Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#752 Apr 05 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Still no reasons on the whole country-name thing, huh?

It's incredibly simple: If you think there's legitimate reasons why a nation using the name of a multi-nation region is okay or even a continent with several nations is okay, but it's not okay at a certain point, explain exactly why that is.

If you can't explain it, the logical conclusion is that there is no reason (even in your own mind) and you're only making the distinction to serve your own argument and nothing more.

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 11:39am by Jophiel


Still going to ignore defining your "arbitrary" counter?

It's incredible simple: You made an argument on numbers being arbitrary yet you contradicted that same thought process on the drinking age analogy. Either you think the numbers are arbitrary with no reason, with reason or some combination. You can't just keep changing your stance depending on the debate.

If you can't explain it, the logical conclusion is that this is not a debate on being arbitrary, but the actual number in discussion and you're only making the distinction to serve your own argument and nothing more.

Arip wrote:
Yes I'm aware I'm just repeating myself. Yes, I just ignored your big long reply to me by cutting it all out.

Yes, I disagree with Joph in that I think it is correct to say "they were speaking American", "they were speaking Quebecois" and "they were speaking Pidgeon".


If you disagree with him, then why are you quoting me? Why not quote him and the others (i.e. Belkira) who contradict your claim?

Belkira wrote:


Show me what you're talking about, please.


1. Education laws.
2. Minor-labor laws.
3. Minimum wage laws.
4. Drinking laws
5. Marriage laws
6. Child support/ Alimony laws
7. Just about every freakin other law out there.

I know you're probably thinking " How does Education or minor laws have anything to do with beliefs". These laws are based on what we believe are right and just. These laws are not the same across the world, they are merely OUR beliefs. "We" think it's morally wrong to force a child to work on a farm instead of going to school.

Belkira wrote:
Yeah, you still haven't proven that we're changing these big important laws because one guy got offended. Try harder.




I'm not necessarily talking about a single guy, but people involved in law making not representing the country as a whole. What does the country think about abortion and SSM? How involved are the citizens when making these decisions? You have incidents like a homosexual homicide or 911 and society changes.

Belkira wrote:
That damn freedom of speech. Gets you every time, doesn't it? Smiley: frown


/smh

You just don't get it. The laws are one thing, social acceptance is another. If you can't grasp the difference and how they play a part in defining your nation, then that's a failure on your part.

Belkira wrote:
No, I don't see where you're going with this. Other than to say that, as a society, we have differing opinions on subjects, and the loudest voice gets heard. And...? What does that mean, exactly? What's your point?


Read above, it's not the loudest voice, but the certain voices. Once the media is involved, all is done. Media controls our politics and if the media focuses on certain issues or certain things, that will play a change in our nation.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#753 Apr 05 2011 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
/jediwave

These are not the droids you're looking for.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#754 Apr 05 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
Holy sh*t.

You know what?


what gbaji said

Now off to shower.
#755 Apr 05 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Still going to ignore defining your "arbitrary" counter?


Nice try? Be less words to just type "You were right, Joph."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#756 Apr 05 2011 at 11:07 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Sir X wrote:
No one chose American or Canadian, they are natural extensions based on the name of the country.


This is what I'm disagreeing with. "America" is as natural as "Republic", "Democratic", "Socialists", "People", etc. No other country to my knowledge calls themselves by those terms, but instead the other parts of their name that is more unique to their country, i.e. "Korea", "Congo","Virgin Islands", etc.


How often do you hear people refer to "Virgin Islands of the United States" simply as "The United States" or the "U.S".


You can deny it all you want, but "American" was chosen. The U.S. had previous names for their citizens prior to the "U.S.A". Once again, the preposition "of" denotes that the "United States" is part of America. Just like the U.S. Virgin Islands is part of the United States. If the preposition "of" weren't there, then you would have a point, but it is, so you don't. Grammatically speaking, also while taking note of other countries, it isn't a natural extension.

That's like arguing to say it's natural to call "D'von Smith" simply "Smith" as opposed to "D'von" in a group of "Smiths". That's not natural at all. That's the exact reason why the military use surnames instead of first names.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#757 Apr 05 2011 at 11:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Still going to ignore defining your "arbitrary" counter?


Nice try? Be less words to just type "You were right, Joph."


Since when does contradicting yourself make you "right".... Oh.. I get it, you and Gbaji are friends now.... sharing tactics now aren't we?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#758 Apr 05 2011 at 11:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Since when does contradicting yourself make you "right"

Still nothing, huh? Well, keep dodging and avoiding the obvious :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#759 Apr 06 2011 at 12:04 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Since when does contradicting yourself make you "right"

Still nothing, huh? Well, keep dodging and avoiding the obvious :)


I can do this all day... the onus is on you to support your "arbitrary is arbitrary" statement since I challenged it first. I'm not going down some mystery trail of fairy tales because you can't man up to say that your statement is wrong..

If you can support your statement, then I'll have no choice but to respond.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#760 Apr 06 2011 at 8:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
the onus is on you

Nope, sorry. Got that one wrong. But keep dodging and avoiding the question! Chanting "NO U" over and over is almost like having a real argument you can defend!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#761 Apr 06 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
the onus is on you

Nope, sorry. Got that one wrong. But keep dodging and avoiding the question! Chanting "NO U" over and over is almost like having a real argument you can defend!


Still nothing?!!! Oh, I guess you think if you keep throwing the ball in my court that I will just some how forget about your contradiction. I guess that's almost like having a real strategy! "Contradiction no jutsu!!"
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#762 Apr 06 2011 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:


Show me what you're talking about, please.


1. Education laws.
2. Minor-labor laws.
3. Minimum wage laws.
4. Drinking laws
5. Marriage laws
6. Child support/ Alimony laws
7. Just about every freakin other law out there.

I know you're probably thinking " How does Education or minor laws have anything to do with beliefs". These laws are based on what we believe are right and just. These laws are not the same across the world, they are merely OUR beliefs. "We" think it's morally wrong to force a child to work on a farm instead of going to school.

Belkira wrote:
Yeah, you still haven't proven that we're changing these big important laws because one guy got offended. Try harder.




I'm not necessarily talking about a single guy, but people involved in law making not representing the country as a whole. What does the country think about abortion and SSM? How involved are the citizens when making these decisions? You have incidents like a homosexual homicide or 911 and society changes.

Belkira wrote:
That damn freedom of speech. Gets you every time, doesn't it? Smiley: frown


/smh

You just don't get it. The laws are one thing, social acceptance is another. If you can't grasp the difference and how they play a part in defining your nation, then that's a failure on your part.

Belkira wrote:
No, I don't see where you're going with this. Other than to say that, as a society, we have differing opinions on subjects, and the loudest voice gets heard. And...? What does that mean, exactly? What's your point?


Read above, it's not the loudest voice, but the certain voices. Once the media is involved, all is done. Media controls our politics and if the media focuses on certain issues or certain things, that will play a change in our nation.


Honestly, what I'm getting from this is that you're sad that the media and society as a whole isn't agreeing with you and patting you on the head for having whatever fucked up ideas and morals you have with regards to abortion and homosexuality. Because this makes you sad, you are contending that we don't have an "identity," but really, you're just pissed that we don't have the same identity that you have.

Interesting.

As an aside, why does it matter if we have an identity or not?

Edited, Apr 6th 2011 10:00am by Belkira
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#763 Apr 06 2011 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, the whole "throw back" thing doesn't work when Gbaji does it either.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#764 Apr 06 2011 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, the whole "throw back" thing doesn't work when Gbaji does it either.


Won't stop him from doing it. Alma will drag his arguments to the ends of the earth to keep them away from a sound counter.

Edited, Apr 6th 2011 11:07am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#765 Apr 06 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
You can deny it all you want, but "American" was chosen. The U.S. had previous names for their citizens prior to the "U.S.A".
And what would those be?

Quote:
Once again, the preposition "of" denotes that the "United States" is part of America. Just like the U.S. Virgin Islands is part of the United States. If the preposition "of" weren't there, then you would have a point, but it is, so you don't. Grammatically speaking, also while taking note of other countries, it isn't a natural extension.
They didn't really have much to work with. The grammar doesn't really matter. You're correct in what 'of' refers to, but it's still part of the name, and citizen names come out of the name of the country.

Quote:
That's like arguing to say it's natural to call "D'von Smith" simply "Smith" as opposed to "D'von" in a group of "Smiths". That's not natural at all. That's the exact reason why the military use surnames instead of first names.
Not normal, but can still happen. Typically if this happened in a social setting, the rest of the smiths would go by some other name to avoid confusion, just like American! It happens the other way with first names all the time, mostly because calling people by their first name is generally more common.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#766 Apr 06 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You can deny it all you want, but "American" was chosen. The U.S. had previous names for their citizens prior to the "U.S.A".
And what would those be?
British Loyalists.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#767 Apr 06 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Is this STILL a retarded etymology discussion?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#768 Apr 06 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Saying "I speak American" sounds just about as dumb as saying "I speak Mexican."
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#769 Apr 06 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Belkira wrote:
Honestly, what I'm getting from this is that you're sad that the media and society as a whole isn't agreeing with you and patting you on the head for having whatever @#%^ed up ideas and morals you have with regards to abortion and homosexuality. Because this makes you sad, you are contending that we don't have an "identity," but really, you're just pissed that we don't have the same identity that you have.

Interesting.


Interesting indeed that you are able to twist an entire block of text. If you didn't realize, we have TWO main political parties that have (or at least pretend to have) very different ideas and beliefs. This isn't about me, as I'm an independent. You asked for examples, I gave you examples. If you don't like them, then fine, but don't try to twist this around as a personal grudge.

The reality is, the nation is "divided" on many issues, but certain people make the decisions for the people without much of the people's intervention. Much of that is played from the media as we try to become so "politically correct" in not offending people and creating this illusion of togetherness. In order to make news, the media will blow things out of proportion while forcing a change of acceptance to feed into this illusion.

Belkira wrote:
As an aside, why does it matter if we have an identity or not?


Trying to please everyone in a diverse group is literally an impossible task. You end up wasting a lot of resources on scenarios that shouldn't receive that much attention if any. Some things should be carefully examined, while others should not.

This all goes back to "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". We teach that concept going to other nations, but we void it when people come to the U.S.

Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, the whole "throw back" thing doesn't work when Gbaji does it either.


Nice try, but you were the one who said "Arbitrary is Arbitrary" then immediately contradicted yourself. It doesn't make any sense for me to address a stance with hypothetical boundaries as if we are discussing reality. You either believe your statement "Arbitrary is Arbitrary" (where the drinking age of 5 is equally as arbitrary as the drinking age of 21) or you believe that arbitrary is not always arbitrary (there is some reason involved that makes a distinction between two arbitrary numbers).

It's one or the other. You can't pick and choose varying on the debate. You presented your statement under one pretense pretending to believe scenario A, but in reality believe (as what we actually practice) scenario B.

Sir X wrote:
And what would those be?


I'm not a history buff, so feel free to make any corrections.

Patriots, Whigs, Rebels, Revolutionaries, Colonists, Loyalists, Tories,etc

Sir X wrote:
They didn't really have much to work with.


If the U.S. were one of the FIRST nations, then I could buy that argument. At the time of the creation of the U.S., naming conventions were already standardized. France was French, Britain was British, China was Chinese, Japan was Japanese, etc.

So, to think that not a single person thought about the naming convention of their citizens when creating a name for their new nation, given their current many names, would be silly.

Sir X wrote:
The grammar doesn't really matter. You're correct in what 'of' refers to, but it's still part of the name, and citizen names come out of the name of the country.


Read above, there are numerous of other countries that are named in the same way, but aren't abbreviated as such. This was a choice.

Sir X wrote:
Not normal, but can still happen. Typically if this happened in a social setting, the rest of the smiths would go by some other name to avoid confusion, just like American! It happens the other way with first names all the time, mostly because calling people by their first name is generally more common.


I never seen that happen. Usually the newest addition to the names gets the altered name. The original people keep their original names. For example, if there's already a Jonathon and another Jonathon comes around, then the second one is abbreviated to "Jon". If a third Jonathon comes around, then his name will be abbreviated to "J" or his middle name or last name of a combination such as "J.T".

In any of those cases, I've never seen the newest person causing everyone prior to change their names or to go by something different.

Furthermore, none of that matters as my point is on the fact that the U.S. would want to be simply called Americans as opposed to something more unique. We already agreed that it is a "legitimate" term.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#770 Apr 06 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,899 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Saying "I speak American" sounds just about as dumb as saying "I speak Mexican."


But not quite as stupid as "United Statesian".

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#771 Apr 06 2011 at 9:01 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Kachi wrote:
Is this STILL a retarded etymology discussion?


Yes, unless you can get Gbaji to explain how White people not wanting to live with Black people, according to his source, is evidence of black people self-segregating themselves and causing self-harm (even though according to his source, Black people want to live in integrated communities).
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#772 Apr 06 2011 at 9:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Nice try

Thanks! I think that proving your complete lack of an argument DOES count as a good try :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#773 Apr 06 2011 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
As an aside, why does it matter if we have an identity or not?


Trying to please everyone in a diverse group is literally an impossible task. You end up wasting a lot of resources on scenarios that shouldn't receive that much attention if any. Some things should be carefully examined, while others should not.

This all goes back to "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". We teach that concept going to other nations, but we void it when people come to the U.S.


That's really sort of a non-answer there, isn't it?

Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#774 Apr 07 2011 at 5:14 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nice try

Thanks! I think that proving your complete lack of an argument DOES count as a good try :)


I admit, you did have a good tactic of arguing both sides, that way, you're guaranteed to at least prove yourself wrong.. Bravo chap, Bravo..


Belkira wrote:
That's really sort of a non-answer there, isn't it?

Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question.


Now why would there be a rhetorical question about the need of a national identity in a discussion about having a national identity? Isn't it safe to say that the people who are making the complaints of the U.S not having a national identity believes that there is some sort of benefit of having one?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#775 Apr 07 2011 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
That's really sort of a non-answer there, isn't it?

Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question.


Now why would there be a rhetorical question about the need of a national identity in a discussion about having a national identity? Isn't it safe to say that the people who are making the complaints of the U.S not having a national identity believes that there is some sort of benefit of having one?


The "that's really sort of a non-answer there, isn't it?" part was the rhetorical question. But thanks for proving, again, that your reading comprehension is lacking.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#776 Apr 07 2011 at 9:12 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
That's really sort of a non-answer there, isn't it?

Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question.


Now why would there be a rhetorical question about the need of a national identity in a discussion about having a national identity? Isn't it safe to say that the people who are making the complaints of the U.S not having a national identity believes that there is some sort of benefit of having one?


The "that's really sort of a non-answer there, isn't it?" part was the rhetorical question. But thanks for proving, again, that your reading comprehension is lacking.


I was wrong, I see what you meant. Don't worry, I'm not going to pull a Jophiel and pretend that it was actually you that were wrong because I'm not man enough for an admittance. It's part of growth and development.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#777 Apr 07 2011 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not going to pull a Jophiel

Good to know I touched a nerve :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#778 Apr 07 2011 at 9:26 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not going to pull a Jophiel

Good to know I touched a nerve :)


Way to give yourself undeserved credit. Or, is this part of your delusional contradictory success tactic?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#779 Apr 07 2011 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not going to pull a Jophiel

Good to know I touched a nerve :)


Trademark™ infringement.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#780 Apr 07 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Way to give yourself undeserved credit.

You don't need to admit to it. Your referencing of me was enough to know you felt the sting :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#781 Apr 07 2011 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma is about as opaque as cellophane
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#782 Apr 07 2011 at 6:14 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Way to give yourself undeserved credit.

You don't need to admit to it. Your referencing of me was enough to know you felt the sting :)


Still
nothing?!

Trying to change the subject I see... get back to avoiding addressing your contradiction.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#783 Apr 07 2011 at 8:35 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Way to give yourself undeserved credit.

You don't need to admit to it. Your referencing of me was enough to know you felt the sting :)


Still
nothing?!

Trying to change the subject I see... get back to avoiding addressing your contradiction.
Awww, he's picking up the gbaji ellipsis! It's like watching a fledgling leave the nest.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#784 Apr 08 2011 at 2:02 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Way to give yourself undeserved credit.

You don't need to admit to it. Your referencing of me was enough to know you felt the sting :)


Still
nothing?!

Trying to change the subject I see... get back to avoiding addressing your contradiction.
Awww, he's picking up the gbaji ellipsis! It's like watching a fledgling leave the nest.


?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#785 Apr 08 2011 at 2:19 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,908 posts
Still. He's got a long way to go...
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#786 Apr 08 2011 at 2:35 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Still. He's got a long way to go...


Almalieque wrote:
?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#787 Apr 08 2011 at 6:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Still. He's got a long way to go...


Almalieque wrote:
?


Color me surprised that you wouldn't get it and need an explanation.
#788 Apr 08 2011 at 6:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Still nothing?!

Awww... so cute! when you keep trying to flip that one around.

I say "you keep trying" because I gave up trying to make you admit that you never had an argument. I made it abundantly clear to everyone else and, just like with Gbaji, my goal can't be to make people like you admit that they're wrong, only to expose their error to everyone else.

But you keep taking things I said and saying them back at me! That'll get me!

Edited, Apr 8th 2011 7:35am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#789 Apr 08 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque The All Knowing wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Still. He's got a long way to go...


Almalieque The All Knowing wrote:
?


Color me surprised that you wouldn't get it and need an explanation.


I'm not sure why posters here think someone should understand every single post in regards to them. I may come off as all knowing, but that doesn't mean I can't misunderstand something.... sheesh.

Jophiel wrote:

Awww... so cute! when you keep trying to flip that one around.

I say "you keep trying" because I gave up trying to make you admit that you never had an argument. I made it abundantly clear to everyone else and, just like with Gbaji, my goal can't be to make people like you admit that they're wrong, only to expose their error to everyone else.

But you keep taking things I said and saying them back at me! That'll get me!


You really have a serious case of denial if you think I'm "flipping" anything. The best thing about these threads is that you or anyone can simply go back and reread it. So, if you or anyone believes your current claim, then they are in denial, plain and simple.

You clearly brought up and a claim and then contradicted yourself. That's why you dropped the conversation and tried to get me to ignore the fact that you contradicted yourself.

I'm sorry, but since I have the capability to read, there is nothing you can say to get me to believe that I'm "flipping" anything. But, if you want to ride off of your "popularity" as "accuracy", then so be it. Your "popularity" doesn't interfere with my ability to read.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#790 Apr 08 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You really have a serious case of denial if you think I'm "flipping" anything.

:D
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#791 Apr 08 2011 at 9:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Its like Gbaji and VArus had a love child that is finally coming of age. Congratulations Gbaji and Varus!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#792 Apr 09 2011 at 10:49 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You really have a serious case of denial if you think I'm "flipping" anything.

:D


See, now you're even flipping your REAL emotions... "D:"
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#793 Apr 09 2011 at 1:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not sure why posters here think someone should understand every single post in regards to them. I may come off as all knowing, but that doesn't mean I can't misunderstand something.... sheesh.

The problem would be that you misunderstand everything, but only admit it on the simple stuff that even a child would have understood. On more complex issues, you just stagger awkwardly forward with your arguments and make a massive blunder of the entire conversation.
#794 Apr 09 2011 at 2:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Majivo wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not sure why posters here think someone should understand every single post in regards to them. I may come off as all knowing, but that doesn't mean I can't misunderstand something.... sheesh.

The problem would be that you misunderstand everything, but only admit it on the simple stuff that even a child would have understood. On more complex issues, you just stagger awkwardly forward with your arguments and make a massive blunder of the entire conversation.


Example please?

What I took from that statement is "You don't agree with us on many topics".

Even if you thought I only admitted to simple stuff, that's more than what majority of the other posters do. Posters have said contradictory things but for whatever reason only targeted their responses to me. People will spend much more effort NOT explaining something to me than explaining to me what I don't understand. So this fantasy belief of me misunderstanding everything is just that, a delusional fantasy created to make you feel more valuable in life.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#795 Apr 09 2011 at 2:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
People will spend much more effort NOT explaining something to me than explaining to me what I don't understand.

Nah, people try once or twice, see that you're more interested in defending yourself than seeing anything new and give up. Sometimes they just make fun of you for a while after that for the lulz.

I know you'll insist that this isn't what's happening but so it goes. Being on the winning side of that equation, I don't have any real incentive to bang my head trying to convince you otherwise. If it makes you feel any better, Gbaji is the same way and is, like you, convinced that the only reason he gets so much sh*t (far more than other conservatives) is because he's some special little martyr-flower who no one else understands and not because of any particular character traits on his part.

Maybe you and he can get together some day for a little pity tea party.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#796 Apr 09 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
People will spend much more effort NOT explaining something to me than explaining to me what I don't understand.

Nah, people try once or twice, see that you're more interested in defending yourself than seeing anything new and give up. Sometimes they just make fun of you for a while after that for the lulz.
That's how it was for me. A post or two trying to get him to understand and then the rest trolling him. I can't even be bothered to troll him anymore though.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#797 Apr 10 2011 at 10:12 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Nah, people try once or twice, see that you're more interested in defending yourself than seeing anything new and give up. Sometimes they just make fun of you for a while after that for the lulz.

I know you'll insist that this isn't what's happening but so it goes.


The number one misconception with posters on this forum is the belief that opposing opinions equal stupidity. Do you honestly believe that I don't realize the truth in your statement? The fact that you are implying that I don't understand that concept makes it even more ironic when you refuse to accept that I'm equally "toying" with you.

I've said numerous times over, I love to debate and it becomes blatantly obvious when the poster doesn't make any effort in explaining their position IN A DEBATE, then they have no position. I'm not talking about two or more attempts of an explanation, I'm talking about ONE attempt.

Nadenu (Samira? I forget) made a comment about "where does it stop?". I responded and their response to my comment was "You don't understand and I"m not going to explain" which really meant "I was wrong but I'm not going to admit to it".

I knew I hit the nail on the head, so that's why I said "oh, ok explain it to me". I realized that it was a possibility that I did misunderstand it, but not likely. Their lack of explanation supported my claim.

Jophiel wrote:
Being on the winning side of that equation, I don't have any real incentive to bang my head trying to convince you otherwise.


Winning side? Well, if you argue both sides, you are technically "correct" in at least one way.

Jophiel wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, Gbaji is the same way and is, like you, convinced that the only reason he gets so much sh*t (far more than other conservatives) is because he's some special little martyr-flower who no one else understands and not because of any particular character traits on his part.


Whether you admit it or not, we are "special", not in the sense that you are implying, but in the sense that we are the minority in most views. That isn't an opinion but a fact. The more we disagree on topics, the more that builds against our overall "image".

As I pointed out in this thread and many others, when posters only focus on countering my arguments when other posters equally disagree, you can't deny the obvious. In this thread, someone made this absurd statement that Europeans came to the "U.S" and called it "America" so because it was called "America" first, then they deserve the right to be called "American". Not only is that obviously wrong, no one else believes that, yet no one made any countering statement to it. At the same time, posters spent 2-3 pages arguing with me on the usage of "America/n".

So, you can live in delusion all you want, but it's blatantly obvious what's going on.

Ugly wrote:
That's how it was for me. A post or two trying to get him to understand and then the rest trolling him. I can't even be bothered to troll him anymore though.



That's because you fail at trolling, Mr. "I'm ignoring you".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#798 Apr 10 2011 at 11:43 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu (Samira? I forget) made a comment about "where does it stop?". I responded and their response to my comment was "You don't understand and I"m not going to explain" which really meant "I was wrong but I'm not going to admit to it".
That's what starts happening after attempting to explain something a half dozen times to somebody. After a while you just cut your losses and stop bothering because we know you're either going to not get it or adamantly defend yourself in the face of evidence to the contrary anyway.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#799 Apr 10 2011 at 12:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The number one misconception with posters on this forum is the belief that opposing opinions equal stupidity.

The number one misconception with stupid people is the rigid belief that they're just misunderstood. Jus' sayin' is all.
I previously wrote:
I know you'll insist that this isn't what's happening but...
...so it goes. *Shrug*
Quote:
we are the minority in most views.

Moe is a minority in most views. Totem is a minority in most views. Neither of them inspire ten page spreads of inane debating. There has been other conservative posters on the forum who didn't leave everyone with the impression that they were morons. There's been liberal posters like Shadowrelm whose politics aligned towards the majority yet, due to their inability to understand a basic point, were constantly derided by the majority of posters.

I know that "But... but... it's only because I don't think just like you!" is the easy cop-out to keep yourself feeling like a special misunderstood flower but maybe you should look beyond the easy answers.

Edited, Apr 10th 2011 1:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#800 Apr 10 2011 at 12:13 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
12,916 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The number one misconception with posters on this forum is the belief that opposing opinions equal stupidity.


The number two misconception being the belief that your opinion in fact not stupid.
#801 Apr 10 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu (Samira? I forget) made a comment about "where does it stop?". I responded and their response to my comment was "You don't understand and I"m not going to explain" which really meant "I was wrong but I'm not going to admit to it".
That's what starts happening after attempting to explain something a half dozen times to somebody. After a while you just cut your losses and stop bothering because we know you're either going to not get it or adamantly defend yourself in the face of evidence to the contrary anyway.


If that were true, then you wouldn't even bother stating anything in the first place. Besides, at the end of the day, it's not about what you are saying, but the amount of effort placed in saying it. If you're placing the equivalent or more amount of effort not saying something as you would just saying it, then it's not about "cutting your losses". If it were, what exactly are you "cutting"?

Jophiel wrote:
The number one misconception with stupid people is the rigid belief that they're just misunderstood. Jus' sayin' is all.


Who's claiming any misunderstanding? Jus' sayin' is all..

Jophiel wrote:
I previously wrote:

I know you'll insist that this isn't what's happening but...

...so it goes. *Shrug*


Almalieque right in response to your comment of people posting for Lulz wrote:
Do you honestly believe that I don't realize the truth in your statement?


Jophiel wrote:
Moe is a minority in most views. Totem is a minority in most views. Neither of them inspire ten page spreads of inane debating. There has been other conservative posters on the forum who didn't leave everyone with the impression that they were morons. There's been liberal posters like Shadowrelm whose politics aligned towards the majority yet, due to their inability to understand a basic point, were constantly derided by the majority of posters.

I know that "But... but... it's only because I don't think just like you!" is the easy cop-out to keep yourself feeling like a special misunderstood flower but maybe you should look beyond the easy answers.


Actions speak louder than words. When there are posters on a thread who disagree with each other, but are not debating each other, only me, then what do you call that? You can label it a "cop-out" all you want, but I call it how I see it.

Posters were arguing against me about what other posters said instead of directly at them. If you want to label that something else, then be my guest.


If you feel so confident about your belief of me being "stupid", then give me examples. All you or anyone else have said is "You fail to comprehend a basic point", which is a whole lot like saying "You're misunderstanding me". Yet, somehow me saying that makes me stupid, but when you say it, it makes you right. You haven't provided anything that I haven't already provided to the discussion. As a result, this is nothing more than a "You don't agree with me, therefore you are stupid". I can just as equally say "you don't understand the most basic point". Does that some how now make me right and you wrong?

Get real.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 58 All times are in CDT
feelz, JennockFV, RavennofTitan, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (54)