Ramshutu

So incitement to violence is okay when it’s used to oppose a policy you don’t like?

Silly me, thinking that suggesting the president should be shot is inciting violence, and bad, regardless of what policy it’s trying to support or oppose!

Angrily suggesting the President should be shot, isn’t inciting violence? Hmm? Interesting logic!

How about:

“We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November”

“If Barack Obama becomes the next president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

so it’s okay to incite violence against the president when it’s a cause you agree with?

A graphical image of Trumps head vs an explicit reference to shooting and killing the president?

they seem both to be inciting violence, right?

The main difference, is that one was ostracized, and the other is popular, and has been invited to the White House.

So please explain why Kathy Griffin can pose with a disembodied head of Trump, be disowned, lose her Job, and generally pilloried by left and right: Yet Ted Nugent - who asked Obama to “Suck on my Machine Gun”, is invited to the White House? 

This is just another example of outrageous right wing hypocrisy where the right know they’re utterly full of shit; but they are trying to trigger their supporters with feigned outrage - because if you say the left is violent enough times, loudly enough - people may forget that the right wing terrorism, violence inciting and dehumanizing language used by the president is a billion times worse.

Which of the listed events do you believe didn’t actually happen?

Yeah, those stupid left wing celebrities and their encouraging of violence are the ones with a major violence problem.

No amount of Trump encouraging supporters to punch protesters in the face, Trump supporters punching protesters in the face, Trump supporters stabbing and murdering Muslims, Trump supporters sending pipe bombs to attempt murder of left wing politicians, Trump supporters murdering Indian nationals shouting “Get out of my country”, Trump supporters murdering Latino immigrants, Trump supporters engaging in ISIS style car attacks to murder pedestrians, Trump supporters murdering Jews in a Synagogue, Trump supporters plotting to murder Muslims in upstate New York, Trump supporters plotting to murder “as many girls as I can” at a woman’s march, The president claiming the “2nd Amendment people can do something about Hillary Clinton”, Conservatives murdering people in black church in order to start a race war, Trump supporting celebrities telling Obama to “suck on my machine gun” - and getting invited to the White House, celebrities sending poison laced letters to Obama, far right racists murdering people in yoga studios, Trump supporting conservative gubernatorial candidates threatening to stomp the face of their opponents, individuals processing anti-black, anti-Muslim anti-Jew far right views shooting up kids in a school, right wing militias in armed confrontation with federal law enforcement, right wing pundits joking about poisoning nancy Pelosi, right wing sovereign citizen individuals shooting police officers, Trump supporter and Neo Nazis stabbing black bouncers for not getting in, Trump supporting Republican Governors saying we may need to “resort to blood shed” to recover from a Clinton Presidency Trump supporters stabbing African Americans in Kansas, 13 year old boys stabbed for being Muslim, or stabbing and killing Jewish and gay acquaintances, info wars reader shooting up a pizzeria, will convince me that the problem isn’t just the handful of denounced attacks on the left!

The only time you could be 100 steps ahead of me is if we were both running the 800m and I was about to lap you.

Trying to explain, and get you to acknowledge that this is significantly threatening - is not itself a threat of mod action, nor intended to be.

I’m not interested in having you penalized, or punished : I just wanted an apology for your nonsensical accusations and threats.

which I kinda have.

If you want to accuse me of being Type1 - for example, that’s one thing. It would be ridiculous and people would be able to judge your accusations on their merits.

Telling everyone you have private information about me that you’re willing to share - is a substantial threat of doxxing, it dangles the possibility that you have gained personal information about an individual, and maybe willing to share it. It’s one of the most substantial types of threats prohibited by the CoC, and pretty serious. You, others, etc, would react in very similar ways if someone did the same thing to you.

I would also go back and read what I actually said about you and Type1, it seems your memory fails uou

Threatening to expose personal information, and threatening moderation actions: are both threats of doxxing, and threats in general.

That you’ve got it into your poisoned little mind that I am someone else, is a made up, irrational product of your own muddled paranoia.

Given that you have no evidence, no facts, no information to support any of the nonsense you’ve said: threats are really all you have. I do very much take issue to these idiotic threats.

If you threaten people by dangling - publicly -  the possibility that you have private or personal information about them - that is personal enough to constitute doxxing if released: that’s kinda serious - don’t you think?

I copy your images because it’s objectively hilarious; as I feel it’s the most sensible way to respond to your unceasing personal attacks, threats to doxx me, claims that you will bring me down when you show BSH information about me, repeated ridiculous lies that I troll or vote against people who try hard or are approaching my level - you know, stuff that you literally pulled out of your arse out of desperation.

If I wanted to hurt you, I’d trademark my username and charge you royalties for each use. You’d be bankrupt in a week.

And Bruce.

We also know who Adam West is.

Meg.

I’ve been informally tracking stats. Daily forum averages are about 250-300 posts per day. 500 if “someone” loses a debate. About 2-3 new debates per day, 1 new debater and 0.5 new forum contributed per day too.

You’re welcome.

I’m sure, like the 55 other times, when I elaborate the key faults in your position, you’ll ignore it, make the same mistake again - and be just as upset when the same mistake you didn’t learn from ends up making you lose.

#KingOfStrategy

You see how you skipped the main point I just made that contradicted what you said, and instead made a redundant side point that didn’t really address anything? That bad arguing and bad logic is why you keep losing.

You’ve stormed off multiple times, forfeiting multiple debates as a result, mentioned me in posts, votes, debate rounds; almost every thing you do on the site appears to mention my name. You’ve had at least two meltdowns about me, made up two raps, repeatedly told me in private and public about how I will never break your spirit; desperately tried to argue that you should be able to get to the top of the leaderboard by exploiting a spammer, wasn’t able to convince anyone, had the debates deleted anyway, angrily stormed off for two weeks, and came back angrily ranting about me - again.

In light of this - proclaiming that it is I who is rattled, is right up there with “There are no American Tanks in Baghdad”.

Now, I will treat you like Sun Tzu when you act like it. For example - why not take on fewer debates, and actually argue them coherently rather than go into left field kritiks and absurd semantic nonsense; win debates on their merits, actually learn from the reasons you list the past debates, leap up the leaderboard, show that you’re truly a genius, and leave everyone else wailing and gnashing their teeth.

For example, you always seem to surprise when I place votes that penalize you for absurd semantics, and not arguing the resolution when your side is eminently winnable - even though I keep telling you that’s the way I’ll vote.  I mean, at some point you have to stop blaming the rake you keep stepping on.

You’re not a genius.

You're not stupid, but you make too many stupid mistakes - often repeating them, and you have too much difficulty formulating coherent logical points, to make that statement anything other than objectively hilarious.

A real genius would be able to explain why it’s fair for you, someone who has 60+ full forfeit debates, the majority of which were from Type1 should be able to accept 100 ELO points worth of debates that you know, 100% certainty, you will win, and why this one sided allocation of debates is not horribly unfair to those trying to legitimately debate.

A genius would be able to provide an explanation of why those debates should have been allowed to stand, instead of simply trying to assert that other individuals who have debates Type1, Or have had a handful of debates with opponents who ended up being banned is exactly the same thing as one user scoring 100 points by being in the right place at the right time.

Instead me, a relatively medium level intelligence, appears to be running rings around you; explaining why it is different, why it is harmful, and why intervention was required: to which you have no argument whatsoever.

I am quite happy to sit here and repeat this argument and be logical, rational and correct - whilst you simply whine about how much of a genius you are.

Cretinous False dichotomy.

Its kinda acceptable to speed 10mph over the limit.   Going 100mph over the limit, and then opining that “what’s the problem? everyone speeds!” Would be a ridiculous argument - just as yours is here, for the same reason.

No one has abused things as much as you have; and the right response to trying to gain a ton of free points, and then being told no - aa it’s not fair in everyone else who earns the bulk of their points legitimately - is to shrug and understand why the decision was made.

It blows my mind that you are still butthurt and incredulous that you weren’t allowed to catapault to the top of debate rankings by exploiting spam debates, with zero effort.

I’d rather him talk about food chain, than kink, sexual dominance, and how much of an alpha he is.

I’m still waiting for you to explain why it’s s good thing for a single person to gain 100 ELO points with no effort on spam debates where the acceptor knows that the debates will get banned and will not have to make any effort.

You’d have shit yourself inside out had anyone else got in and accepted those debates before you.

I think there is a bit of confusion here.

Just having a user being banned for some reason does not warrant the debate being deleted. That was never, at all what any of the action was about at any point, so that misunderstanding needs to be corrected before we get close to starting.

Spam debates, started by the likes of Type1, and other perma-banned multi-accounts should be deleted - as these do not constitute any attempt to engage or debate - but are simply trying to spam the debate list and leaderboard. The reason this was necessary, is that one single user accepted 90-100 ELO points worth of debates in one day, knowing his opponent would be banned, and he would be guaranteed a win. 100 points is more points that 95% of Dart members ELO points over base. I’d be making the same case if any other member had accepted that many spam debates.

I’m not sure about which users are in those three debates, but there were a bunch of other debates deleted. I did not protest these debates as I had no idea whichuser this was, what the background was, and there were only three debates by different individuals - (and one started by a non banned user) so there hasn’t been the obtuse and obvious spamming, abused by one member to gain free points - so I wasn’t personally aware.

That being said; you seem to imply that this is about debates started by banned users. In actuality, it is about the multiple spam/troll debates started by banned user in a single day for the purposes of disrupting the site and which has the capability of massively undermining fair competition by letting one individual earn substantial number of points. Try not to make it about something it isn’t.

Someone needs more aloe.

My quotes are amazing; and best enjoyed with a cold crisp microbrewery IPA, and a soothing aloe vera balm for all the butthurt

RM quotes are so much better in Ron Burgundy meme form.

Wanted to call out RM for a counter vote bomb in the last few minutes of one of my debates; it was super classy, respectful, and I very much appreciate it.

The first round forfeit rule is really for two reasons:

1.) While it’s normally recoverable; the large majority of debates where the opening round are forfeited, the remainder are forfeited.

2.) It is also the round people should be most invested in posting were they to start or accept a debate; and is thus largely the least reasonable to forfeit.

This isn’t an attempt to automate a predictive mechanism of who will lose the debate; but a method of reducing wasted time waiting for forfeited debate

The idea was that it would still give ratings, but that you wouldn’t have to wait for the entire forfeit of the debate to play out to gain the win. Especially important if the debate has 2 week rounds.

iirc, what got a little agreement was:

1:) first round forfeit = auto loss to the non forfeiting side

2.) reach two forfeits more than the other side = auto loss.

3.) rule is opt in if possible.

Is it just me, or does this give the impression that he quit, went to a different debate site, they treated him exactly the same and/or he got banned?

My Patronus is Bsh1 doing a rap battle.

The phrase that comes to mind is: 

No one really cared about Spam threads in the forum, until specific people started pushing it over the top, taking it too far and generally being

a bit excessive.

I believe everything you say Gilderoy Bshheart.

I think you’ll need to cast Engorgio a few times for my British ass to feel the effects of your off brand, underpowered wand.

I agree

Bsh is of course lying like the filthy wretched muggle we all know him to be.

Would it be okay to clarify:

A spam debate would be an obvious commercial advertisement, or one of a set of multiple debates that appear to be solely created in order to flood the system with new debates rather than legitimate attempt to engage in debates?

I think its worthwhile pointing out debates should only be removed when it’s obviously spam or an attempt to flood the system with multiple debates a- rather than an odd debate here and there.

1.) yes

2.) no

3.) yes

4.) yes

1.) Yes

2.) no

3.) yes

4.) yes.

On 3 - One or two debates here and there are fine - but when it’s excessive and you have 9 debates going to one person in a single day by a banned user - they definitely need to be removed

Covering your hand in marmite, and glueing on googly eyes doesn’t count.

It’s not an appeal to popularity for the above reasons - as outlined.

Read what is posted.

I’ve not conceded anything, you’re literally not listening to anything I’m saying.

You’ve conceded that if we’re not all suffering from subjective delusion - then these facts are indeed objective. I demonstrated why these facts are objective even if we are. You haven’t been able to even come close to showing how the things you claim are subjective are subjective, and are just throwing nonsense about like appeal to popularity; and even the very words subjective and objective.

This ceased to be an intellectual conversation about three pages ago - and all you’re doing is doing block quotes and trying to say something against each line - regardless of whether it makes sense in your position as a whole.

So please, can you just get of this thread, and start a thread in the philosophy forum where someone else can educate you about your confusion between epistemological truth, objective and subjective facts.

It’s not an appeal to popularity - I would suggest you google that too.

The basis for believing the claim that the sky is blue - is Occams Razor - that it’s the simplest explanations. The idea that the sky is blue is objective is based on the observation being independent of any individual mind.

This is just getting even more obtuse now, and quite frankly I am not interested in being your teacher and walking you through basic terminology any more.

If you can explain to me how your thoughts and feelings can make the light coming from the sky something other than a wavelength of 380-500nm, then I will agree that the colour of the sky is subjective. The reason you are unable to do that - is because it’s not a subjective piece of information.

I’ve already spent too long entertaining this nonsense.