I can do when someone acts like a dishonest cunt, is to tell them they are acting like a dishonest cunt.

The biggest problem there is ... how can you tell a false belief from intentional dishonesty?
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#46

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(12-01-2018, 10:00 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote:
(12-01-2018, 09:26 AM)JesseB Wrote: Keep in mind, I think the nicest thing I can do when someone acts like a dishonest cunt, is to tell them they are acting like a dishonest cunt.

The biggest problem there is ... how can you tell a false belief from intentional dishonesty?

Intentional or not, dishonesty is. I don't differentiate because I don't care. I call out dishonesty and an honest person will recognize it and correct the flaw. I only add cunt when a person is repeatedly digestions and been corrected and continues it unabashed. At that point I think it's safe to assume the person is either brainwashed into a religion or ideology so much that they are incapable of thinking, or are being intentionally dishonest. At that point the insults are 

1. a cathartic way to blow off some steam 
2. A way to make the conversation at least mildly entertaining ( can be pretty clever and witty sometimes with my insults) 
3. A show for the audience, since the person you're speaking at isn't listening anyway and nothing you say matters at that point, so at least make it entertaining for the peanut gallery.

Take for example the person who if I mention his name again would be like beating a dead horse. You know who it is.....
Before I told him to go fuck himself, I called out his dishonesty several times before. Check the thread, I was pretty mild and nice about it in fact. Then on the third time his insult was so direct and egregious I told him to fuck himself. I do not default to insults. And I don't insult without damn good reason. Personally.

I think that is fair.
Reply
#47

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(11-30-2018, 07:09 PM)airportkid Wrote: Chew toy activity is too close to what Trump does; but I've never liked it before Trump made it popular either.  Those kinds of "dialogues" stop being dialogue and turn into endorphin festivals, fun if that's the kind of fun you crave, but otherwise pointless.


Brings to mind the admonition against wrestling with pigs.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 1 user Likes Mark's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#48

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(12-01-2018, 09:00 AM)JesseB Wrote:
(12-01-2018, 08:34 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote:
(12-01-2018, 08:08 AM)JesseB Wrote: I'm liking this site. long as I'm not ordered to censor myself or change my behavior from what was considered acceptable on TTA I'll continue to like this place. I try to be reasonable and fair, up until the point someone crosses a line. I will not submit to someone demanding I become vapid and nice to everyone. So far so good, on that front but this whole AF thing has me concerned. People who are scared of insults concern me. Greatly. 

Smile

Quote:Don't go to AF know nothing about the site. I do know what kind of people tend to bitch about the meanies that told a lying cunt to go fuck themselves. They are the type of lying cunts that want to get away with their dishonesty. I have no respect for such people.

Can you give me an example of who precisely you're talking about? Who exactly is a lying cunt who needs to go fuck themselves?

If you can't tell me here then perhaps by PM?

1. The writer of the OP, I don't know them but they strike me as distrustful on the face because of the OP itself. It concerns me even if I'm wrong about this. I was after all wrong about you @EvieTheAvocado much to my pleasant surprise.

You're wrong about Mark.

Just a tip, it's probably better to get to know people before you start calling them names, even online where you have the luxury of online anonymity ... especially if you're impugning their integrity by calling them dishonest.
On hiatus.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Kim
Reply
#49

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(12-01-2018, 12:58 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(12-01-2018, 09:00 AM)JesseB Wrote:
(12-01-2018, 08:34 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote: Smile


Can you give me an example of who precisely you're talking about? Who exactly is a lying cunt who needs to go fuck themselves?

If you can't tell me here then perhaps by PM?

1. The writer of the OP, I don't know them but they strike me as distrustful on the face because of the OP itself. It concerns me even if I'm wrong about this. I was after all wrong about you @EvieTheAvocado much to my pleasant surprise.

You're wrong about Mark.

Just a tip, it's probably better to get to know people before you start calling them names, even online where you have the luxury of online anonymity ... especially if you're impugning their integrity by calling them dishonest.

I made a statement about how mark comes across in the op. I stand by that.  I did say I could be wrong about his intent. But the op strikes me as a plea to start changing rules in a way that I do not support. Using language I've learned to distrust.  I'm being open about this.  Not making final judgment about the guy. Just voicing what I think is reasonable concern.  I doubt I'm alone in my concern. 

Last I checked saying someone sounds or comes across as dishonest is not the same thing as calling someone dishonest. Especially when I provide my reasoning and appeal to his consideration why he comes across as such.

And I have yet to call anyone names except that wolf dude. And he earned my scorn.

Regardless of his intent it's concerning. I think that's how I worded it.  That you think I'm wrong about him says a lot because while I don't know him.  I do know you and generally I think your decent reasonable and someone deserving of trust and respect.  

I think it's worth noting that later in the post I was much more charitable to mark. Suggesting that while I think he is wrong it may come from honest intent. What's that saying? The road to hell is paved with good intention.

I've made a case for why I think marks op is dangerous.  I hope he considers it. If your right he will ya?
The following 1 user Likes JesseB's post:
  • M.Linoge
Reply
#50

Do we really need chew toys? Wouldn't thoughtful, articulate theists be preferable?
(12-01-2018, 09:00 AM)JesseB Wrote:
(12-01-2018, 08:34 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote:
(12-01-2018, 08:08 AM)JesseB Wrote: I'm liking this site. long as I'm not ordered to censor myself or change my behavior from what was considered acceptable on TTA I'll continue to like this place. I try to be reasonable and fair, up until the point someone crosses a line. I will not submit to someone demanding I become vapid and nice to everyone. So far so good, on that front but this whole AF thing has me concerned. People who are scared of insults concern me. Greatly. 

Smile

Quote:Don't go to AF know nothing about the site. I do know what kind of people tend to bitch about the meanies that told a lying cunt to go fuck themselves. They are the type of lying cunts that want to get away with their dishonesty. I have no respect for such people.

Can you give me an example of who precisely you're talking about? Who exactly is a lying cunt who needs to go fuck themselves?

If you can't tell me here then perhaps by PM?

Quote:I think it's more important to be consistent, ethical, and reasonably fair, than to be nice.

I agree but although niceness isn't necessarily consistent ... it can be reasonable, depending on the definition of "reasonable", and it's usually more ethical than unethical.

1. The writer of the OP, I don't know them but they strike me as distrustful on the face because of the OP itself. It concerns me even if I'm wrong about this. I was after all wrong about you @EvieTheAvocado much to my pleasant surprise.

I have a long history with people like that both online and in real life. I'll give you one really good example that I know very well. My youngest brother.


My youngest brother acted like a piece of shit all the fucking time. Look you can say whatever you want about me and I'm not going to have a problem with you for doing it. You can be mean to me, you can insult me, you can even lie about me. I'm going to call you the fuck out if it's not deserved and I hate liars. However, there's still hope of reconciliation. You can apologize if you were in the wrong and I'll move on. But when you lie about someone then hide behind "rules of civility" or "politeness" or whatever bullshit fake pretty facade you want to put on it, you're effectively acting like my little brother. He'd punch you, and my brother was quick he wouldn't even let you punch him  back just as soon as you moved to hit him back he'd run to an adult and whine that you hit him, you'd be positioned to hit him so the lie would be believed. Even if you did hit him though, it would have been justified. he initiated the violence. He'd only ever fight people who couldn't fight back. He only ever got in trouble for it once. He choked a kit until the kid passed out and intended to kill him, how did it happen? Well the kid my brother didn't like, but the kid didn't take the bait just kinda stood there ready but not moving, so my brother acted all "nice" and passive, other kid stood down, turned to walk away and my brother grabbed him from behind and proceeded to choke him with the intention to kill. Did a lot of damage. However this was his common tactic he always treated people nice to their faces then stabbed them in the back socially. He let his anger get the better of him that one time and his fighting style reflected the shit personality he has. 

On this forum @"Wolfen" behaves the exact same way. He'll stab you then run behind his walls screaming about how it's not fair that you tell him to go fuck himself for repeatedly insulting and not even bothering to make an argument just insulting. Because in his world he's right to insult people and they are wrong to defend themselves. Because by default he's just right because he's perfect in his own mind.

It's called being a dishonest manipulative cunt. And it's all the rage right now. It's difficult to stand up to because they deny you the right to defend yourself. And it depends on lies and manipulation. Instead of facing an opponent outright, or offering a well reasoned argument, they send PM's to people they've manipulated until they get the person they don't like kicked from a forum. And if they can't do that they scream that the forum is full of meanies and try to run to another forum where they plan to manipulate the leadership into adopting rules that can be easily manipulated by such people. 

You see the same thing in real life too with legal systems and terrible laws being passed designed to allow the most reprehensible scumbags to be able to manipulate it to send innocent people to jail.


Hell even in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia this was a common tactic. Don't like someone? Just tell the SS or the KGB that said person was saying bad things about the government, no evidence required. Perfectly legal murder by government.


Now I"m not saying the OP wants this, only that his OP concerns me and hints that that may be the goal. I'm no mind reader. I do know risky dangerous ideas when I see them however. And the complaints about AF raise a lot of red flags. Many people with the OP's concerns don't realize what a bad idea their proposed rules are. Some however are actively trying to create a world they can take advantage of to harm even legally murder people they don't like. Those ones are dangerous but damn near impossible to directly identify.



Also as to your third point. Niceness is almost never ethical. Honesty is ethical and honesty is not always nice, in fact honesty is almost never nice. Honesty is consistent though. Again to be nice requires lies and being fake with people. It is dishonest by it's very nature. If you want people to be nice to you it's very simple, be nice to them, in that capacity you can be nice and ethical. The moment you demand nice from others while being manipulative and harmful towards them niceness becomes dishonest. And being nice to people you don't like is inherently dishonest. It may be needed sometimes because not every battle needs to be fought, however the expectation of niceness is what I take exception too. A fair system relies on the ability to be not nice to people who deserve it.

respect, niceness those things are earned, not demanded. The moment you demand such  behaviors you are wrong.

Niceness is vapid, vacuous. fake, meaningless. I feel like the kid from fucking catcher in the fucking rye just having to point out how fucking obvious this is.

Honor, respect, honesty, ethics those things have meaning and power. They are much harder to pervert. Far better goals.






Both videos are relevant


Mentioning Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the context of thread about chew-toys? That's like a definition of overdoing it.

Also to address your other point: honor have meaning and power and among other things you mentioned is much harder to pervert than niceness? I guess that's why Meine Ehre heißt Treue was SS motto. Cause honor is so hard to pervert.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)