Utopia Talk / Politics / Seb will lose his shit regarding #metoo

Cold Rod Member	Sat Feb 10 15:54:24 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6lCPvwiIqo LOL Seb Rod
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Feb 10 16:26:29 You don't understand, Seb thinks his values are better than yours and to him "that is literally the issue at debate". That explain a lot, among them his limited ability to have any conversation in depth without confusing facts with values. This _is_ a virtue contest to him. You can not have any meaningful discussion with a person like that about anything remotely divisive. I wish I would have known before I wasted so much time...
Dukhat Member	Sat Feb 10 16:38:01 Nimatzo has really gone off the deep end. Everything fits into the alt-right narrative of "virtue-signalling" and other fake science junk.
Seb Member	Sat Feb 10 16:46:51 Nimatzo: Do you think your values are inferior to any others? Why don't you adopt those ones instead? You swan around moaning about postmodernism while basically saying here that you can only have meaningful conversations with a moral relativist. Pretty much every conversation about politics must come down to a question of values. Politics is the art of deciding, which means prioritization which must be informed by a preferences. Maybe you are a utilitarian, maybe you are a libertarian, maybe you are a pragmatist... all of those are value choices Nim, and don't pretend for a second that you sit in some sort of intellectual, objective splendor. So I don't exactly know what you mean by virtue contest - and in any case you have rendered language to mean, like Humpty Dumpty, whatever it is you want it to mean - but as I understand the term it means competing to show one is more virtuous than another person. I am not competing. I believe my values system to be superior to yours - this is why I think my approach is better and advocate for it. Virtue competition with you wouldn't be possible: we share different value systems. I believe in the importance of individual rights and freedoms and fundamental equality of those individuals. Your beliefs rest on an assumption of group characteristics that you believe (erroneously) to have a biological basis, and that this can justify asymmetric policies. We are not going to agree. I really don't think you understand politics at all.
Seb Member	Sat Feb 10 16:50:09 One can believe ones values are fundamentally objective. One can believe ones values are subjective, but champion your preference. Once can believe ones values are subjective, and therefore no better than any other. I suggest the third is not really consistent - it amounts to an absence of values that can inform an active set of policies for interacting with the world. Nim, well Nim is just a confused mess.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Feb 10 17:24:31 And I don't think you understand anything but politics seb, that is the problem. I say that in the most pejorative way possible. I rarely talk about my values here, I talk a lot about myself and things that happen to me (anecdotes), but rarely about my values, beyond the classical liberalism that everyone and their mother claims (you). Talk about values is meaningless in an anonymous setting, for all I know sam adams is a more moral person than you, he just likes shitposting. No one here can verify that your so called "superior values" actually translate into good deeds. <- important. So your talk of superior values are thus judged in the light of the solutions you propose and you already have my opinion about them. You will notice I have never called you evil or any derivative of that word, like inferior values. Just a retard, not based on your values, but the stupid things you propose as policy solutions. And biased like everyone. "and don't pretend" I don't pretend, I try and I fail sometimes, but people who know me have indeed described me as unusually objective. It all comes down to how much distance you can create between yourself and the issue at hand. Having grown up with two identities, helps, so do drugs (sorry but it is true). To the extent that I actually hope that my son will try mushrooms, acid and MDMA when he grows up, lest I worry that he will miss out on valuable lessons in life. I don't expect you to understand, but it is what it is.
Cold Rod Member	Sat Feb 10 17:25:47 Dishonest Seb Rod implodes lol
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Feb 10 17:35:14 There are facts that we know and may find out about the human animal and the world we live in. Provided those fact, there are right and wrong answers to decreasing suffering and misery. That is the objective moral compass I subscribe to.
Dukhat Member	Sun Feb 11 01:18:15 10-cent philosophy from Nimatzo. I'm figuring he must've gotten greedy with Bitcoin and ended up losing all his money and is now grasping for straws.
Seb Member	Sun Feb 11 03:27:29 Nim: So, if we are to believe the policies and views you hold don't say anything about your values; what informs them? You claim Liberalism, but your cod scientific basis for discrimination is anything but Liberal. That's my point. As for the tripe about good deeds? I don't think I ever suggested that they do or that was never the intent. Virtue is a word only you are using, notice that? You are trapped in your stupid little red-pill Alt-Right narrative. When I'm talking about values I'm talking about convincing you or anyone else I'm a good person. I'm suggesting a particular set of policies are good and superior. Some may disagree based on whether those policies do achieve the desired outcome. Others may disagree based on whether those outcomes are desirable in principle. The latter is a disagreement about values. And your disagreement with me on immigration and minority rights is the latter. " but people who know me have indeed described me as unusually objective." Hilarious. You are now arguing for dispassionate distance, while complaining previously I lack empathy. Distance and objectivity can help assess whether particular policies achieve a desired outcome (e.g. on issues of welfare dependency). They don't help establish whether an outcome is desirable. That's fundamentally an issue of preference driven by an individuals set of values. The real issue is you don't see your value choices as informing your political position because you believe them to be objective.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 11 04:24:13 ”but your cod scientific basis for discrimination is anything but Liberal. That's my point.” Your ideological hatred for men and white people is ”liberal”, that is my point. I am not ”liberal”. And given that this is your sebbed understanding of biology and what has been said over a dozen threads, we are not doing it again in this thread or ever. Distance and objectivity are among other things valuable tool for introspection, to see how full of shit one is. To have tools doesn’t mean you have to use then all the time and at the cost of your empathy, jesus christ what a fucking moron. Your inability to hold more than one thought in your head is scary. Like a punch card reader. ”There are facts that we know and may find out about the human animal and the world we live in. Provided those fact, there are right and wrong answers to decreasing suffering and misery. That is the objective moral compass I subscribe to.” ^facts and science role in coloring my empathy so I am not a seb. While your hatred of men and white people is a direct result of ideological bias and psuedoscience, I want to use science to actually understand the problem (e.g low IQ people) so we can solve it (raise their IQ) or determine there is no problem (wage gap) and stop forcing people to live like me (”liberal(marxist)” social ”engineering”) and leave people the fuck alone. We will never agree because you are arguing against demons of your own creation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 11 04:28:01 ^Also you are a punchcard reader level intellect with the introspection level of a turd. Those are probably bigger reasons for us never agreeing about anything deeper than a puddle.
Seb Member	Sun Feb 11 05:24:29 Nim: I have no ideological hatred for white people and men. That's your projection because the idea of equality in the face of your belief in fundamental differences between those groups (buttressed by cod science) is threatening to you and provokes in you an emotional response.
Seb Member	Sun Feb 11 05:26:37 Nim, you have literally posted review articles to support your views where the review article specifically states those conclusions cannot be drawn and explains why. You even think evolutionary psychology is a form of biology. Confirmation bias is the opposite of objectivity!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 11 05:35:11 Wtb was on to something about you seb. Your brain seems to only run one program at a time, empathy or objectivity, one can not aid the other since there is not enough working memory. Inferior hardware (biological). Hence you opting for the specilization route of a PhD that autistic people can excel at, while having low empathy and communication skills. The most fundamental abstraction level; empathy + descriptive tools (science, objectivity) only one is working at any given time. Lessons from one domain does not transfer to the other. Sad.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 11 05:40:59 Your ideological hatred for white people and men is very clear. There is literally no SJW garbage you have not defended. Equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome, for some mostly due to biology. Foxing problems involves first understanding them, your kind is in the business of denying uncomfortable facts. I am not. Accept, understand, overcome or go around. Difficult?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 11 05:50:24 ”You even think evolutionary psychology is a form of biology.” ^This one goes to 11.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 11 06:08:02 http://fre...h-us-about-the-gender-pay-gap/ What Can Uber Teach Us About the Gender Pay Gap? That men earn more because they drive more lucrative routes and hours (graveyard shift, drunk people from bars), overall female attrition rate is higher (lower average exeperience). Unbelievable right? But still 50% of the gap is explained by men simply driving faster (taking risks) lulz :-) ^Seb is an idiot.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 11 06:27:06 They could not identify any discrimination from customers. And women were just as capable of learning (aquiring experience) as men. This will be repeated as more and more in-depth reviews are made. -> BBC review finds 'no gender bias in on-air pay decisions. Prepare to be buried in the hole you have dug seb, or get out and prepare for hemorrahage from every orifice. I respect your freedom of choice.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 11 06:43:23 But sad still that you are making creationist argument about evolution, that because we can not establish absolute causes, aproximate causes say nothing and are not useful. ”you have literally posted review articles to support your views where the review article specifically states those conclusions cannot be drawn and explains why.” And you never got back to me about the thread you keep bringing up, I promised you, give me the link and I will explain why you are an sebbing idiot. I stand by that promise. ^Very spineless considering I have given you links every time you have asked, despite knowing you will never admit error I have and will supply the links to past coversation if I can find them. Part of being honest, objective and actually worthy of the intelligence one claims one has. gg?
The Children Member	Sun Feb 11 12:36:42 #notmyhansolo
obaminated Member	Sun Feb 11 12:46:10 Bill Burr on it, I think most of us agree with his perspective ... and I suspect Seb is gonna disagree. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZTYg2xx3ec
Seb Member	Sun Feb 11 16:27:04 Oh my gosh what a stream of nonsense. The word creationist leaps out - I really do not have the energy right now to understand what on earth you can possibly mean by this - no doubt any attempt to parse his word salad will be met with furious insistence that I'm misrepresenting his position. Nim, have a long drink of cool water and a lie down in a darkened room. That's my advice to you. I shall nave a look in the morning.
Seb Member	Sun Feb 11 17:01:06 Nim: WtB is about as mad as you are Nim - I'm going to skip your first two posts as they are basically your dribbling on yourself. Evolutionary psychology - its largely bunkum. Uber - a very particular self-service employment model that isn't widely used in the rest of the economy. Not a good example of systemic effects. "DUBNER: Right. So let me just make sure I’m clear. You’re saying there’s no discrimination on the Uber side, on the supply side, because the algorithm is gender-blind and the price is the price. And you’re saying there’s no discrimination on the passenger side. So does that mean that discrimination accounts for zero percent of whatever pay gap you find or don’t find between male and female Uber drivers? LIST: That’s correct." That can be true, but still miss out systemic factors that are not present. For example, if women are primary carers and responsible for the school runs, then they are going to end up not being able to take runs during peak commuter periods where rates will be higher - which of course can contribute to the pay gap. This analysis presents this as a question of free choice rather than additional constraints. And you yourself in the most recent thread were specifically arguing that it is was irrational for men to mentor women due to fear of false accusations of sexual harassment. Equally, it would be rational for a women to avoid seeking mentorship from a senior male executive for similar reasons. Yet a few weeks ago you were arguing the opposite. Don't you think effects like these are systemic? You have a narrow view of discrimination that seems to boil down to people consciously awarding women less in the salary negotiation, while ignoring everything else. RE: BBC - BBC's own report concludes no gender bias on on air roles (a minority of all roles in the BBC). Colour me shocked. Particularly if the question is as narrowly scoped as the above analysis. "But sad still that you are making creationist argument about evolution," No, I'm not at all. The fact you are unable to understand this is daft. I am saying that with evolutionary psychology, as there is almost no physical evidence for behaviour (as there is for anatomy) and almost none for environment, you end up with circular arguments that simply cannot be resolved - and often involve so many axiomatic choices that are open for researcher cognative biases. "And you never got back to me about the thread you keep bringing up, I promised you, give me the link and I will explain why you are an sebbing idiot. I stand by that promise." I've raised it three times since you first did it, the most recent weeks ago. You completely ignored it then and ran away. I'm not doing hunt the thread for you, but you were quoting this article as supporting Damore's claim: https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ and failing to notice that while it shows differences between men and women, it explicitly does not show that these are not necessarily a product of nurture rather than nature. "In this review, we also do not address Damore’s claims that some gender differences are rooted in biological factors, such as the effect of prenatal hormones on brain development. Meta-analyses cannot tell us the origins of differences. Most researchers studying these questions assume that biology, childhood socialization, and current context interact in complex ways, and most psychologists know that pointing to a biological contribution (such as a genetic or hormonal influence) does not mean that an effect is “hard wired,” unmalleable, or immune to contextual variables (see Eagly & Wood, 2012; this is a point that Damore did not acknowledge)." This is essential - if women are suitably skilled and have aptitude but not applying for roles, but not applying for social reasons any right thinking company would want to actively target recruitment there. It does not ultimately support a key element of Damore's thesis: that these differences are innate.
Cold Rod Member	Sun Feb 11 18:12:01 dishonest seb avoids the link. lol what dishonesty.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 12 02:05:11 BBCs actual report is clear that their is a gender bias, but that the Crown company's efforts to reduce it is making good headway. CR Avoids a youtube link? The outrage.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Feb 12 02:33:42 @obaminated Bill Burr link: They hit a big part of it at around 4:45 when they talk about how young people have become the *less* edgy generation because they've become like "old people" who act like they're "under a microscope" — all in the context of social media's lack of due process (i.e., the Internet lynch mob; Panoptic servants looking for victims; dimwitted, one-dimensional thinkers who seek to scare the world into their corrupt form of "happiness" — a Zamyatin "We" scenario where reducing "unhappiness" and pain has only resulted in the virtual destruction of humanity). Like if you get some retarded person to read the Aziz one-sided write-up, then they would think there exist all sorts of foul play (crazed opinions run amok), yet in any legal or nuanced framework nothing finds itself there except maybe leads for further investigation ("further investigation" being little different from the "more research needed" line of any bland academic paper). An end result of insinuating persistently beyond the actual facts in a Panoptic (or shaming) setting is hyper-vigilant fear of Sauron's gaze falling upon you due to some lapse where you accidentally become a human being for some short moment (almost like « la petite mort » denied; nihilists unwilling to seek out the pleasure of an orgasm because it comes with an element of pain — oh but the victimization of climax! Sex itself must be forbidden so that no one will be an object of another!). It's not fear of not being virtuous or not doing right by oneself, it's fear of the thoughtless destruction of vigilantes wearing Internet hockey pads. Not to pull 4chan words, but the result might be a more "autistic"/Asperger-y world: people having to retreat from real social settings because the poor mental faculties of accusers has reduced the world via lowest common denominator logic ("You must all lack the nuance that we lack!"). That is, it's psychology legislated via the musings of empowered Asperger's sufferers who have found their voices in a simulated sphere that they wish would be taken as real — and in fact that may be a goal of theirs: empower even the most reticent minds by making even the most hidden thoughts have the importance of the loudest words and strongest physical actions. "Fear my autistic opinions, Frankenstein, because a town of similarly simple-minded folk can be given a one-sided story on a whim and will be ready at your door with pitchforks and torches to silence the monster that is your very humanity." Fantastic. Anyways, @Maher: I'm surprised that a New York Times editor (Bari Weiss) is capable of nuance. I thought NY Times was full crazy. That pendulum metaphor from the Bill Burr video might be true if the New York Times and even SNL have started to realize that the Ansari case has brought out the crazies and forced some perspective into the mix.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 12 03:36:11 And yet. We still have one human-being inserting *things* into another human-being under highly dubious circumstances. Lets just say that if Asari is Asbergery enough to do that, then he is also Asbergery enough to not register any social outing he might be subject to. The brute biting both ways so to speak.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 12 03:53:13 Anyways, I feel galvanized: "To whom it may concern I have subscribed to netflix since it became available in my country and currently hold two subscriptions (email xxx and yyy). I ask that "Master of None" be taken out of netflix circulation. This in reference to recent revelations With best regards, [sign.]" Consumer power. Yay :). Thank you threads. I doubt I otherwise could have been bothered. Feel free to cancel me out with a support email if any of you buffons actually pay for netflix services (senses of entitlement I think goes beyond just shoving things into other people. Why not be consistent after all?).
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 05:39:18 "CR Avoids a youtube link? The outrage. " I know, it's like an OP or something that pretty much gives the other perspective to bring a more neutral objectivity instead of attaching itself to the fringed side of the 'metoo' movement that takes way the real agenda of it. But of course, you may continue to attach yourself to the fringe group to exploit those that would not necessarily be justified to ridicule. Mob mentality at its best.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 12 08:52:27 I prefer texted based arguments supported by sources such as even a youtube video. If you have an argument - then make it. Expecting others to do the legwork is lazy entitlement at its best.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 12 09:15:59 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY7peNdlio4
Seb Member	Mon Feb 12 09:22:36 Cold Rod: What Jergul said. I do most of my posting strap hanging on the train. I'm not going to start playing random you tube videos to a carriage full of people. Particularly random videos posted by known reprobates such as yourself. Last thing I want is a carriage full of people thinking I'm a Richard Spencer supporter or whatever numpty you may send me a video of.
obaminated Member	Mon Feb 12 09:56:18 Translation - im gonna argue with you but wont look at your links cause im gonna argue with you. I too remember what it was like being 15.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 10:33:56 So dishonest Seb and his sidekick won't look at sources provided that emphasizes a point regarding the topic they have been so adamant about. And claim due to "no text" they won't address it. Even though the point was made just previously. It will still not be considered because they didn't provide it. Good job jergulsebrod
Delude Member	Mon Feb 12 11:02:17 Fucking hell, you won't place a video from Bill Maher? Lol
Seb Member	Mon Feb 12 11:41:12 Obaminated: I'll look at your links if there's enough context and argument around it to see it d relevant. Just saying "hey, this is good, you'll hate it" - it's not even clear its actually something I need to respond to or addressing any point I'm making. And I'm not going to watch an entire video for you any more than you are going to read a ten page blog post unless I narrow it down to the specific parts and how they support my argument. Delude: How do I know it's a video of Bill Maher? Obaminated says Bill Burr. Dunno who that is, and in any case, I think you'll find this a compelling point. https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ Cold rod: I'll look at a source, if it's part of as argument. I.e. what point does it show. If it's a video, your gonna have to wait till I find time.
Delude Member	Mon Feb 12 12:06:15 No you fucking moron. He was commenting about his link. Not the OP. Seriously are truly are a dishonest individual and full of shit. I rather read over San Adams dumb shit at times versus yours and that's saying alot.
obaminated Member	Mon Feb 12 12:20:22 "I am not going to watch an entire video" Dude, it is 10 minutes and it addresses everything you are arguing about while debunking it. You seem like a good guy, Seb. You respond to pricks and you stand your intellectual ground. That is awesome. But you need to understand that you are so wrong with this entire metoo movement shit. you are just wrong.
The Children Member	Mon Feb 12 12:42:39 #notmyhansolo
Seb Member	Mon Feb 12 12:43:11 Delude: No fucking shit Delude. Where in my post did I mention the OP? What led you to think I was talking about anything other than Obaminateds post. You do this alot.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 12 12:48:28 Obaminated: Ten minutes is a long time, and you haven't explained why it's worth engaging with. If I was referring you to a source, I'd at least talk about the bits salient and why they are relevant. You just posted a link and said "Bill Burr on it, I think most of us agree with his perspective ... and I suspect Seb is gonna disagree." From that its far from clear if it's addressing any of my points above. I'm not obliged to rescue review anything anyone posts on the off chance it addresses a point I've made. Is it so unreasonable to expect someone to say something like "well such and such a point, if you look 3 minutes in Bill Burr makes this point, which is very relevant".
Delude Member	Mon Feb 12 12:51:08 Seriously? Cold Rod point out this youre ignoring his link. Jergul comes in with his shit he doesn't look at it because of no text based argument. Then you echo the same comment. Cold rod counters that you care not looking at the link due to you whatever bullshit claim you make about Richard Spencer. Then I chime in and say you won't look at a video from Bill Maher show. And then you say this... "Delude: How do I know it's a video of Bill Maher? Obaminated says Bill Burr." So to answer your question you dishonest piece of shit. The moment you spoke to CR about his post.
Delude Member	Mon Feb 12 12:51:42 Dishonest Seb guess what you lie alot.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 12:52:40 Dishonest jergulsebrod claims he wasn't addressing the OP yet he was addressing me. LOL!
Seb Member	Mon Feb 12 12:53:03 When people talk about movements, that's broad. I'm sure there are some crazy people out there. But the basic gist: sexual abuse and harassment is alarmingly common experience for most women, that powerful men get away with it with near impunity, and institutions that are supposed to respond often don't, that women who come forward are often dismissed or suffer huge consequences while perpetrators are shielded so that literally only mass public reporting has had the slightest impact... yeah I'm very sympathetic.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 12:56:32 Jergulsebrod is about to have fit of revisionism in 3...2...
Seb Member	Mon Feb 12 13:01:02 Delude: What, I ignored Cold rods original link? Yeah, in absolutely did. Same reason as I passed on obaminateds. Other than Cold rod saying it'd annoy me, there's nothing to indicate it's the slightest relevance to anything. If cold rod has a point to make, he can make it. And if he can explain how the video supports that, I might look at the video.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 13:06:13 Which I did. Which was the purpose of the thread along with the topic youve been hounding about. Then even further the support of it when I addressed it later in the post. Lol.
Delude Member	Mon Feb 12 13:09:34 So in other words Seb, youre full of shit. Is that what I am getting? Ball is in your court. I pointed out why and how you addressed the OP only for you to then deny you did that. Even the god damn originator was you did. Yeah you're a dishonest pieces of shit. Own the fix up.
Delude Member	Mon Feb 12 13:10:07 Says* you did.
Delude Member	Mon Feb 12 13:12:38 Piece of shit* own the fuck up*
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 13:19:07 Jergulsebrod is so dishonest.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 12 14:36:04 Delude: It's very simple. My post here: "Seb Member Mon Feb 12 09:22:36 Cold Rod: What Jergul said..." Referred to this post here: "Cold Rod Member Sun Feb 11 18:12:01 dishonest seb avoids the link. lol what dishonesty" Which I believed at the time to refer to: "obaminated Member Sun Feb 11 12:46:10 Bill Burr on it, I think most of us agree with his perspective ... and I suspect Seb is gonna disagree. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZTYg2xx3ec" Which as you can see is not the OP. It was not until Cold Rod posted this "Cold Rod Member Mon Feb 12 12:52:40 Dishonest jergulsebrod claims he wasn't addressing the OP yet he was addressing me. LOL!" That I even realised anyone expected me to actually look at the OP, which is even less clearly relevant and in need of a response. Am I seriously supposed to go around the internet looking for videos that people assure me will irritate me, and watch them, in order to provide feedback as to whether that was the case? Take a step back. You are frothing at the mouth over an incredibly tedious non point which you have still managed to epically misunderstand. I reserve the right to completely ignore links that are not clearly signposted as being relevant to the debate at hand. Simply telling me I'm going to disagree with them or that they will cause me to "lose my shit" doesn't make them at all relevant to the discussion at hand. That's not dishonesty. I'm not sure you understand what the word means.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 14:40:34 Jergulsebrod revisionism. What did i say. Lol
Seb Member	Mon Feb 12 14:44:01 And you wonder why I don't really take you very seriously and am unlikely to click links you post!
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 14:46:41 Aww poor jergulsebrod. Is it because you don't like to address things that pretty much paint you as a hypocritical and dishonest asshole?
Forwyn Member	Mon Feb 12 14:47:52 I just want to note the hilarity of Seb wantonly accusing people of being Richard Spencer supporters. This is the lens through which he views his opposition.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 12 15:04:11 Cold Rod: Hey, you didn't even clearly say it painted me as a hypocrite! I might have watched it then, at a suitable juncture. The fact I consider your charges as carrying so little weight that I won't bother responding (given I'll happily argue the toss with anyone) says more about you than me I think. But I'm comfortable leaving it open to the reader to decide.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 15:29:47 I was just speaking in general. But, I forget, your deduction levels are rather low. But let allow me to fix your revisionism and time of events; 1. I made a post with your name on in a clearly antagonistic approach addressing a theme of threads regarding the '#metoo' movement. Nimatzo joins in and takes a jab too. You dodged the link in the OP(from the Bill Maher show) that addresses it from a different perspective of objectivity, which you clearly and have emphatically and adamantly opposed. 2. You make posts in the very same thread that you clearly know its addressed to you in the OP. 3. I make fun of you for it. 4. Jergul enters; "CR Avoids a youtube link? The outrage." (on the topic of the OP, and even if he wasn't addressing that, I clearly supported my reference of the OP with this statement.) 5. I said: ****I know, it's like an OP or something that pretty much gives the other perspective to bring a more neutral objectivity instead of attaching itself to the fringed side of the 'metoo' movement that takes way the real agenda of it. But of course, you may continue to attach yourself to the fringe group to exploit those that would not necessarily be justified to ridicule. Mob mentality at its best.**** This is demonstrating quite clearly what my link was talking about... 6. Jergul retorts; 'i don't argue without text. don't expect others to think' Where clearly from the OP, the theme of the many threads of this topic, including the previous comment I just made that substantially and very clearly emphasized the OP, thus a text based argument....you come in and go... 7. Jergulsebrod; 'yeah what he said.' 8. Both MT and myself made fun of you about not addressing links, plural mind you. So any reasonable person with some deductive reasoning skills, that apparently you lack, can see that you are ignoring sources from the both of us. THEN Delude asks; 9. Delude: "you wont watch a video from bill maher?" Let's take break here and address a few things. Any reasonable poster with some deductive reasoning would say that delude at this point in time based upon the interactions that previously took place that he was making fun of you and ridiculing you because you did not want to view a video from the OP that was from...the bill maher show. But, no, in jergulsebrod dishonest fashion you went to this... 10. Jergulsebrod; 'How do I know its a video of bill maher and not bill burr, obaminated said bill burr.' Yet in the same post you addressed me about a video and how you will have to find time. The post has been up for a couple of days, you had plenty of time to review it. Especially when it's a thread addressing you. So clearly there is a point to it. But you can sit there and remained dishonest if you like. 11. Delude then tells you that Obaminated was talking about his own post and link he provided, where delude was informing you that he was pointing out his reference was about my OP and it involving Bill Maher. But no... in jergulsebrod fashion it went to this... 12. You unable to use the lowest of deductive reasoning that you have, because you lack alot cannot piece together it clearly shows you were addressing me, that includes the topic about the OP, in the aforementioned points of this post that is now lead us to the present address of this very topic. Yes, the OP is in question and brought up even with your participation, where now you are denying you have partaken. You're so dishonest jergulsebrod.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 15:33:37 "Simply telling me I'm going to disagree with them or that they will cause me to "lose my shit" doesn't make them at all relevant to the discussion at hand. " Yet, we find you numerous times in threads addressing you in antagonistic nature. I guess it can't be relevant then since you participate in most of 'em. Interesting. #DishonestJergulSebRod
Seb Member	Mon Feb 12 16:01:38 Cold rod: Yes. And I ignored your post because it wasn't clear if there was any substance to it. I'm not going to waste my time reviewing every link to see if there is something substantive. I'm not obligated to, your OP doesn't present a case to answer, and you don't merit it. I actually came here to look to see if Nim responded to my comments in the last post I was talking to him in. I figured he'd have a bit of a bitch about it on a post directed at me. Yeah, I didn't read your response to jergul. In fact, I only picked up on your first post because I read jerguls post responding to it! As to my response to you using the word you, it was simply "you plural". You lot. The indifferentiated noise. What you fail to understand, is that absolutely no fucks whatsoever are given in any response by me to you. You have blown through the default capital of credibility and good will necessary for me to believe you are a serious interlocutor and not a tiresome troll. So, I respond to you as and when it entertains me you do so. Behave yourself a bit, and then maybe.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 16:44:33 "Yes. And I ignored your post because it wasn't clear if there was any substance to it. I'm not going to waste my time reviewing every link to see if there is something substantive. " Yes, we get it. You don't look at other peoples sources except your own. "I'm not obligated to, your OP doesn't present a case to answer, and you don't merit it. " Then do not participate in a thread that is addressing you about the specific topic and then have a spasm over it when you're called out about it being about you and you specifiying you wont address it because of it being antagonistic. "I actually came here to look to see if Nim responded to my comments in the last post I was talking to him in. I figured he'd have a bit of a bitch about it on a post directed at me." LOL sure, sure, jergulsebrod. "In fact, I only picked up on your first post because I read jerguls post responding to it! " monkey see monkey do. "What you fail to understand, is that absolutely no fucks whatsoever are given in any response by me to you. You have blown through the default capital of credibility and good will necessary for me to believe you are a serious interlocutor and not a tiresome troll." And this is what happens when jergulsebrod gets mad. "So, I respond to you as and when it entertains me you do so. " You're so dishonest.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 12 17:17:41 To be a source, it needs to be attached to an argument. "Seb will lose his shit" isn't an argument. I'll post where I like - blame Him for dragging your thread off topic. I'm not the one having a spasm, you are, because I didn't click on your link. I'm not mad, I'm bored. But your obvious irritation I won't click on your link is mildly diverting
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 17:36:07 "To be a source, it needs to be attached to an argument. " Seb rules? "I'll post where I like - blame Him for dragging your thread off topic. " Forgive us who think that you are capable of deductive reasoning to put two and two together based upon numerous threads about this topic. "I'm not the one having a spasm, you are, because I didn't click on your link. " No, I make fun of you because you are dishonest and care not about other perspectives about a topic that supports what the opposition is because you cannot refute it. "I'm not mad, I'm bored. But your obvious irritation I won't click on your link is mildly diverting" Oh really? "Seb Member Mon Feb 12 14:44:01 And you wonder why I don't really take you very seriously and am unlikely to click links you post! " Seem agitated to me. lol
Cold Rod Member	Mon Feb 12 17:40:29 So what is established is what was said earlier in this thread by multiple posters. So dishonest Seb and his sidekick won't look at sources provided that emphasizes a point regarding the topic they have been so adamant about. And claim due to "no text" they won't address it. Even though the point was made just previously. It will still not be considered because they didn't provide it. Good job jergulsebrod
delude Member	Mon Feb 12 17:53:04 "I just want to note the hilarity of Seb wantonly accusing people of being Richard Spencer supporters. This is the lens through which he views his opposition." Yes.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 13 08:15:39 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWEKhXQ6ugo
jergul large member	Tue Feb 13 08:16:26 I incidentally retract my objection. Providing sources without context is fun and easy.
Cold Rod Member	Tue Feb 13 09:16:35 Jergulsebrod is now admitting being too incapable of reading thread titles.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 13 10:53:33 entitledrod admitting to have flunked out of college after a few semesters.
Cold Rod Member	Tue Feb 13 11:25:41 Jergulsebrod doesn't even have a degree.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Feb 13 11:43:32 "Seb will lose his shit regarding #metoo" Why would Seb object to losing his shit? Personally, I make it a point to flush when I am finished dumping my load and I am quite sure that Seb does too. Very likely everyone on this forum does with the possible exception of paramount. Do you?
Cold Rod Member	Tue Feb 13 12:24:33 Hot rod has spent his entire life to understand figurative language, slang, or metaphors. To this date it is something he has yet conquered and very well may never.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 13 12:34:41 Cold rod: I'm not sure emphasise means what you think it means. If the thing being emphasised is itself unstated...
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Feb 13 12:42:03 "To this date it is something he has yet conquered and very well may never." Can anyone decipher that sentence? I'm not sure what he is trying to say.
Cold Rod Member	Tue Feb 13 13:33:20 Jergulsebrod you're proven dishonest. Hot rod, yes we know you can't read.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 13 14:58:43 I'm not sure you know what dishonest means either.
Cold Rod Member	Tue Feb 13 15:01:58 Sure do. With just about every post you make, jergulsebrod.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 14 01:35:36 Or proven. I don't think you know what that word means either.
Cold Rod Member	Wed Feb 14 05:21:53 Sure do. With just about every post you make, jergulsebrod.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 14 06:05:57 Whatever you need to tell yourself to get up in the morning entitledrod
Cold Rod Member	Wed Feb 14 06:20:54 Lol jergulsebrod
jergul large member	Wed Feb 14 09:56:15 lol entitledrod
Cold Rod Member	Wed Feb 14 10:49:23 Lol jergulsebrod
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Feb 14 12:19:08 Time to change your diapers kiddies.
Cold Rod Member	Wed Feb 14 12:21:38 Go fake your death.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Feb 14 12:23:53 LOL, now kiddie. You keep that up and I'll take your favorite rattler away from you.
Cold Rod Member	Wed Feb 14 12:36:42 Im not one of your victims, pedo rod
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Feb 14 14:42:30 Damn man, you are killing me with your creativity.
Cold Rod Member	Wed Feb 14 14:53:45 I know I am awesome.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Feb 14 14:59:39 "Awful some" Try using proper English or at least the proper words.
Cold Rod Member	Wed Feb 14 15:08:47 Hot rod's 8th grade education at work again.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: