The right to upset others

[ET Warrior]

I invoke Godwin's Law. I win. Thread over, lock it.

I'd appreciate if you didn't try to moderate the Senate. That's what the moderators are for.

 

Simply because Hitler has been brought up, does not make you the victor, nor does it necessitate the closure of this thread.

 

So your point is what? You're upset that I wouldn't act this way now?

I believe the point is you're once again contradicting yourself. You have stated quite explicitly that you would send someone who called you a "whore" to the hospital or worse. Now you are stating that you aren't the kind of person who would do that.

 

He isn't upset, merely pointing out the contradiction.

[CLONECOMMANDER501]

Wow, you guys know how to fight

[Totenkopf]

In an ideal world.."sticks and stones may break my bones, but word's will never hurt me" would be the the way of things. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. I suspect that Nancy is merely blowing off steam re al, but if I'm incorrect, perhaps he's lucky there's an ocean seperating them.

[Nancy Allen``]

Simply because Hitler has been brought up, does not make you the victor, nor does it necessitate the closure of this thread.

 

#472 Godwin's Law

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There used to be a tradition in many groups that the thread would be closed once this occurred; whoever mentioned the Nazis was considered to have lost the argument that was in progress.

 

You say tomato...

 

I believe the point is you're once again contradicting yourself. You have stated quite explicitly that you would send someone who called you a "whore" to the hospital or worse. Now you are stating that you aren't the kind of person who would do that.

 

This isn't the contradiction you're looking for. I don't deny any of that. It is however a far cry from looking for a fight, looking for a reason to attack others. Because the accusation was made it is a fallacy, a Hasty Generalization, to deny otherwise is a fallacy in itself, Special Pleading. And for those with short attention spans which would be...most of you, I want you to listen again. Yes, I would retalliate against things said to me, violently. And I support others doing the same thing. In my opinion saying things you know are upsetting is like feeding a tiger meat. However, just because I would react this way does not mean that I look for an excuse to do so. To insinuate otherwise is an insult.

 

Wow, you guys know how to fight

 

Well I guess one of us does.

 

In an ideal world.."sticks and stones may break my bones, but word's will never hurt me" would be the the way of things. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. I suspect that Nancy is merely blowing off steam re al, but if I'm incorrect, perhaps he's lucky there's an ocean seperating them.

 

Or is there? I would be if I cared enough about what he wrote, at the moment it's a struggle to even bother giving a reply. As I said if he was right about me looking for fights he would be dead. But he's not. I don't go looking for fights. If anything he does. How so? I get the impression that not only does he enjoy conflict and bringing down others anything you post will be disputed.

[Spider AL]

#472 Godwin's Law

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There used to be a tradition in many groups that the thread would be closed once this occurred; whoever mentioned the Nazis was considered to have lost the argument that was in progress.

 

You say tomato...

Oh my dear Nancy, I wasn't the person who brought Hitler up, Heavyarms was. In post #70. And since he is espousing the same- essentially amoral- argument that you are, by your... "logic"... YOUR side has "lost" because it played the Hitler card first.

 

But of course this is a nonsense, a childish nonsense. Heavyarms is and should be free to mention Hitler or the Nazis in his examples as much as he wants without someone like you arbitrarily declaring him to have "lost".

 

This isn't the contradiction you're looking for. I don't deny any of that. It is however a far cry from looking for a fight, looking for a reason to attack others.

As stated before, you're looking for reasons to justify your pro-violence stance. You're looking for reasons to make it seem "moral", in fact. It's all you've done throughout this thread.

 

But it's not moral. Hitting people because they've offended you ISN'T MORAL. End of story.

 

As I said if he was right about me looking for fights he would be dead. But he's not.

You know, I severely doubt you'd be capable of killing anyone anyway, I only say this because the majority of keyboard warriors only know how to type a good fight. So it goes.

 

If anything he does. How so? I get the impression that not only does he enjoy conflict and bringing down others anything you post will be disputed.

This is a debating forum, Nancy. Its entire purpose in this world is to encourage systematised, logical dispute. So as long as you're here, posting illogical things... I will be here pointing them out. That doesn't mean I "enjoy fights", it means I enjoy debates, because they are fruitful. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

[Nancy Allen``]

You claim that I go looking for fights, then that I only know how to type a good fight. So, what? That means I goad people into kicking my ass? Think about how silly that sounds for a minute and you'll realise that maybe I don't go about looking for fights like you claim, or maybe I must know how to take care of myself if I did do that sort of thing. So do I go looking for fights or don't I know how to fight? Which is it? Obviously it can't be both otherwise I wouldn't be here, so one of those statements has to be wrong.

[Spider AL]

Ha! You've conveniently ignored the fact that you shot yourself in the foot with that "Godwin's Law" nonsense, haven't you.

 

You claim that I go looking for fights, then that I only know how to type a good fight.

I've never stated that you "go looking for fights", Nancy. Go and find a quote in which I say that. Go on.

 

Secondly, I stated that it's PROBABLE that you can only type a good fight, because people who make a big show of being tough-guys on the internet... usually aren't. So once again, you're inaccurate.

[Nancy Allen``]

The pot calling the kettle black?

 

I'm getting the impression that you WANT to hit people for merely verbally offending you... and are just looking for reasons to justify such an immoral act. There are no such reasons.

 

You know, I severely doubt you'd be capable of killing anyone anyway, I only say this because the majority of keyboard warriors only know how to type a good fight. So it goes.

 

Are you going to try and claim this is irrelevent to the discussion?

[Spider AL]

... Neither of those quotes say anything about you "going out looking for fights", Nancy. Produce a quote where I have said this. Go on.

[Nancy Allen``]

I just did, and childishly goading to provide evidence is, well, childish. Care to clarify the statement?

[Spider AL]

 

Are you just trolling now? You've stated that I accused you of "going looking for fights". I never stated this, and you've failed to provide a quotation in which I've stated this. Because there is no such quote.

 

The facts remain unchanged: You've stated clearly that you would hit people for merely verbally offending you (and send them to hospital no less) and that you support others doing the same.

 

You've spent the entire thread scrabbling around looking for reasons to justify this amoral stance and make it seem moral... and you've failed in this respect.

 

Having failed in this respect, you've spent the past few posts:

 

1. declaring by fiat that you've won the debate because I was the first person to mention Hitler... except that I wasn't the first person to mention Hitler.

 

2. posting random quotations of mine, declaring that they prove your case (which they do not).

 

In short,.. I really don't know what to say, Nancy. This is no way to debate a topic logically.

[Nancy Allen``]

Are you just trolling now? You've stated that I accused you of "going looking for fights". I never stated this, and you've failed to provide a quotation in which I've stated this. Because there is no such quote.

 

You just said it yourself there. Logically that would be looking for a fight. Therefore I would need to have fighting skills if I were to do so. Unless you mean to say wanting to hit someone because of what they said isn't looking for a fight.

[Spider AL]

Unless you mean to say wanting to hit someone because of what they said isn't looking for a fight.

Of course it isn't. It's immorally starting a fight. It's immorally escalating a situation to the physical level. But it doesn't mean you "looked" for the person who insulted you "so you could fight them".

 

"Going out looking for fights" is just that. It's going out... looking for someone to fight. I can't believe you've equated/conflated/confused the two.

 

Now that we've established that you were... labouring under a rather severe misapprehension... perhaps you could try to post something relevant? Please?

[Nancy Allen``]

Still the suggestion would imply, if not looking for a fight then that I'd have to know how to hit someone, therefore knowing how to fight and by taking such an action, I would have to know how to fight in any case.

 

Anyway, using that logic, Palestinion terrorists bombing Israel arn't looking to kill Jews, just drive them from their land. September 11 wasn't killing Americans, it was forcing their affairs out of the Middle East. War in Iraq wasn't to take their oil, it was to remove Saddam Hussein.

[Spider AL]

Still the suggestion would imply, if not looking for a fight then that I'd have to know how to hit someone, therefore knowing how to fight and by taking such an action, I would have to know how to fight in any case.

Sigh... No Nancy, you're wrong again. The fact that you're on the internet ADVOCATING violence does not mean you're capable of committing violence with any degree of efficiency in the real world. I hope that's clear enough for you, because I'm really not going to bother repeating it or addressing ANY further nonsense of this type.

 

Anyway, using that logic, Palestinion terrorists bombing Israel arn't looking to kill Jews, just drive them from their land. September 11 wasn't killing Americans, it was forcing their affairs out of the Middle East. War in Iraq wasn't to take their oil, it was to remove Saddam Hussein.

... What? Sheer, unadulterated drivel.

 

All three examples are PERFECT examples of immoral, unjustified escalation to violence... which is exactly what you've been advocating throughout this thread.

[Nancy Allen``]

Profanity Removed ~ET I never advocate murder, to say nothing of the mass murder indicated above. Face it, you're just trolling for a response now.

[ET Warrior]

I never advocate murder, to say nothing of the mass murder indicated above.

Perhaps you have not explicitly advocated murder, but you have advocated the use of violence as an acceptable response to mere words. Although, you have quite nearly advocated murder...

I know that if someone called me a whore they'd end up in the hospital, if they're lucky.

At the very least you are advocating the use of severely damaging attacks on another person simply for the utterance of the word whore.

 

If it is acceptable to put a man in the hospital for the term whore, why would it not be reasonable to escalate the violence to a higher level for more insulting terms? Certainly racial slurs and epithets are more emotionally damaging than whore, so by your reasoning shouldn't the physical response emulate the proper amount of escalation?

 

It shouldn't, actually, because physical violence in response to verbal abuse is not morally justifiable. At all.

[Nancy Allen``]

Using that logic the insinuation that I go looking for fights is rather clear no matter how much it's denied. It'd be the same as if I called you a rock spider, I wouldn't likely be referring to the archanid.

 

Without going into it being the worst thing you can call a woman, to save going over all this BS again I retract my statement that such actions are justified. With that said no one's been able to prove to me that they have the right to upset others and those who try to do so should not only expect a reaction similar to mine they would when all's said and done deserve it.

[ET Warrior]

Using that logic the insinuation that I go looking for fights is rather clear no matter how much it's denied. It'd be the same as if I called you a rock spider, I wouldn't likely be referring to the archanid.

No. It is not clear, because it is not there. At all. There is a VERY clear distinction between "going out looking for fights" and "wanting to react violently to words". Nowhere did Spider Al insinuate that you likely frequent bars with drunk construction workers or some other such in an effort to have someone verbally offend you so that you can knock their block off. He merely stated that based on the position you have taken it seems likely that you would rather react to harsh words with fists than reason.

 

Without going into it being the worst thing you can call a woman

Please. I can think of MUCH worse things to say to a woman.

 

to save going over all this BS again I retract my statement that such actions are justified. With that said no one's been able to prove to me that they have the right to upset others and those who try to do so should not only expect a reaction similar to mine they would when all's said and done deserve it.

First of all, nobody is ever able to prove anything to you in the history of the Senate Chambers. (Or any other debating platform I would imagine). The fact is, that despite what illusions you may have about the nature of these debates, it's not really a competition where one party is trying desperately to "win" and bring the other to their side. And even if we were, we would never, ever succeed because most people on both sides of any given debate feel quite strongly in most situations that their arguments are obviously better and more reasonable.

 

Secondly, in your first sentence you "retract your statement" about the justifiability of violent response to verbal comments, and in the very next sentence state that people who have violence committed against them for the things they say deserve it? It doesn't take any logical leaps to state that it is clearly justifiable to give somebody something which they deserve, and therefore you have contradicted yourself in the span of two sentences.

[Nancy Allen``]

Awww, you think I contradict myself? Well, quite frankly that's just tough luck, because while I don't advocate such action anyone who's on the recieving end of it deserve what they get.

[ET Warrior]

Awww, you think I contradict myself? Well, quite frankly that's just tough luck, because while I don't advocate such action anyone who's on the recieving end of it deserve what they get.

I have, in fact, observed you contradicting yourself. You have once again tried to dance backwards in order to cover yourself, and rephrased what you said in an effort to hide the contradiction but it is there, you're just playing semantic games at this point.

 

You say anyone who receives violent physical responses to their verbal jabs deserves what they get. If you believe that they deserve that violent response then you may not be explicitly telling people to react violently, but you are telling them that they would only be doing what is right in that situation. Still a clear contradiction. If you believe they are getting what they deserve then you believe it is justified and you are an advocate of that kind of response.

[Nancy Allen``]

Well clearly people feel they can have double standerds. They'll deny it until they're blue in the face but saying things like, to give a completely unrelated example, "don't ****ing swear" make me lol.

 

I don't want violence. Believe whatever you want to the contrary but I don't. I don't want racism and people being harassed into suicide either, so for one there are times where violence is nessecary, I'm not saying in reply to comments, but there are times. And for another, how do you expect people to react to such comments? Those who call people niggers, faggots ect should be looked upon as models of society? PUH LEASE.

[Rogue Nine]

Okay, this thread has spiraled far, far out of control and way beyond the scope of reasonable debate. Tempers are running high and hot and things are decidedly less than friendly. I don't like to step on toes here in the Senate, but I think it's high time for this topic to go bye-bye.