Midnyte has destroyed this forum.

Braxter · Post by **Braxter** » July 11, 2007, 6:51 pm

Sueven wrote:The idea that you would physically attack me if we were having a conversation centered around some political disagreement and I tried to use logical argument is lunacy. I understand that you're using hyperbole here, but I'm honestly stunned that you typed that.

By all means, correct me if I'm wrong Kilmoll, but I think what Kilmoll meant was that this method of argumentation, while valued in certain settings, is not always welcome in others. Making logical arguments, backing them with evidence and presenting them in a clear, well thought out post, is often seen as pretentious snobbery. This is the very attitude satirized by Stephen Colbert when he quips, "I don't need facts to know I'm right, I feel it in my gut." More to the point, when someone argues like you do, it can come off sounding much like fluffed-up sophistry to the lay ear.

Kinda funny, I never thought that VV would make me reminisce about my philosophy classes so...gratz fags. Anyway, here's the skinny: Aristotelian rhetoric principles define three methods of argumentation: ethos, pathos, and logos. Respectively, they mean proving a point by invoking: a higher authority, emotional appeal, and logic. Granted, this is outdated taxonomy, but it applies.

The question of which mode of argumentation should be used in political discourse generally, or on this board specifically, is at the heart of his comments, and really this entire thread. Just about everyone has either been accused of or has admitted to using pathos, or emotional appeal, to win the argument. In this case of course, the emotional appeal is berating the arguer, pleasing the peanut gallery, and trolling. In fact, this very thread is based on an accusation that Funkmasterr and Midnyte use pathos too often and logos too rarely (an accusation which, as Xyun pointed out, can be made about both sides).

I personally prefer discussion based on substantiated, tenable arguments. I don't mind opinions at all, so long as those opinions are backed by sound reasoning, and not a regurgitation whatever some extremist pundit said on his/her radio show this afternoon. Actually even this would be fine if their arguments weren't so fucking riddled with flaws themselves.

But I think cutting all emotional appeal (read: attacks!) from the CE forum would be a disservice to the community at large. Frankly, I read posts here for a bunch of reasons, but chief among them is to witness the flying shitfest. Why anyone would leave such a spectacle is beyond me.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 11, 2007, 7:06 pm

I like Xyun more and more every day. Pretty soon I'll be humping his leg.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 11, 2007, 7:33 pm

Everyone should read Braxter's post and stop crying like a bunch of whiny bitches.

vvv and this vvv

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 11, 2007, 7:38 pm

Nick wrote:The idiotic assumption that if you were anti war means your a fucking liberal is half the reason everyone mocks the people who say it. Jesus christ that old fucking chestnut is a right pain in the arse. The reality is, I am not even a liberal, but god forbid you try telling that to some of the bleating retards here.

Kind of like those who call all "right wing" leaning people Neocons?

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 11, 2007, 8:22 pm

#1: Saying that backing up your arguments with facts makes you a snobbish elitist is a favorite ploy of people without the facts behind them to appeal to Joe Sixpack. If you are not going to debate using the facts, what exactly are you going to use?

#2: Mid and Winnow can be safely labled as neocons, but I think Funk is just along for the ride. Their everything in absolutes and might makes right, as long as it is white, philosphy is about as lockstep with neoconservativism as their quoted talking points are. I would also cite their blind worship of Reagan and us vs them stance on every issue, except when the party line directly conflicts with their self interests (specifically, the text messaging thread and anything involving religion) as ample evidence that supports my assertion. Adex and Metanis were the closest things I can recall that we had to true conservatives, and they are long gone. Their are certainly other people who made for some good discussions who have bailed, right, left, and center.

#3: This board IS all about personal entertainment, often at other people's expense, but I expect more of it than third grader one liners. This is why I had no issue with Cartalas being shown the door, especially when he blew up after being asked nicely to cut back on the signal to noise ratio. Kyo has certainly always trotted close on that line too, but she contributed to the discussion as well, plus she was not as relentless and simplistic as Cart was. Taken in the long term, Cartalas was not the worst poster in board history, but if you look closely at the last two years, 99% of his posts were one line personal insults (often three posts back to back) against people he doesn't like. Now, I am all for thread derailment if it makes for an entertaining side diversion, but having every single CE thread degenerate into Cart acting like 3rd grade bully who just discovered profanity was getting really old. If he had been the slightest bit repentant when he was asked to tone it down, I would have been the first person to defend him against a ban, but his reaction just was one step too far in my view. And, honestly, this thread has lost a lot of entertainment value for me because of Voronwe and Adex bailing on it, not Cart.

#4: Yes, a 'fnord' does run this board. They pay for it and operate it for our entertainment, so they can do whatever the hell they want with it. Some of us have donated, but we all know that does not cover it all and a donation is just that, a voluntary gift with no strings attached. The price of taking things too far for them is the loss of quality posters and entertainment, so they are not absolute dictators of this piece of internet real estate, but ultimately it is their's to do what they want with it.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 11, 2007, 8:44 pm

Aslanna wrote:Who all exactly does this mystical 'fnord' consist of? Just curious as it sure is referenced a lot by certain people.

Fnord is the sworn enemy of retard voltron but it's not important, so long as you realize you're in it.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 11, 2007, 9:01 pm

Xyun wrote:
Aslanna wrote:Who all exactly does this mystical 'fnord' consist of? Just curious as it sure is referenced a lot by certain people.
Fnord is the sworn enemy of retard voltron but it's not important, so long as you realize you're in it.

I seriously doubt that. What exactly are the requirements for membership?

I genuinely want to know what you think constitutes the "fnord" and who the members are.

And would that make Mid/Funk/etc Retard Voltron?

Sorry about all the questions but it has been shown that I am dimwitted so I need things to be explained more thoroughly than others may.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » July 11, 2007, 9:42 pm

Jice Virago wrote: #3: This board IS all about personal entertainment, often at other people's expense, but I expect more of it than third grader one liners.

/agree

And fuck you for leaving me out of the centrist fnord Jice! I never vote fucking Liberal: I'm an Albertan, which is Canadian for "shoot those gutless POS before they ruin our country... ooops too late".

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 11, 2007, 9:47 pm

I just get a sandy V when my movie threads get derailed. Otherwise I don't give a big floppy fuck.

As far as Cart, well, he was irritating, for sure. However, he wasn't very good at coming up with insults, despite his obvious thread research. More a fly than a wasp.

I don't think Mid believes half of what he says here, and is generally trolling as a form of protest.

There are others doing the same, of course. I suppose it all comes down to perception. I know some of my views differ wildly with others--at least in regards to the arts--arguing subjective matter can be kind of fun.

Politics are ALWAYS a touchy subject though, no matter where you stand...I am still embarassed about voting for W in 2000.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 11, 2007, 9:49 pm

Wulfran wrote:
Jice Virago wrote: #3: This board IS all about personal entertainment, often at other people's expense, but I expect more of it than third grader one liners.
/agree

And fuck you for leaving me out of the centrist fnord Jice! I never vote fucking Liberal: I'm an Albertan, which is Canadian for "shoot those gutless POS before they ruin our country... ooops too late".

Keep up that abrasive fucking language Wulfie and I will figure out how to reinstall EQ, register again, and raze Halas to the fucking ground (again).

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 11, 2007, 10:44 pm

miir wrote:Unlike Cartalas, I'm not stalking posters from forum to forum, insulting people on their physical appearance, using excessive and inappropriately violent profanity, and my contributions consist of more than one-line, misspelled grade-school insults.

The first part of this is obvious bullshit. I specifically remember you stalking people from the EQ2 forum into the WoW forum and completely shitting up the entire fucking forum for a week or more. You acted like a fucking child the entire fucking time and now you criticize cart for doing the same. Again, a blatant example of your hypocrisy which you cannot seem to grasp. I don't care if you're a nice guy and would love to have a beer with midnyte. I don't like either of you and doubt I could sit at a table with you for longer than 5 minutes without taking out a pistol and shooting myself in the head.

Please, if you can, justify how any of those things that you accuse cart of doing are bannable offenses in your mind, seeing as how you think you've never committed such haneous crimes. I can tell you this, I have done each and every one of those things at least once.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 11, 2007, 10:56 pm

Jice Virago wrote: The latest antic, namely treating the Cart ban like it was the 9/11 terrorist attack, is a perfect example of this.

that made me lol.

Cart still should have been hit with a week or two ban. Going for the Full Monty ban right off the bat was lame.

"he asked to be banned!" is the warcry of the liberal self help group on VV that exaggerates the situation just as much as any imagined neocon cult on this board.

There's no denying that it's in the touchy feely nature of this liberal group, with the bipolar fascist tendencies regarding the moderation of VV, to make each other feel good with support posts whenever one of them is questioned.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 11, 2007, 11:19 pm

Canelek wrote:Politics are ALWAYS a touchy subject though, no matter where you stand...I am still embarassed about voting for W in 2000.

in your defense, you can always say it was because you hadn't yet moved to the Left Coast

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 11, 2007, 11:29 pm

I suppose, but that would not be entirely true...I have always been more moderate than not. My excuse for 2000 was that I loathed Gore, his wife and his running mate (and still do).

In retrospect, however, I should have known that dimwit evil begets dimwit evil. =/

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 11, 2007, 11:38 pm

Holy hell how'd this turn into another thread about the infamous (but well justified) Cartalas banning?

(PS: He asked to be banned!)

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 12, 2007, 12:15 am

fixed...

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 12, 2007, 12:24 am

Xyun wrote:~pr0n~

For fuck's sake man... where's the NWS tag on this tread?

miir · Post by **miir** » July 12, 2007, 1:06 am

You're a retard dude.
Do you even understand the meaning of the word stalker
Name a single user I ever stalked.

Xyun wrote:Please, if you can, justify how any of those things that you accuse cart of doing are bannable offenses in your mind, seeing as how you think you've never committed such haneous crimes. I can tell you this, I have done each and every one of those things at least once.

I guess all those years of pot smoking have clouded your memory.

CARTALAS ASKED TO BE BANNED, YOU FUCKING NITWIT!

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 12, 2007, 1:16 am

In context I'd say he dared Sylvus to ban him, fully expecting he would and *surprise* he did.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 12, 2007, 1:45 am

He was provoked with threats of banning.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 12, 2007, 2:04 am

He was like an angry child running around with threats of making pipebombs in his Mom's basement. Dude, I am not saying he should have been banned, but a sympathetic figure he certainly is not.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 12, 2007, 5:16 am

aaaah, Alan Parsons to the rescue!

don't say words you're gonna regret
Don't let the fire rush to your head
I've heard the accusations before
And I ain't gonna take any more
Believe me
The sun in your eyes
Made some of the lies worth believing

I am the eye in the sky
Looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules
Dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind
And I don't need to see any more
To know that
I can read your mind, [looking at you] I can read your mind,[looking at you]

Don't leave false illusions behind
Don't cry, I ain't changing my mind
So find another fool like before
Cause I ain't gonna live anymore
Believing
Some of the lies
While all of the signs are deceiving

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 12, 2007, 9:39 am

Sueven wrote:Thanks Jice.

Kilmoll wrote:Let me say that I hate debate team type idiots....and even though I like Sueven I would probably choke the life out of him IRL if he started with those type tactics in a real conversation. being a good debater is not indicative of being correct.....it is about being a better argumentative jackass.
Kilmoll: I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "debate team type... tactics." All I can gather is that you're generally referring to arguing by analyzing what the other person has wrote and responding to it by pointing out internal inconsistencies, making counterpoints, positing hypotheticals, etc. The fact that someone is well-versed in techniques of logical argument does not make them right about everything. You're obviously right about that. Ideally, partners in a discussion will have an equal level of immersion in such techniques, and thus the outcome of the discussion will be driven by truth rather than technique. This is, of course, not always the case. You are certainly right that I'm heavily immersed in this sort of discourse. While I was never a debater, I was a public speaker, I've studied formal logic and law, and I've worked in academic and legal settings where this sort of discourse is highly valued. I debate this way because I've been trained to, and it's a natural form of communication to me. I certainly don't think that I'm right about everything because I present my arguments in this fashion.

That said, there is a reason that "debate team type tactics" are valued in contexts, like law and academia, where people with divergent views must discuss/argue to bring themselves closer to a true or correct answer. The reason is because use of such techniques help you to communicate. They help you to understand what someone else is saying. They help you to present what you think. They allow you to pinpoint areas of disagreement and focus on those areas. And so on...

When people are trying to have an actual political discussion or argument, they should be encouraged to USE LOGIC to whatever extent they're capable. That doesn't mean that people ought to sit back, present no argument, use words like syllogism and fallacy, and assume that their vocabulary makes them the winner. But if someone points out a real fallacy, that's a good thing.

The idea that you would physically attack me if we were having a conversation centered around some political disagreement and I tried to use logical argument is lunacy. I understand that you're using hyperbole here, but I'm honestly stunned that you typed that.

I am talking about some of the people using false information and using their 1337 skills to put forth an invalid argument...and then having 25 people back it up and applaud. It happens pretty regularly. Now granted for being a liberal, you are still the most centrist poster on here that would ever consider themselves a liberal.....and I am not sure I could back up with proof that you have done this, but others definitely have and do. 99% of the time the irritant posters have absolutely zero information other than what they can google or "hear" about (lets hear it for our foreign brigade). I could walk outside right now, drive my car deliberately into a building and post about it and 10 fucking idiots would google the accident and post a differeing story of how it happened and why.....and another 15 would argue with my rebuttal and give sloppy handjobs to the others.

And for the record, I abhor lawyers and anyone else who professionally distorts facts (media included) or makes their living distorting facts by taking them and using them in contexts to "prove" their case. So not everyone appreciates this....and quite fankly the lawyerisms are one of the things that have destroyed the US legal system.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 12, 2007, 10:34 am

Frankly, what's more annoying is being branded a liberal by people who lower the level of discourse simply because they are too opinionated to ever hear reason unless it's of the brand delivered by some gun toting southern drawling pro oil pro war wrangler.

The hypocrisy from people like Kilmoll, Funk and Mid in this thread is absolutely incredible. The reality is, facts and debate were used for years in this place and it was you who ignored all of it in favour of being partisan hacks. Only since everything went tits up for the conservative right in your country, home and abroad, did you all decide to pussy out and cry and bitch and become pseudo Carts. Or just run away like Kilmoll did.

The only reason you fucking losers think its a circlejerk is because you're the ones who don't bother to get involved in reasonable debate or factual discourse.

Of course we both know I have more chance of single handedly stopping the Iraq war than getting any of you thickheaded chumps to realise your own hypocrisy.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 12, 2007, 11:09 am

Winnow wrote:He was provoked with threats of banning.

I think Sylvus handled the situation in a very reasonable manner.
If you feel otherwaise, that is your prerogative.

The precedent set in this situation is as follows:

If you continually break either one or both of the Veeshan Vault rules and the mods receive multiple complaints about your posts, you might run the risk of being banned after 4-5 years.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 12, 2007, 11:10 am

Especially if you ask to be banned!

Post by **Sylvus** » July 12, 2007, 11:47 am

For the NWS image that Xyun posted in this forum, please click on this NWS link to enter the NWS forum and view it. It wasn't moved because my name is on it, or because of some fictional fnord or anything along those lines. It was moved because there were complaints that it was NWS, and it was, since most of us don't work in OBGYN offices.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 12, 2007, 12:03 pm

Sylvus wrote:For the NWS image that Xyun posted in this forum, please click on this NWS link to enter the NWS forum and view it. It wasn't moved because my name is on it, or because of some fictional fnord or anything along those lines. It was moved because there were complaints that it was NWS, and it was, since most of us don't work in OBGYN offices.

Nazi mods. I'm disgusted by this abuse of power!

What I get from Xyun's lack of a real response is that 'the fnord' is simply a straw man they bust out everytime they feel they are being unjustly treated or persecuted and has no other real meaning whatsoever. A bit like how they use the term "liberals."

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 12, 2007, 12:28 pm

Kilmoll wrote:I am talking about some of the people using false information and using their 1337 skills to put forth an invalid argument...and then having 25 people back it up and applaud. It happens pretty regularly. Now granted for being a liberal, you are still the most centrist poster on here that would ever consider themselves a liberal.....and I am not sure I could back up with proof that you have done this, but others definitely have and do. 99% of the time the irritant posters have absolutely zero information other than what they can google or "hear" about (lets hear it for our foreign brigade). I could walk outside right now, drive my car deliberately into a building and post about it and 10 fucking idiots would google the accident and post a differeing story of how it happened and why.....and another 15 would argue with my rebuttal and give sloppy handjobs to the others.

Fair enough, but that's not "debate team type tactics," that's "third grade bully type tactics." Further, I think you're overestimating how many liberals participate in this kind of argumentative circle-jerk. I don't do it (most of the time at least, maybe someone could pull up an example if they tried). Xyun certainly isn't in the club (look at this thread for instance). I think you're conflating "people who disagree with me" with "people who disagree with me and are assholes about it."

Kilmoll wrote:And for the record, I abhor lawyers and anyone else who professionally distorts facts (media included) or makes their living distorting facts by taking them and using them in contexts to "prove" their case. So not everyone appreciates this....and quite fankly the lawyerisms are one of the things that have destroyed the US legal system.

The fact that lawyers have a tendency to distort facts has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity and usefulness of logical argument. In a good logical argument, the target of the distortion would say something along the lines of "this proposition of yours is a distortion because you ignore fact X and context Y. The more accurate statement would be..." Distortions are only effective when the other party is unable to recognize and explain the distortions. Logical argument is the solution, and not the cause, of fact distortion.

Additionally, you're welcome to think whatever you like about lawyers and the legal system. But please keep in mind that our legal system is set up to be intentionally adversarial. The lawyers are supposed to make the most powerful possible arguments on their respective side. It is their job to minimize the arguments and facts supporting their opponents-- not because lawyers are assholes, but because that is the inherent structure of our legal system. The decisionmaker then is supposed to adjudicate between these extreme arguments and arrive at a good solution. Many countries-- France, for instance-- do things differently, without the extreme advocacy. Such a system is certainly a possibility. But please be aware that your critique is not appropriately levelled at lawyers per se, but rather at the fundamental nature of the U.S. legal system. It's unfair to say that "lawyerisms" have destroyed the U.S. legal system-- if you believe this, then it was already broken when it was created.

Aslanna wrote:What I get from Xyun's lack of a real response is that 'the fnord' is simply a straw man they bust out everytime they feel they are being unjustly treated or persecuted and has no other real meaning whatsoever. A bit like how they use the term "liberals."

Right, because Xyun is known to regularly use "liberal" as a pejorative.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 12, 2007, 12:37 pm

Xyun was obviously brown nosing Sylvus, giving him the best part!

Besides spam and some NWS stuff, this place should be able to govern itself simply by members raising and lowering attention levels to individual posters. That's not a new concept. "Feeding the troll" has been around for a long time.

Post by **Sylvus** » July 12, 2007, 12:39 pm

Ashur wrote:In context I'd say he dared Sylvus to ban him, fully expecting he would and *surprise* he did.

And it wasn't the first time. He was repeatedly warned. I know for certain warnings were given, in public, at least as far back as 2004 (that's 3 years ago), about rules he was violating, to which he responded to me "fuck you and the fat fuck". He got warnings in private, in public, everywhere.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BANNING OF CARTALAS. He wasn't banned because "the fnord's" feelings were hurt. Shit, most of the complaints that came in weren't about him hurting people's feelings. They were about his juvenile bullshit killing conversation. Intelligent conversation or flamewar, it matters not. I don't give a fuck if people want to start flamewars, if you haven't noticed by now, I love flamewars. I like to participate in them. Regardless of your opinion on my abilities, I fancy myself a competent participant, and it entertains me to write them. It entertains me to read them.

He got warnings because he ruined every thread he touched, and I had hoped that the warnings would curb that to some degree. If you'll notice, they were empty warnings for 4 or 5 years. They most likely would have continued to be empty threats, except for the fact that he called me out on it, for not the first time. And it was at that point, after he'd done enough damage where he did actually drive people away (and that he did I have no doubts), and after he had done everything short of clicking the ban button himself, I pulled the trigger. Not because we had differing political philosophies, to be honest I don't even know what he believes about anything other than that miir is a faggot and dregor is fat and kyoukan either was fucked by her dad or needed to be fucked by her dad or some other inane bullshit that he harped on over and over and over again. But yeah, ha ha, he was so fucking amusing! What a terrible loss to the community. He didn't engage in flaming to any degree greater than throwing out a cussword now and again, he didn't add to a single conversation that has ever happened here, he had a grasp of english grammar that my barely literate 7 year-old nephew would have laughed at... Seriously, fuck him.

I hereby declare invocation of cartalas' banning against anyone other than myself to be invalid. Have all the fights you want left vs. right, but his banning had nothing to do with anyone but me, so please don't blame it on an imaginary fnord or anything of the sort. Maybe I'm an asshole, I don't really give a shit. I've been reasonable as far as moderation goes for a number of years and in a myriad of situations. If you feel I was unreasonable in this one case, that's unfortunate. Have all the academic discussions you like about the relative worth of various posters on this board. For example, this thread, I already made it clear that I am in full agreement with it. Does that mean that anyone is getting banned? Nope. Does that mean that you've got carte blanche to do whatever you like? Nope, not forever anyway. Constantly violate the rules and I'll probably let it slide for as long as you haven't pissed me off too much or issued a challenge. Depending on the day I might just accept that challenge.

And as someone said earlier in this thread, (forgive the use of the third person) learn the difference between Sylvus the moderator and Sylvus the poster. Sylvus the moderator has banned ONE person after NUMEROUS warnings over FIVE years. And the majority of the posters on this board, in at least 2 polls posted over those 5 years, agreed with that banning. Not that Sylvus the moderator really gave a shit. If he had, cartalas would have been gone years ago after the results of the first poll asking for him to be banned.

The only thing I'm going to do if you have a difference of opinion or if I think you're a douchebag is flame you or insult you or something similar. Please do not hesitate to do the same to me, I welcome it. Now can we please drop the subject of cartalas? I'm about a pussy hair away from abusing my power again by putting in a filter on that name.

Thank you and fuck you,
Sylvus

Post by **Sylvus** » July 12, 2007, 12:42 pm

Winnow wrote:Xyun was obviously brown nosing Sylvus, giving him the best part!

That was pink-nosing, get it straight.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 12, 2007, 2:00 pm

Why are you letting them drudge this up again?

edit. And no I'm not saying "DELETE THE MESSAGES!". What I mean is, why are you responding to them, again, when you've explained the why 20 times already.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 12, 2007, 2:00 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I am talking about some of the people using false information and using their 1337 skills to put forth an invalid argument...and then having 25 people back it up and applaud. It happens pretty regularly. Now granted for being a liberal, you are still the most centrist poster on here that would ever consider themselves a liberal.....and I am not sure I could back up with proof that you have done this, but others definitely have and do. 99% of the time the irritant posters have absolutely zero information other than what they can google or "hear" about (lets hear it for our foreign brigade). I could walk outside right now, drive my car deliberately into a building and post about it and 10 fucking idiots would google the accident and post a differeing story of how it happened and why.....and another 15 would argue with my rebuttal and give sloppy handjobs to the others.

And for the record, I abhor lawyers and anyone else who professionally distorts facts (media included) or makes their living distorting facts by taking them and using them in contexts to "prove" their case. So not everyone appreciates this....and quite fankly the lawyerisms are one of the things that have destroyed the US legal system.

Let me get this straight... The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for you was a discussion about evolution. Anyone that presented an opinion based upon evidence that had been observed and confirmed using the scientific method (which according to you, btw, is bunk because science is almost universally wrong about everything) was merely spewing lawyerly rubbish. Yet your own "facts," which were based purely on your own feelings and foolish imaginings (because a magic book tells you so!!), that some bogeyman willed our universe into existence a few thousand years ago were unassailable constructs of logical perfection. All the while, those with whom you disagreed are the ones that are off base. Am I missing something? Your latest meltdown isn't even unique in your post history, nor is it isolated to just you. You, and others, frequently eschewed fact in favor of your own odd opinions and pointed your finger at others when they make the slightest effort to rebut your foolishness with little things the rest of the world calls facts and data. We're the ones that are fucked up, though. I get it now.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 12, 2007, 2:08 pm

You are brutal and relentless. Your attacks on people and everything they do, say, feel and are.....are horrible. I can completely understand why many people have run from this board. This board has seen an exodus and this forum might in fact be "ruined" or different than it once was, but it is of no fault of mine. I have barely even been a part of this forum for a very long time. I would think it much more a fault of the fnord and your attacks and relentless bullshit against people who think differently than you. The recent posts by many others in this thread have confirmed it. Your inability to look inward and think you might possibly be at fault for something, is the problem.

Post by **Sylvus** » July 12, 2007, 2:22 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:You are brutal and relentless. Your attacks on people and everything they do, say, feel and are.....are horrible. I can completely understand why many people have run from this board. This board has seen an exodus and this forum might in fact be "ruined" or different than it once was, but it is of no fault of mine. I have barely even been a part of this forum for a very long time. I would think it much more a fault of the fnord and your attacks and relentless bullshit against people who think differently than you. The recent posts by many others in this thread have confirmed it. Your inability to look inward and think you might possibly be at fault for something, is the problem.

Nope, it's you that's the problem.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 12, 2007, 2:32 pm

Sylvus wrote: Maybe I'm an asshole

Nod.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 12, 2007, 2:33 pm

Xatrei wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I am talking about some of the people using false information and using their 1337 skills to put forth an invalid argument...and then having 25 people back it up and applaud. It happens pretty regularly. Now granted for being a liberal, you are still the most centrist poster on here that would ever consider themselves a liberal.....and I am not sure I could back up with proof that you have done this, but others definitely have and do. 99% of the time the irritant posters have absolutely zero information other than what they can google or "hear" about (lets hear it for our foreign brigade). I could walk outside right now, drive my car deliberately into a building and post about it and 10 fucking idiots would google the accident and post a differeing story of how it happened and why.....and another 15 would argue with my rebuttal and give sloppy handjobs to the others.

And for the record, I abhor lawyers and anyone else who professionally distorts facts (media included) or makes their living distorting facts by taking them and using them in contexts to "prove" their case. So not everyone appreciates this....and quite fankly the lawyerisms are one of the things that have destroyed the US legal system.
Let me get this straight... The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for you was a discussion about evolution. Anyone that presented an opinion based upon evidence that had been observed and confirmed using the scientific method (which according to you, btw, is bunk because science is almost universally wrong about everything) was merely spewing lawyerly rubbish. Yet your own "facts," which were based purely on your own feelings and foolish imaginings (because a magic book tells you so!!), that some bogeyman willed our universe into existence a few thousand years ago were unassailable constructs of logical perfection. All the while, those with whom you disagreed are the ones that are off base. Am I missing something? Your latest meltdown isn't even unique in your post history, nor is it isolated to just you. You, and others, frequently eschewed fact in favor of your own odd opinions and pointed your finger at others when they make the slightest effort to rebut your foolishness with little things the rest of the world calls facts and data. We're the ones that are fucked up, though. I get it now.

You show me proof there is no God and I will gladly call myself erroneous. Scientific method is all based off of theories. Scientists keep working to support or disprove their theories constantly. Now who knows what the future will hold, but as of the 1400's, they thought the earth was flat.....in addition to a whole myriad of other incorrect theories. So...until you can prove something, then do not flaunt that as fact. Thanks for bringing this up to be a perfect example of exactly what I was talking about. I await the rest of your clan to jump on board in 5.....4.......3.....2.....

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 12, 2007, 2:35 pm

Isn't the onus on you to prove that something does in fact exist before you can go around asking others to prove it doesn't?

miir · Post by **miir** » July 12, 2007, 2:37 pm

You show me proof there is no God and I will gladly call myself erroneous.

I'll do that as soon as you prove creationist theory.

Deal?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 12, 2007, 2:42 pm

I am not asking you to prove it. I am asking you to prove it before you pronounce it as fact. Until such time as you can prove this to be a known factual statement, I will invoke Sueven's Law of Debate and call this entire line of argument invalid.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 12, 2007, 2:45 pm

So Midnyte is part of the clan? I think we need an org chart over here.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 12, 2007, 2:49 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You show me proof there is no God and I will gladly call myself erroneous. Scientific method is all based off of theories. Scientists keep working to support or disprove their theories constantly. Now who knows what the future will hold, but as of the 1400's, they thought the earth was flat.....in addition to a whole myriad of other incorrect theories. So...until you can prove something, then do not flaunt that as fact. Thanks for bringing this up to be a perfect example of exactly what I was talking about. I await the rest of your clan to jump on board in 5.....4.......3.....2.....

I have a clan? When did this happen? Why wasn't I notified? There are so many cool things I could have been doing previously if only I had known.

I'm with Mid on this one, as it's one of the few areas in which we agree on much. Prove to me that your god(s) exist. If you wish to make such an extraordinary claim that such supernatural things are a part of our natural world, then it is you that must provide the extraordinary proof. Yes, scientific understanding is constantly evolving, but the underlying method doesn't change. Some things may never be entirely provable, but when the entirety of mankind's scientific understanding reduces the statistical likelihood that such fantasies might be true to the point of them not being worthy of consideration, I'll side with the big brains over the witchdoctors any day.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 12, 2007, 2:49 pm

MAN invented the IDEA of GOD even existing. That is why the onus is on the believer to prove it, because it's complete nonsense that MAN created. I swear there is more productive debate over whether the FNORD exists and who's in it.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 12, 2007, 2:53 pm

Xatrei wrote: Some things may never be entirely provable, .

You are admitting then that it is not proveable?

miir · Post by **miir** » July 12, 2007, 2:54 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Xatrei wrote: Some things may never be entirely provable, .
You are admitting then that it is not proveable?

You fail at reading comprehension.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 12, 2007, 2:57 pm

Didn't Kilmoll leave in a huff NEVER TO RETURN AGAIN? Maybe god created him to be a weak bastard.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 12, 2007, 2:58 pm

OK this i simple even for you miir......can you prove or disprove the existence of God? I want nothing more than yes or no. This does not require any explanation whatsoever. If you need me to put in a checkbox, then have someone else send me a PM.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 12, 2007, 3:00 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You are admitting then that it is not proveable?

Admitting implies that I've previously said otherwise. I never have denied that one cannot prove the god(s) do not exist, just as one cannot prove that they do exist. Prove to me that a giant, invisible and all powerful bacon and tomato sandwich doesn't exist and that it didn't create the universe as we know it. The statistical likelihood that gods, God or the Ethereal Bacon and Tomato Sandwich (tm) exist are so small as to be unworthy of consideration, and so I don't waste my time believing in such foolishness.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 12, 2007, 3:04 pm

Xatrei wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You are admitting then that it is not proveable?
I never have denied that one cannot prove the god(s) do not exist, just as one cannot prove that they do exist.

You can't follow instructions, but close enough for a liberal I guess.

So what we now know is that this is, by your own admission, an unproveable theory that you are using as factual basis for your arguments. thank you.