This topic is locked from further discussion.
I can't have said things better than Miss Librarian about his subject. I've tried time and time again to debate certain posters here, but when your foil refuses to move from one opinion/belief, it's not worth the effort.jimkabrhel
It's not even so much refusing to move, but refusing to even consider opposing viewpoints but rather just saying "I'm right, you're wrong" and going no further than that.
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Ironically I sometimes feel he fits the definition of what he abhors. And I can't get why people cover for him here. LJS9502_basic
Because some people take great pride in the simple fact of being different. You see the same defense over and over again: "People just disrespect me because I have different views." It's used as an ironclad defense from being wrong.
I can't have said things better than Miss Librarian about his subject. I've tried time and time again to debate certain posters here, but when your foil refuses to move from one opinion/belief, it's not worth the effort.
I gave up debating some time ago.....you would have liked here about three or four years back when people did debate the topic and not just hurl insults. It's not worth it now. Better to not take it as anything more than speaking your mind and knowing the other side will not pay attention anyway. Just a way to pas the time now.:P Yea, cause "Lol entrapment", is debating right? Your full of sh!t I can see through your veneer.[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am completely open to debate. I make a statement, someone explains why they think I am wrong, and then I explain why they are actually wrong to think that I am wrong, etc. Being open to debate does not mean throwing away your convictions/arguments just because a bunch of people disagree with you. To be open to a debate with any integrity you have to be willing to say that you are right and the other person is wrong.MissLibrarian
I consider it a moral cause to explain how people are wrong.LaihendiNo, your severe flaw and the reason why you are utterly narrow-minded and one of the worst debaters here is this erroneous conviction you have: that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In politics, sociology and the other areas you enjoy viewing through your Rand-coloured-glasses, there IS NO right or wrong. Each individual on the planet has an idea, a preference of which they prefer and believe in, but there is nothing that makes one person's opinion right or wrong. Again, it is a preference. In my life I have grown and adapted my ideas and beliefs and they have changed a lot over time. Personally I have switched from the rabid right-wing politics I believed in as a teenager to a far more liberal leaning nowadays. The reason for this is, through my genuinely debating the subject, I have been open enough and willing to LISTEN to the arguments of others and really think about what they are saying instead of thinking that I am 'right' all the time and instantly dismissing the arguments of others as 'wrong'. Your yourself were influenced greatly by a particular author, you read her writing and it appealed to you, it was in line with your personal preference. However many other people here (myself included) have read Atlas Shrugged and have not come to the same conclusion as you. This is not because we are wrong and you are right, it is because of preference. I would be willing to debate things with you in an open-minded way, and if you were willing to expand on the points people make and offered a real answer to the points people make against your case. Instead you just say 'no, that's wrong', and no. THAT is wrong.
Lai got served by MissL :P
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I gave up debating some time ago.....you would have liked here about three or four years back when people did debate the topic and not just hurl insults. It's not worth it now. Better to not take it as anything more than speaking your mind and knowing the other side will not pay attention anyway. Just a way to pas the time now.:P Yea, cause "Lol entrapment", is debating right? Your full of sh!t I can see through your veneer. I wasn't debating you dude. I thought it was funny that you threw out the word entrapment in that thread. Still do. But I'm not going to argue it with you. Don't like it....tough.[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
Because some people take great pride in the simple fact of being different. You see the same defense over and over again: "People just disrespect me because I have different views." It's used as an ironclad defense from being wrong.
I can't have said things better than Miss Librarian about his subject. I've tried time and time again to debate certain posters here, but when your foil refuses to move from one opinion/belief, it's not worth the effort.
JJ_Productions
[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I gave up debating some time ago.....you would have liked here about three or four years back when people did debate the topic and not just hurl insults. It's not worth it now. Better to not take it as anything more than speaking your mind and knowing the other side will not pay attention anyway. Just a way to pas the time now.:PLJS9502_basicYea, cause "Lol entrapment", is debating right? Your full of sh!t I can see through your veneer. I wasn't debating you dude. I thought it was funny that you threw out the word entrapment in that thread. Still do. But I'm not going to argue it with you. Don't like it....tough. Next time don't post
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] Yea, cause "Lol entrapment", is debating right? Your full of sh!t I can see through your veneer. JJ_ProductionsI wasn't debating you dude. I thought it was funny that you threw out the word entrapment in that thread. Still do. But I'm not going to argue it with you. Don't like it....tough. Next time don't post LOL....you can't tell me when to post. Like I said...don't like it...tough. If it's going to make such a sensitive soul as yourself cry....then remove yourself from society because newsflash.....you won't be agreed with all the time.
Â
Next time don't post LOL....you can't tell me when to post. Like I said...don't like it...tough. If it's going to make such a sensitive soul as yourself cry....then remove yourself from society because newsflash.....you won't be agreed with all the time.[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I wasn't debating you dude. I thought it was funny that you threw out the word entrapment in that thread. Still do. But I'm not going to argue it with you. Don't like it....tough.LJS9502_basic
Â
It has nothing to do with whether we agree or not. It has everything to do with being a troll, and you play your roll well.
LJS is a troll?Â
No. He's made because I laughed at a silly idea of his.LJS is a troll?Â
Michael0134567
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]LOL....you can't tell me when to post. Like I said...don't like it...tough. If it's going to make such a sensitive soul as yourself cry....then remove yourself from society because newsflash.....you won't be agreed with all the time.[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] Next time don't postJJ_Productions
Â
It has nothing to do with whether we agree or not. It has everything to do with being a troll, and you play your roll well.Quite right. It has everything to do with being a troll. And LJS isn't one.
[QUOTE="Michael0134567"]No. He's made because I laughed at a silly idea of his. I lurk more then I post, I see how you selectively troll certain topics. Sometimes, I read your post and agree wholeheartedly. But most of the time, you add nothing to the discussion, you actually throw discussions off course, and have your own little conversations with people in a topic that nobody wants or needs to see. Your post stand out like a sore thumb and I called your out on that again and again. Your actually very annoying to see on these boards and my gawd almost 150,000 posts? You need to post less and read more. My opinion, don't like it, too bad.LJS is a troll?Â
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]LOL....you can't tell me when to post. Like I said...don't like it...tough. If it's going to make such a sensitive soul as yourself cry....then remove yourself from society because newsflash.....you won't be agreed with all the time. It has nothing to do with whether we agree or not. It has everything to do with being a troll, and you play your roll well.[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] Next time don't postJJ_Productions
ljs isn't a troll.
he's quite reasonable.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Michael0134567"]No. He's made because I laughed at a silly idea of his. I lurk more then I post, I see how you selectively troll certain topics. Sometimes, I read your post and agree wholeheartedly. But most of the time, you add nothing to the discussion, your actually throw discussions off course, and have your own little conversations with people in a topic that nobody wants or needs to see. Your post stand out like a sore thumb and I called your out on that again and again. Your actually very annoying to see on these boards and my gawd almost 150,000 posts? You need to post less and read more. My opinion, don't like it, too bad. With decent users I do discuss. But too many times we have people that only want to insult others for not agreeing or can't handle it that someone doesn't agree. Side discussions happen when a thread is basically dead or worthless. A good thread doesn't get side discussions. As for your last comment...you're the one whining about posts..not me so take a look in the mirror dude.LJS is a troll?Â
JJ_Productions
It has nothing to do with whether we agree or not. It has everything to do with being a troll, and you play your roll well.[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] LOL....you can't tell me when to post. Like I said...don't like it...tough. If it's going to make such a sensitive soul as yourself cry....then remove yourself from society because newsflash.....you won't be agreed with all the time.
Â
jimkabrhel
Quite right. It has everything to do with being a troll. And LJS isn't one.
I disagree. I would even go as far as to nominate him as the OT bully. If you don't share his views, he will troll you. Time and time again.[QUOTE="Michael0134567"]
indzman
off topic but
best sig ever 10/10
She's a beaut. Never thought I'd see LJS being called a troll. :P[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"][QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] It has nothing to do with whether we agree or not. It has everything to do with being a troll, and you play your roll well. JJ_Productions
Quite right. It has everything to do with being a troll. And LJS isn't one.
I disagree. I would even go as far as to nominate him as the OT bully. If you don't share his views, he will troll you. Time and time again.:lol: No. I forget what arguments I've had with people constantly. And I can agree with them in the next thread just as easily. I don't hold grudges. I don't bully anyone. But I will get in the face of those that attack me. That's not bullying. That's responding in kind.[QUOTE="indzman"][QUOTE="Michael0134567"]
Michael0134567
off topic but
best sig ever 10/10
She's a beaut. Never thought I'd see LJS being called a troll. :P I cannot tell who you are anymore...constant sig changes. And that's the end of that before JJ accuses me of sidetracking this oh so serious thread.[QUOTE="Michael0134567"][QUOTE="indzman"]She's a beaut. Never thought I'd see LJS being called a troll. :P I cannot tell who you are anymore...constant sig changes. And that's the end of that before JJ accuses me of sidetracking this oh so serious thread. At least I keep it fresh. :Poff topic but
best sig ever 10/10
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="Michael0134567"][QUOTE="indzman"]She's a beaut. Never thought I'd see LJS being called a troll. :P I cannot tell who you are anymore...constant sig changes. And that's the end of that before JJ accuses me of sidetracking this oh so serious thread. Hilarious...anyways, i'm outta here. My position still stands. Your are like a sleeper troll, only trolling specific topics and idealologies. Whenever I see certain topics, I already know your position on the subject beofore I read your post.off topic but
best sig ever 10/10
LJS9502_basic
I cannot tell who you are anymore...constant sig changes. And that's the end of that before JJ accuses me of sidetracking this oh so serious thread. Hilarious...anyways, i'm outta here. My position still stands. Your are like a sleeper troll, only trolling specific topics and idealologies. Whenever I see certain topics, I already know your position on the subject beofore I read your post. I doubt that. Many times the facts don't back up the stance in OT so I'll discuss that. That doesn't mean I agree necessarily. If you can only see one side then you aren't very open minded.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Michael0134567"] She's a beaut. Never thought I'd see LJS being called a troll. :PJJ_Productions
[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am not insulting; I am stating facts. It is a fact that mentally ill people are mentally inferior to mentally healthy people. You are ignoring what it means to be ill/healthy. Illness is inferior to health, therefore an ill mind is inferior to a healthy mind. That is a matter of logic, not insults.Nibroc420Calling a mentally ill individual a sub-human is illogical because the DNA of said individual is identical to what the scientific community agrees is homo-sapien. Also, illogical thought is not a definitive sign of mental illness. You disrespect individuals with faulty logic. They're permanently conditioned with something, causing them to be less __________ than the average human. That is a fact. However you seem to believe that because of your emotion on the topic, it's somehow a false statement. You interpreted my viewpoints and manner of expressing them inaccurately. I suggest you read my post again or ask me about it if you do not understand. Badly assuming things and expressing said assumption is counter-productive to any meaningful discussion.
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"][QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] It has nothing to do with whether we agree or not. It has everything to do with being a troll, and you play your roll well. JJ_Productions
Quite right. It has everything to do with being a troll. And LJS isn't one.
I disagree. I would even go as far as to nominate him as the OT bully. If you don't share his views, he will troll you. Time and time again.And you're feeding him as well as having your own little conversation that no one needs or wants to see.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am completely open to debate. I make a statement, someone explains why they think I am wrong, and then I explain why they are actually wrong to think that I am wrong, etc. Being open to debate does not mean throwing away your convictions/arguments just because a bunch of people disagree with you. To be open to a debate with any integrity you have to be willing to say that you are right and the other person is wrong.MissLibrarian
I consider it a moral cause to explain how people are wrong.LaihendiNo, your severe flaw and the reason why you are utterly narrow-minded and one of the worst debaters here is this erroneous conviction you have: that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In politics, sociology and the other areas you enjoy viewing through your Rand-coloured-glasses, there IS NO right or wrong. Each individual on the planet has an idea, a preference of which they prefer and believe in, but there is nothing that makes one person's opinion right or wrong. Again, it is a preference. In my life I have grown and adapted my ideas and beliefs and they have changed a lot over time. Personally I have switched from the rabid right-wing politics I believed in as a teenager to a far more liberal leaning nowadays. The reason for this is, through my genuinely debating the subject, I have been open enough and willing to LISTEN to the arguments of others and really think about what they are saying instead of thinking that I am 'right' all the time and instantly dismissing the arguments of others as 'wrong'. Your yourself were influenced greatly by a particular author, you read her writing and it appealed to you, it was in line with your personal preference. However many other people here (myself included) have read Atlas Shrugged and have not come to the same conclusion as you. This is not because we are wrong and you are right, it is because of preference. I would be willing to debate things with you in an open-minded way, and if you were willing to expand on the points people make and offered a real answer to the points people make against your case. Instead you just say 'no, that's wrong', and no. THAT is wrong. + 100 You owned his ass.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am completely open to debate. I make a statement, someone explains why they think I am wrong, and then I explain why they are actually wrong to think that I am wrong, etc. Being open to debate does not mean throwing away your convictions/arguments just because a bunch of people disagree with you. To be open to a debate with any integrity you have to be willing to say that you are right and the other person is wrong.MissLibrarian
I consider it a moral cause to explain how people are wrong.LaihendiNo, your severe flaw and the reason why you are utterly narrow-minded and one of the worst debaters here is this erroneous conviction you have: that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In politics, sociology and the other areas you enjoy viewing through your Rand-coloured-glasses, there IS NO right or wrong. Each individual on the planet has an idea, a preference of which they prefer and believe in, but there is nothing that makes one person's opinion right or wrong. Again, it is a preference. In my life I have grown and adapted my ideas and beliefs and they have changed a lot over time. Personally I have switched from the rabid right-wing politics I believed in as a teenager to a far more liberal leaning nowadays. The reason for this is, through my genuinely debating the subject, I have been open enough and willing to LISTEN to the arguments of others and really think about what they are saying instead of thinking that I am 'right' all the time and instantly dismissing the arguments of others as 'wrong'. Your yourself were influenced greatly by a particular author, you read her writing and it appealed to you, it was in line with your personal preference. However many other people here (myself included) have read Atlas Shrugged and have not come to the same conclusion as you. This is not because we are wrong and you are right, it is because of preference. I would be willing to debate things with you in an open-minded way, and if you were willing to expand on the points people make and offered a real answer to the points people make against your case. Instead you just say 'no, that's wrong', and no. THAT is wrong.
If there is no right or wrong then you are a hypocrite to criticize my methods, since according to you there is nothing wrong with them. Anyways, obviously a statement is either correct or incorrect. There is no in between. Facts are facts, and personal preference cannot change that. Something is not true just because you want it to be true; it is true because it has to be at a metaphysical level. Ayn Rand's positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. My positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. Ayn Rand's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is good and Noam Chomsky's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is bad cannot both be correct. They cannot both be equally valid because they are entirely contradictory to one another, so if one is true then the other by necessity must be wrong.
You are also a hypocrite in that you have lambasted my philosophical/political views on TDH many times, something that you apparently had no justification for since you believe our ideologies to be no more right or wrong than each other's. You are just trying to have it both ways - you want to criticize me for believing that I am right when I have no right to determine right from wrong, while also maintaining your belief that I am wrong. Apparently you have the privilege of determining right from wrong (ironic considering that you deliberately reject any standards to form such a judgement by), but anyone of a differing philosophical/political orientation does not. You are unable to see past your hypocrisy and biases because you are surrounded by people who share the same values as you both here and on TDH. I would not be surprised if that extends into your personal life as well, though of course I cannot actually know.
You do not just want people to have open minds. You want people to open their minds to your beliefs and values and nothing else. To criticize me for closing my mind off to people of differing beliefs is absurd; I engage in debate those people almost every day. How often do you have a serious discussion with someone who disagrees with you at a fundamental level? I am always open to debate here or on any other forum, but I can only debate to the extent that the other person is willing to. I can only advocate Rand's theory of ethics to the extent that others say it is wrong; once someone suspends critical thinking and refuses to evaluate the theory and determine for himself whether it actually is right or wrong, then serious debate becomes impossible because the person in question refuses to take a position. He says, "Yes that is what you believe, but this is what someone else believes.", but debate is not about what people believe; a debate is about which belief (if either) is right.
I do not just say that I am right, and I do not just say that those who contradict me are wrong. I explain my positions, I explain why I am right, and I explain why others are wrong. I have defended my beliefs and explained their implications very extensively - far more than the average person here. In fact, the only person that I know of who has experienced a comparable degree of scrutiny with regards to his personal ideology would be Frank Zappa, and that is only in recent months. You are unable to recognize that because of your biases. You are unable to recognize the free pass given to anyone of your orientation by anyone of your orientation, because you surround yourself with people of your orientation. You hold entirely different standards for yourself and those in agreement with you than you do for everyone else. You do not criticize a man's ideas, but instead criticize him for believing them.
You criticize a man for having the arrogance to say that you are wrong, because you assume by default that you must be correct. Instead of criticizing a man's ideas, you criticize the person for having ideas in contradiction to your own. Just like myself, you think you are right. The difference between us is that I have the honesty to admit it, and the integrity to debate anyone while holding myself to the same standards that I hold them.
No, your severe flaw and the reason why you are utterly narrow-minded and one of the worst debaters here is this erroneous conviction you have: that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In politics, sociology and the other areas you enjoy viewing through your Rand-coloured-glasses, there IS NO right or wrong. Each individual on the planet has an idea, a preference of which they prefer and believe in, but there is nothing that makes one person's opinion right or wrong. Again, it is a preference. In my life I have grown and adapted my ideas and beliefs and they have changed a lot over time. Personally I have switched from the rabid right-wing politics I believed in as a teenager to a far more liberal leaning nowadays. The reason for this is, through my genuinely debating the subject, I have been open enough and willing to LISTEN to the arguments of others and really think about what they are saying instead of thinking that I am 'right' all the time and instantly dismissing the arguments of others as 'wrong'. Your yourself were influenced greatly by a particular author, you read her writing and it appealed to you, it was in line with your personal preference. However many other people here (myself included) have read Atlas Shrugged and have not come to the same conclusion as you. This is not because we are wrong and you are right, it is because of preference. I would be willing to debate things with you in an open-minded way, and if you were willing to expand on the points people make and offered a real answer to the points people make against your case. Instead you just say 'no, that's wrong', and no. THAT is wrong.[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] [QUOTE="Laihendi"]I consider it a moral cause to explain how people are wrong.Laihendi
If there is no right or wrong then you are a hypocrite to criticize my methods, since according to you there is nothing wrong with them. Anyways, obviously a statement is either correct or incorrect. There is no in between. Facts are facts, and personal preference cannot change that. Something is not true just because you want it to be true; it is true because it has to be at a metaphysical level. Ayn Rand's positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. My positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. Ayn Rand's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is good and Noam Chomsky's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is bad cannot both be correct. They cannot both be equally valid because they are entirely contradictory to one another, so if one is true then the other by necessity must be wrong.
You are also a hypocrite in that you have lambasted my philosophical/political views on TDH many times, something that you apparently had no justification for since you believe our ideologies to be no more right or wrong than each other's. You are just trying to have it both ways - you want to criticize me for believing that I am right when I have no right to determine right from wrong, while also maintaining your belief that I am wrong. Apparently you have the privilege of determining right from wrong (ironic considering that you deliberately reject any standards to form such a judgement by), but anyone of a differing philosophical/political orientation does not. You are unable to see past your hypocrisy and biases because you are surrounded by people who share the same values as you both here and on TDH. I would not be surprised if that extends into your personal life as well, though of course I cannot actually know.
You do not just want people to have open minds. You want people to open their minds to your beliefs and values and nothing else. To criticize me for closing my mind off to people of differing beliefs is absurd; I engage in debate those people almost every day. How often do you have a serious discussion with someone who disagrees with you at a fundamental level? I am always open to debate here or on any other forum, but I can only debate to the extent that the other person is willing to. I can only advocate Rand's theory of ethics to the extent that others say it is wrong; once someone suspends critical thinking and refuses to evaluate the theory and determine for himself whether it actually is right or wrong, then serious debate becomes impossible because the person in question refuses to take a position. He says, "Yes that is what you believe, but this is what someone else believes.", but debate is not about what people believe; a debate is about which belief (if either) is right.
I do not just say that I am right, and I do not just say that those who contradict me are wrong. I explain my positions, I explain why I am right, and I explain why others are wrong. I have defended my beliefs and explained their implications very extensively - far more than the average person here. In fact, the only person that I know of who has experienced a comparable degree of scrutiny with regards to his personal ideology would be Frank Zappa, and that is only in recent months. You are unable to recognize that because of your biases. You are unable to recognize the free pass given to anyone of your orientation by anyone of your orientation, because you surround yourself with people of your orientation. You hold entirely different standards for yourself and those in agreement with you than you do for everyone else. You do not criticize a man's ideas, but instead criticize him for believing them.
You criticize a man for having the arrogance to say that you are wrong, because you assume by default that you must be correct. Instead of criticizing a man's ideas, you criticize the person for having ideas in contradiction to your own. Just like myself, you think you are right. The difference between us is that I have the honesty to admit it, and the integrity to debate anyone while holding myself to the same standards that I hold them.
As much as people are going to hate for this, i agree with lai.
i support an ideology (political and philosophical) almost completely opposite of his, yet we have had meaningful discussions and compromises based on polemic discussion.
of course lai does not believe he is wrong if he did he wouldn't have a belief system. the very basics of polemics and empirics is to assert a hypothesis and rigorously test it until YOU not anyone else is convinced it is right or wrong.
there are an infinite number of things you can criticize lai for, adherence to his beliefs should not be one of them.
[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]No, your severe flaw and the reason why you are utterly narrow-minded and one of the worst debaters here is this erroneous conviction you have: that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In politics, sociology and the other areas you enjoy viewing through your Rand-coloured-glasses, there IS NO right or wrong. Each individual on the planet has an idea, a preference of which they prefer and believe in, but there is nothing that makes one person's opinion right or wrong. Again, it is a preference. In my life I have grown and adapted my ideas and beliefs and they have changed a lot over time. Personally I have switched from the rabid right-wing politics I believed in as a teenager to a far more liberal leaning nowadays. The reason for this is, through my genuinely debating the subject, I have been open enough and willing to LISTEN to the arguments of others and really think about what they are saying instead of thinking that I am 'right' all the time and instantly dismissing the arguments of others as 'wrong'. Your yourself were influenced greatly by a particular author, you read her writing and it appealed to you, it was in line with your personal preference. However many other people here (myself included) have read Atlas Shrugged and have not come to the same conclusion as you. This is not because we are wrong and you are right, it is because of preference. I would be willing to debate things with you in an open-minded way, and if you were willing to expand on the points people make and offered a real answer to the points people make against your case. Instead you just say 'no, that's wrong', and no. THAT is wrong.Laihendi
If there is no right or wrong then you are a hypocrite to criticize my methods, since according to you there is nothing wrong with them. Anyways, obviously a statement is either correct or incorrect. There is no in between. Facts are facts, and personal preference cannot change that. Something is not true just because you want it to be true; it is true because it has to be at a metaphysical level. Ayn Rand's positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. My positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. Ayn Rand's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is good and Noam Chomsky's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is bad cannot both be correct. They cannot both be equally valid because they are entirely contradictory to one another, so if one is true then the other by necessity must be wrong.
You are also a hypocrite in that you have lambasted my philosophical/political views on TDH many times, something that you apparently had no justification for since you believe our ideologies to be no more right or wrong than each other's. You are just trying to have it both ways - you want to criticize me for believing that I am right when I have no right to determine right from wrong, while also maintaining your belief that I am wrong. Apparently you have the privilege of determining right from wrong (ironic considering that you deliberately reject any standards to form such a judgement by), but anyone of a differing philosophical/political orientation does not. You are unable to see past your hypocrisy and biases because you are surrounded by people who share the same values as you both here and on TDH. I would not be surprised if that extends into your personal life as well, though of course I cannot actually know.
You do not just want people to have open minds. You want people to open their minds to your beliefs and values and nothing else. To criticize me for closing my mind off to people of differing beliefs is absurd; I engage in debate those people almost every day. How often do you have a serious discussion with someone who disagrees with you at a fundamental level? I am always open to debate here or on any other forum, but I can only debate to the extent that the other person is willing to. I can only advocate Rand's theory of ethics to the extent that others say it is wrong; once someone suspends critical thinking and refuses to evaluate the theory and determine for himself whether it actually is right or wrong, then serious debate becomes impossible because the person in question refuses to take a position. He says, "Yes that is what you believe, but this is what someone else believes.", but debate is not about what people believe; a debate is about which belief (if either) is right.
I do not just say that I am right, and I do not just say that those who contradict me are wrong. I explain my positions, I explain why I am right, and I explain why others are wrong. I have defended my beliefs and explained their implications very extensively - far more than the average person here. In fact, the only person that I know of who has experienced a comparable degree of scrutiny with regards to his personal ideology would be Frank Zappa, and that is only in recent months. You are unable to recognize that because of your biases. You are unable to recognize the free pass given to anyone of your orientation by anyone of your orientation, because you surround yourself with people of your orientation. You hold entirely different standards for yourself and those in agreement with you than you do for everyone else. You do not criticize a man's ideas, but instead criticize him for believing them.
You criticize a man for having the arrogance to say that you are wrong, because you assume by default that you must be correct. Instead of criticizing a man's ideas, you criticize the person for having ideas in contradiction to your own. Just like myself, you think you are right. The difference between us is that I have the honesty to admit it, and the integrity to debate anyone while holding myself to the same standards that I hold them.
Lai....you shouldn't criticize here for what you do. (Bolded above). And I don't know if you got yourself confused or not trying to post your wall of text but positions are very often based on opinion and/or incomplete knowledge. What you or Rand think is right in regard or wroing is just that opinion. It's not factual. It's not inherently right just because you believe it to be so. And likewise, an individual is not inherently wrong because they disagree with you.Â
The (bolded again) next statement I take exception to is your opinion, yes opinion, that you defend your arguments. This is not true. You idea of defending your arguments is not to give factual evidence as to why you are correct....but to tell someone they are not rational. That their ideas are not rational. And then, too, you have not even created a basic understanding as to what rational means in this regard. You positions tend to be knee jerk reactions to thinks you disagree with a rather immature and not well thought out detailed argument. You are a selfish individual, and as such you have determined that taxes are stealing. You give no regard to the reality that the government needs money to run, and that this society has chosen this particular form of government. You come off as incredibly naive, and young with this simplistic idea. And considering you are not out on your own, it's rather hypocritical as well.
Â
Far be it from me to defend MissL (she can do that quite capably herself) but your last paragraph is more an emotion appeal than addressing the issue. She explained how you come across here, and I at TDH. That does not in any way mean she is carrying on a discussion about a particular issue wherein being right and wrong is the threshold.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]
[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]No, your severe flaw and the reason why you are utterly narrow-minded and one of the worst debaters here is this erroneous conviction you have: that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In politics, sociology and the other areas you enjoy viewing through your Rand-coloured-glasses, there IS NO right or wrong. Each individual on the planet has an idea, a preference of which they prefer and believe in, but there is nothing that makes one person's opinion right or wrong. Again, it is a preference. In my life I have grown and adapted my ideas and beliefs and they have changed a lot over time. Personally I have switched from the rabid right-wing politics I believed in as a teenager to a far more liberal leaning nowadays. The reason for this is, through my genuinely debating the subject, I have been open enough and willing to LISTEN to the arguments of others and really think about what they are saying instead of thinking that I am 'right' all the time and instantly dismissing the arguments of others as 'wrong'. Your yourself were influenced greatly by a particular author, you read her writing and it appealed to you, it was in line with your personal preference. However many other people here (myself included) have read Atlas Shrugged and have not come to the same conclusion as you. This is not because we are wrong and you are right, it is because of preference. I would be willing to debate things with you in an open-minded way, and if you were willing to expand on the points people make and offered a real answer to the points people make against your case. Instead you just say 'no, that's wrong', and no. THAT is wrong.LJS9502_basic
If there is no right or wrong then you are a hypocrite to criticize my methods, since according to you there is nothing wrong with them. Anyways, obviously a statement is either correct or incorrect. There is no in between. Facts are facts, and personal preference cannot change that. Something is not true just because you want it to be true; it is true because it has to be at a metaphysical level. Ayn Rand's positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. My positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. Ayn Rand's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is good and Noam Chomsky's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is bad cannot both be correct. They cannot both be equally valid because they are entirely contradictory to one another, so if one is true then the other by necessity must be wrong.
You are also a hypocrite in that you have lambasted my philosophical/political views on TDH many times, something that you apparently had no justification for since you believe our ideologies to be no more right or wrong than each other's. You are just trying to have it both ways - you want to criticize me for believing that I am right when I have no right to determine right from wrong, while also maintaining your belief that I am wrong. Apparently you have the privilege of determining right from wrong (ironic considering that you deliberately reject any standards to form such a judgement by), but anyone of a differing philosophical/political orientation does not. You are unable to see past your hypocrisy and biases because you are surrounded by people who share the same values as you both here and on TDH. I would not be surprised if that extends into your personal life as well, though of course I cannot actually know.
You do not just want people to have open minds. You want people to open their minds to your beliefs and values and nothing else. To criticize me for closing my mind off to people of differing beliefs is absurd; I engage in debate those people almost every day. How often do you have a serious discussion with someone who disagrees with you at a fundamental level? I am always open to debate here or on any other forum, but I can only debate to the extent that the other person is willing to. I can only advocate Rand's theory of ethics to the extent that others say it is wrong; once someone suspends critical thinking and refuses to evaluate the theory and determine for himself whether it actually is right or wrong, then serious debate becomes impossible because the person in question refuses to take a position. He says, "Yes that is what you believe, but this is what someone else believes.", but debate is not about what people believe; a debate is about which belief (if either) is right.
I do not just say that I am right, and I do not just say that those who contradict me are wrong. I explain my positions, I explain why I am right, and I explain why others are wrong. I have defended my beliefs and explained their implications very extensively - far more than the average person here. In fact, the only person that I know of who has experienced a comparable degree of scrutiny with regards to his personal ideology would be Frank Zappa, and that is only in recent months. You are unable to recognize that because of your biases. You are unable to recognize the free pass given to anyone of your orientation by anyone of your orientation, because you surround yourself with people of your orientation. You hold entirely different standards for yourself and those in agreement with you than you do for everyone else. You do not criticize a man's ideas, but instead criticize him for believing them.
You criticize a man for having the arrogance to say that you are wrong, because you assume by default that you must be correct. Instead of criticizing a man's ideas, you criticize the person for having ideas in contradiction to your own. Just like myself, you think you are right. The difference between us is that I have the honesty to admit it, and the integrity to debate anyone while holding myself to the same standards that I hold them.
Lai....you shouldn't criticize here for what you do. (Bolded above). And I don't know if you got yourself confused or not trying to post your wall of text but positions are very often based on opinion and/or incomplete knowledge. What you or Rand think is right in regard or wroing is just that opinion. It's not factual. It's not inherently right just because you believe it to be so. And likewise, an individual is not inherently wrong because they disagree with you.The (bolded again) next statement I take exception to is your opinion, yes opinion, that you defend your arguments. This is not true. You idea of defending your arguments is not to give factual evidence as to why you are correct....but to tell someone they are not rational. That their ideas are not rational. And then, too, you have not even created a basic understanding as to what rational means in this regard. You positions tend to be knee jerk reactions to thinks you disagree with a rather immature and not well thought out detailed argument. You are a selfish individual, and as such you have determined that taxes are stealing. You give no regard to the reality that the government needs money to run, and that this society has chosen this particular form of government. You come off as incredibly naive, and young with this simplistic idea. And considering you are not out on your own, it's rather hypocritical as well.
Far be it from me to defend MissL but your last paragraph is more an emotion appeal than addressing the issue. She explained how you come across here, and I at TDH. That does not in any way mean she is carrying on a discussion about a particular issue wherein being right and wrong is the threshold.
these are examples of what i think lai can be critiqued on BTW. if my prior post needed clarification.
No, your severe flaw and the reason why you are utterly narrow-minded and one of the worst debaters here is this erroneous conviction you have: that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In politics, sociology and the other areas you enjoy viewing through your Rand-coloured-glasses, there IS NO right or wrong. Each individual on the planet has an idea, a preference of which they prefer and believe in, but there is nothing that makes one person's opinion right or wrong. Again, it is a preference. In my life I have grown and adapted my ideas and beliefs and they have changed a lot over time. Personally I have switched from the rabid right-wing politics I believed in as a teenager to a far more liberal leaning nowadays. The reason for this is, through my genuinely debating the subject, I have been open enough and willing to LISTEN to the arguments of others and really think about what they are saying instead of thinking that I am 'right' all the time and instantly dismissing the arguments of others as 'wrong'. Your yourself were influenced greatly by a particular author, you read her writing and it appealed to you, it was in line with your personal preference. However many other people here (myself included) have read Atlas Shrugged and have not come to the same conclusion as you. This is not because we are wrong and you are right, it is because of preference. I would be willing to debate things with you in an open-minded way, and if you were willing to expand on the points people make and offered a real answer to the points people make against your case. Instead you just say 'no, that's wrong', and no. THAT is wrong.[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] [QUOTE="Laihendi"]I consider it a moral cause to explain how people are wrong.Laihendi
If there is no right or wrong then you are a hypocrite to criticize my methods, since according to you there is nothing wrong with them. Anyways, obviously a statement is either correct or incorrect. There is no in between. Facts are facts, and personal preference cannot change that. Something is not true just because you want it to be true; it is true because it has to be at a metaphysical level. Ayn Rand's positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. My positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. Ayn Rand's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is good and Noam Chomsky's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is bad cannot both be correct. They cannot both be equally valid because they are entirely contradictory to one another, so if one is true then the other by necessity must be wrong.
You are also a hypocrite in that you have lambasted my philosophical/political views on TDH many times, something that you apparently had no justification for since you believe our ideologies to be no more right or wrong than each other's. You are just trying to have it both ways - you want to criticize me for believing that I am right when I have no right to determine right from wrong, while also maintaining your belief that I am wrong. Apparently you have the privilege of determining right from wrong (ironic considering that you deliberately reject any standards to form such a judgement by), but anyone of a differing philosophical/political orientation does not. You are unable to see past your hypocrisy and biases because you are surrounded by people who share the same values as you both here and on TDH. I would not be surprised if that extends into your personal life as well, though of course I cannot actually know.
You do not just want people to have open minds. You want people to open their minds to your beliefs and values and nothing else. To criticize me for closing my mind off to people of differing beliefs is absurd; I engage in debate those people almost every day. How often do you have a serious discussion with someone who disagrees with you at a fundamental level? I am always open to debate here or on any other forum, but I can only debate to the extent that the other person is willing to. I can only advocate Rand's theory of ethics to the extent that others say it is wrong; once someone suspends critical thinking and refuses to evaluate the theory and determine for himself whether it actually is right or wrong, then serious debate becomes impossible because the person in question refuses to take a position. He says, "Yes that is what you believe, but this is what someone else believes.", but debate is not about what people believe; a debate is about which belief (if either) is right.
I do not just say that I am right, and I do not just say that those who contradict me are wrong. I explain my positions, I explain why I am right, and I explain why others are wrong. I have defended my beliefs and explained their implications very extensively - far more than the average person here. In fact, the only person that I know of who has experienced a comparable degree of scrutiny with regards to his personal ideology would be Frank Zappa, and that is only in recent months. You are unable to recognize that because of your biases. You are unable to recognize the free pass given to anyone of your orientation by anyone of your orientation, because you surround yourself with people of your orientation. You hold entirely different standards for yourself and those in agreement with you than you do for everyone else. You do not criticize a man's ideas, but instead criticize him for believing them.
You criticize a man for having the arrogance to say that you are wrong, because you assume by default that you must be correct. Instead of criticizing a man's ideas, you criticize the person for having ideas in contradiction to your own. Just like myself, you think you are right. The difference between us is that I have the honesty to admit it, and the integrity to debate anyone while holding myself to the same standards that I hold them.
god DAMN missL got put in her place.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="MissLibrarian"] No, your severe flaw and the reason why you are utterly narrow-minded and one of the worst debaters here is this erroneous conviction you have: that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In politics, sociology and the other areas you enjoy viewing through your Rand-coloured-glasses, there IS NO right or wrong. Each individual on the planet has an idea, a preference of which they prefer and believe in, but there is nothing that makes one person's opinion right or wrong. Again, it is a preference. In my life I have grown and adapted my ideas and beliefs and they have changed a lot over time. Personally I have switched from the rabid right-wing politics I believed in as a teenager to a far more liberal leaning nowadays. The reason for this is, through my genuinely debating the subject, I have been open enough and willing to LISTEN to the arguments of others and really think about what they are saying instead of thinking that I am 'right' all the time and instantly dismissing the arguments of others as 'wrong'. Your yourself were influenced greatly by a particular author, you read her writing and it appealed to you, it was in line with your personal preference. However many other people here (myself included) have read Atlas Shrugged and have not come to the same conclusion as you. This is not because we are wrong and you are right, it is because of preference. I would be willing to debate things with you in an open-minded way, and if you were willing to expand on the points people make and offered a real answer to the points people make against your case. Instead you just say 'no, that's wrong', and no. THAT is wrong.mmwmwmmwmwmm
If there is no right or wrong then you are a hypocrite to criticize my methods, since according to you there is nothing wrong with them. Anyways, obviously a statement is either correct or incorrect. There is no in between. Facts are facts, and personal preference cannot change that. Something is not true just because you want it to be true; it is true because it has to be at a metaphysical level. Ayn Rand's positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. My positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. Ayn Rand's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is good and Noam Chomsky's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is bad cannot both be correct. They cannot both be equally valid because they are entirely contradictory to one another, so if one is true then the other by necessity must be wrong.
You are also a hypocrite in that you have lambasted my philosophical/political views on TDH many times, something that you apparently had no justification for since you believe our ideologies to be no more right or wrong than each other's. You are just trying to have it both ways - you want to criticize me for believing that I am right when I have no right to determine right from wrong, while also maintaining your belief that I am wrong. Apparently you have the privilege of determining right from wrong (ironic considering that you deliberately reject any standards to form such a judgement by), but anyone of a differing philosophical/political orientation does not. You are unable to see past your hypocrisy and biases because you are surrounded by people who share the same values as you both here and on TDH. I would not be surprised if that extends into your personal life as well, though of course I cannot actually know.
You do not just want people to have open minds. You want people to open their minds to your beliefs and values and nothing else. To criticize me for closing my mind off to people of differing beliefs is absurd; I engage in debate those people almost every day. How often do you have a serious discussion with someone who disagrees with you at a fundamental level? I am always open to debate here or on any other forum, but I can only debate to the extent that the other person is willing to. I can only advocate Rand's theory of ethics to the extent that others say it is wrong; once someone suspends critical thinking and refuses to evaluate the theory and determine for himself whether it actually is right or wrong, then serious debate becomes impossible because the person in question refuses to take a position. He says, "Yes that is what you believe, but this is what someone else believes.", but debate is not about what people believe; a debate is about which belief (if either) is right.
I do not just say that I am right, and I do not just say that those who contradict me are wrong. I explain my positions, I explain why I am right, and I explain why others are wrong. I have defended my beliefs and explained their implications very extensively - far more than the average person here. In fact, the only person that I know of who has experienced a comparable degree of scrutiny with regards to his personal ideology would be Frank Zappa, and that is only in recent months. You are unable to recognize that because of your biases. You are unable to recognize the free pass given to anyone of your orientation by anyone of your orientation, because you surround yourself with people of your orientation. You hold entirely different standards for yourself and those in agreement with you than you do for everyone else. You do not criticize a man's ideas, but instead criticize him for believing them.
You criticize a man for having the arrogance to say that you are wrong, because you assume by default that you must be correct. Instead of criticizing a man's ideas, you criticize the person for having ideas in contradiction to your own. Just like myself, you think you are right. The difference between us is that I have the honesty to admit it, and the integrity to debate anyone while holding myself to the same standards that I hold them.
god DAMN missL got put in her place.depends on how you read it.
ljs for instance has some valid points against it.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]
[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]No, your severe flaw and the reason why you are utterly narrow-minded and one of the worst debaters here is this erroneous conviction you have: that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In politics, sociology and the other areas you enjoy viewing through your Rand-coloured-glasses, there IS NO right or wrong. Each individual on the planet has an idea, a preference of which they prefer and believe in, but there is nothing that makes one person's opinion right or wrong. Again, it is a preference. In my life I have grown and adapted my ideas and beliefs and they have changed a lot over time. Personally I have switched from the rabid right-wing politics I believed in as a teenager to a far more liberal leaning nowadays. The reason for this is, through my genuinely debating the subject, I have been open enough and willing to LISTEN to the arguments of others and really think about what they are saying instead of thinking that I am 'right' all the time and instantly dismissing the arguments of others as 'wrong'. Your yourself were influenced greatly by a particular author, you read her writing and it appealed to you, it was in line with your personal preference. However many other people here (myself included) have read Atlas Shrugged and have not come to the same conclusion as you. This is not because we are wrong and you are right, it is because of preference. I would be willing to debate things with you in an open-minded way, and if you were willing to expand on the points people make and offered a real answer to the points people make against your case. Instead you just say 'no, that's wrong', and no. THAT is wrong.LJS9502_basic
If there is no right or wrong then you are a hypocrite to criticize my methods, since according to you there is nothing wrong with them. Anyways, obviously a statement is either correct or incorrect. There is no in between. Facts are facts, and personal preference cannot change that. Something is not true just because you want it to be true; it is true because it has to be at a metaphysical level. Ayn Rand's positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. My positions on any given topic are either right or wrong. Ayn Rand's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is good and Noam Chomsky's assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is bad cannot both be correct. They cannot both be equally valid because they are entirely contradictory to one another, so if one is true then the other by necessity must be wrong.
You are also a hypocrite in that you have lambasted my philosophical/political views on TDH many times, something that you apparently had no justification for since you believe our ideologies to be no more right or wrong than each other's. You are just trying to have it both ways - you want to criticize me for believing that I am right when I have no right to determine right from wrong, while also maintaining your belief that I am wrong. Apparently you have the privilege of determining right from wrong (ironic considering that you deliberately reject any standards to form such a judgement by), but anyone of a differing philosophical/political orientation does not. You are unable to see past your hypocrisy and biases because you are surrounded by people who share the same values as you both here and on TDH. I would not be surprised if that extends into your personal life as well, though of course I cannot actually know.
You do not just want people to have open minds. You want people to open their minds to your beliefs and values and nothing else. To criticize me for closing my mind off to people of differing beliefs is absurd; I engage in debate those people almost every day. How often do you have a serious discussion with someone who disagrees with you at a fundamental level? I am always open to debate here or on any other forum, but I can only debate to the extent that the other person is willing to. I can only advocate Rand's theory of ethics to the extent that others say it is wrong; once someone suspends critical thinking and refuses to evaluate the theory and determine for himself whether it actually is right or wrong, then serious debate becomes impossible because the person in question refuses to take a position. He says, "Yes that is what you believe, but this is what someone else believes.", but debate is not about what people believe; a debate is about which belief (if either) is right.
I do not just say that I am right, and I do not just say that those who contradict me are wrong. I explain my positions, I explain why I am right, and I explain why others are wrong. I have defended my beliefs and explained their implications very extensively - far more than the average person here. In fact, the only person that I know of who has experienced a comparable degree of scrutiny with regards to his personal ideology would be Frank Zappa, and that is only in recent months. You are unable to recognize that because of your biases. You are unable to recognize the free pass given to anyone of your orientation by anyone of your orientation, because you surround yourself with people of your orientation. You hold entirely different standards for yourself and those in agreement with you than you do for everyone else. You do not criticize a man's ideas, but instead criticize him for believing them.
You criticize a man for having the arrogance to say that you are wrong, because you assume by default that you must be correct. Instead of criticizing a man's ideas, you criticize the person for having ideas in contradiction to your own. Just like myself, you think you are right. The difference between us is that I have the honesty to admit it, and the integrity to debate anyone while holding myself to the same standards that I hold them.
Lai....you shouldn't criticize here for what you do. (Bolded above). And I don't know if you got yourself confused or not trying to post your wall of text but positions are very often based on opinion and/or incomplete knowledge. What you or Rand think is right in regard or wroing is just that opinion. It's not factual. It's not inherently right just because you believe it to be so. And likewise, an individual is not inherently wrong because they disagree with you.Â
The (bolded again) next statement I take exception to is your opinion, yes opinion, that you defend your arguments. This is not true. You idea of defending your arguments is not to give factual evidence as to why you are correct....but to tell someone they are not rational. That their ideas are not rational. And then, too, you have not even created a basic understanding as to what rational means in this regard. You positions tend to be knee jerk reactions to thinks you disagree with a rather immature and not well thought out detailed argument. You are a selfish individual, and as such you have determined that taxes are stealing. You give no regard to the reality that the government needs money to run, and that this society has chosen this particular form of government. You come off as incredibly naive, and young with this simplistic idea. And considering you are not out on your own, it's rather hypocritical as well.
Â
Far be it from me to defend MissL (she can do that quite capably herself) but your last paragraph is more an emotion appeal than addressing the issue. She explained how you come across here, and I at TDH. That does not in any way mean she is carrying on a discussion about a particular issue wherein being right and wrong is the threshold.
I agree.ÂOn multiple occasions in various threads on Gamespot, I responded to laihendi's assertions about issues like whether or not mentally ill individuals are technically human and the rationality of altruism. Laihendi's responses are more assertions about one or two aspects of mental illness which laihendi uses to generalize all mental illnesses and (laihendi's version of the term) irrational hypocrisy inherent in altruists. Both were part of larger rants of ignorance about those topics. When I clarify laihendi's misunderstanding, that user rewords his responses, but they are essentially the same as before and also at those points, defiant. In each exchange, I offer more clarification and laihendi does not respond which makes me wonder if he is avoiding the truth.Â
I want to emphasize the manner in which laihendi uses rationality in his assertions is ridiculous and more importantly, not correct.
Whats with all these wall of texts , TLDR :P
indzman
You should read all of it. It's actually some decent discussion for once, even from Laihendi. Sadly, it will all amount to nothing in the end.
[QUOTE="indzman"]
Whats with all these wall of texts , TLDR :P
jimkabrhel
You should read all of it. It's actually some decent discussion for once, even from Laihendi. Sadly, it will all amount to nothing in the end.
Heh, maybe i should start with lai's wall of texts. and true lol.Â
Folks just need to get thicker skinsolidruss
Doesn't this apply to the entire internet in general?dominer
Â
Yes but there is a fundamental difference in so much that most of the internet is unmoderated, you have some very questionable points of views and opinions out there which are posted without censor, where has here there are moderators, who can/will moderate people when and where necesarry.
Most of the bullying disappeared after mods were taken down a notch during the TOU change.MrPraline
Although, I still think it's a problem when you have volunteer mods who are also members who have the ability to moderate the discussions they participate in as individuals. Â I've seen too many inappropriate comments from mods when they side with a group engaged in bullying another member. Â I was reading one thread a week or so ago where a moderator was joking with another member about having suspended the account of a third member whom they both disliked. Â
I posted a comment in the MCS forum asking why a thread I had been participating in in the O-T forum got locked when it was not significantly different from most of the other threads in the O-T forum. Â I was curious because I had also been reading another thread where a moderator and several members had been discussing the unpopularity of the OP of the thread that had been locked. Â The result of my inquiry into that thread was that a follow-up comment I posted a day later after not receiving a response got deleted and my account was suspended for more than a day for posting a "sardonic" comment. Â The amount of bullying that goes on here is bad enough, but it's made much worse when mods use the system to participate in it rather than mitigate it.
[QUOTE="solidruss"]Folks just need to get thicker skinOmenUK
There is too much bullying in Gamespot.
What is the purpose of this forum if the users here don't know how to treat each other with respect?
pariah3
It's simple. People need to satisfy their ego. It's the same reason why we always feel the need to come out on top of an argument.
Although, I still think it's a problem when you have volunteer mods who are also members who have the ability to moderate the discussions they participate in as individuals. I've seen too many inappropriate comments from mods when they side with a group engaged in bullying another member. I was reading one thread a week or so ago where a moderator was joking with another member about having suspended the account of a third member whom they both disliked.I posted a comment in the MCS forum asking why a thread I had been participating in in the O-T forum got locked when it was not significantly different from most of the other threads in the O-T forum. I was curious because I had also been reading another thread where a moderator and several members had been discussing the unpopularity of the OP of the thread that had been locked. The result of my inquiry into that thread was that a follow-up comment I posted a day later after not receiving a response got deleted and my account was suspended for more than a day for posting a "sardonic" comment. The amount of bullying that goes on here is bad enough, but it's made much worse when mods use the system to participate in it rather than mitigate it.
capaho
Then why can't they just shut down Off-topic for good so there will be not more bullying and defaming?
[QUOTE="capaho"]Although, I still think it's a problem when you have volunteer mods who are also members who have the ability to moderate the discussions they participate in as individuals. I've seen too many inappropriate comments from mods when they side with a group engaged in bullying another member. I was reading one thread a week or so ago where a moderator was joking with another member about having suspended the account of a third member whom they both disliked.
I posted a comment in the MCS forum asking why a thread I had been participating in in the O-T forum got locked when it was not significantly different from most of the other threads in the O-T forum. I was curious because I had also been reading another thread where a moderator and several members had been discussing the unpopularity of the OP of the thread that had been locked. The result of my inquiry into that thread was that a follow-up comment I posted a day later after not receiving a response got deleted and my account was suspended for more than a day for posting a "sardonic" comment. The amount of bullying that goes on here is bad enough, but it's made much worse when mods use the system to participate in it rather than mitigate it.
pariah3
Then why can't they just shut down Off-topic for good so there will be not more bullying?
There isn't any bullying here...damn you people are too sensitive. Why not log off? No one is forcing you to be here....[QUOTE="pariah3"][QUOTE="capaho"]Although, I still think it's a problem when you have volunteer mods who are also members who have the ability to moderate the discussions they participate in as individuals. I've seen too many inappropriate comments from mods when they side with a group engaged in bullying another member. I was reading one thread a week or so ago where a moderator was joking with another member about having suspended the account of a third member whom they both disliked.
I posted a comment in the MCS forum asking why a thread I had been participating in in the O-T forum got locked when it was not significantly different from most of the other threads in the O-T forum. I was curious because I had also been reading another thread where a moderator and several members had been discussing the unpopularity of the OP of the thread that had been locked. The result of my inquiry into that thread was that a follow-up comment I posted a day later after not receiving a response got deleted and my account was suspended for more than a day for posting a "sardonic" comment. The amount of bullying that goes on here is bad enough, but it's made much worse when mods use the system to participate in it rather than mitigate it.
LJS9502_basic
Then why can't they just shut down Off-topic for good so there will be not more bullying?
There isn't any bullying here...damn you people are too sensitive. Why not log off? No one is forcing you to be here.... There is some bullying here. It's really rare but it happens, no sense denying it. The typically petty insults that get thrown around isn't bullying though. Maybe that sort of conduct would be seen as that in grade school but I imagine most of us here are a bit older than that though perhaps not more mature.Then why can't they just shut down Off-topic for good so there will be not more bullying and defaming?
pariah3
The bullying isn't limited to just the O-T forum, the PGD has too much of it as well and from the comments I've read from others so does SW. Â Bullying is a part of life, and everyone needs to be prepared to deal with it on a personal level, so I don't really advocate shutting down any of the forums. Â Because my account was recently suspended for inquiring about a thread I thought may have been inappropriately locked, my biggest concern now is that there is an inherent problem with the mod system at GS in that not only does it not adequately address the problem of bullying but actually makes it worse.
i h8 OT bullies
they call ppl mean names and hurt feelings
[QUOTE="solidruss"]Folks just need to get thicker skinOmenUK
The reason why nothing is done about the bullying on these forums is that there isn't really any bullying on these forums.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment