ClumsyMonkey.net

Rusty wrote:Not that I care to get involved, but I'd just like to point something out. You say that you aren't ignorant, yet I've been reading your arguments and they are pretty bad. I can count several illogical fallacies in almost all of them. These illogical fallacies do nothing to help your argument they merely draw attention away from any source of logic. I would explain what an illogical fallacy is, but I'm sure such an "extremely well read" individual like yourself will have some knowledge of basic philosophy.

are you sure you want to bark up this tree? considering the term you're searching for is "logical fallacies", not ILLOGICAL fallacies, i can assure you know i know what it is you are referring to, and furthermore that i have committed none.

but you are welcome, nay, encouraged, to bring up any issue with anything i've said, ESPECIALLY if it pertains to logic.

Chris....Doug, i miss the olde days, when we'd have beaten the hell out of our arguments and in the end we had outright respect for each other and in the end we walked away understading the opposition a little more.

That being said, i think it's time we had ourselves a revival.

The main reason we have the right to bear arms in the US is so that the government cannot trample us because we are the grass underneath their hooves. in that respect, we should always have that option.

but we should not allow dangerous people with bad histories to arm themselves to the teeth.

that's where i stand.

An armed populace is the only real "check" on government power.

Unfortunately I see no way to prevent dangerous people from getting guns in a free society, because in order to stop them we would have to become dangerous people ourselves.

true, but wouldn't we already be dangerous to the government because we're armed? so being dangerous to the dangerous is...ok?


wait....what?

As V put it in the film, violence can be used for good. I would say that violence is only acceptable when

1) You are defending your life, liberty or property
2) You are overthrowing the man.

true, but i would also add on to your 2 points that violence can be used to keep those who seek to destroy civilization at bay.

Wow this decended into the depths of hell pretty quick....

I'd say that all involved, including MOD's should just leave it alone for a bit. People are getting way to upset over something trivial. I'd like to say, in Chris's defense that in several cases moderator's have abused or misused their power from time to time on this board. Esspecially over the last year or so. But in almost all cases Rob has been fair and reasonable. I think we just need to let this cool down a bit so everyone can look at this clearly without passion obstructing their vision.

I would like to add though, that locking of Chris's Censorship thread was un-needed. It's very likely it was a sarcastic jab at misuse of mod powers, but he remained civil in the thread, and it had a legitimate argument in it.


Anyways, sorry to drag this off topic again but I want to touch on something I said in my earlier post. How would one, in a Anarchist world protect oneself from groups classifying themselves and banding together? As human beings naturally act in this way, how would you protect yourself from these renegade violent groups? Or even assuming most wouldn't be violent, are they not just forming another form of government? What's to stop certain people from taking advantage of a lack of organization? How would one stop these people from taking what they wanted, killing whom they wished, and pressing their views upon other beings? And if weaponization is the cure then how do we stop the endless violence it would entail?

Wow and I thought I had a lot of backlash over my "emo people are whiny", and the whole homosexuality and religion threads.....[/i]

mosaik wrote:Would it be fair to say then that you rely first on your own judgement when somebody confronts you over a comment you said that offended them?

No, I don't believe it would be fair to say that, and I'm not quite sure how you got to this conclusion. But I'm not going to get into it since this thread seems to have worked it's way back to the topic.

i pulled it off.

mosaik wrote:As V put it in the film, violence can be used for good. I would say that violence is only acceptable when

1) You are defending your life, liberty or property
2) You are overthrowing the man.

I don't think that violence at any point is acceptable. Can I ask what you mean by 'overthrowing the man'? I love that statement.

Wait..I read this after I posted and....I guess if you were defending your life and you HAD to use violence, then it could be justified.

mosaik wrote:I understand that you and rob and god knows who else either own this board or have been appointed by the owner to enforce rules that the owner and his admins agree with. I don't have an issue with any of that. What i find offensive about your behavior is your refusal to have the reasoning behind your rules and your actions debated in public.

...

I wonder if you're made of the same stuff that they are. You think starvingeyes should be controlled, well I'm asking why. Do you have the conviction to answer?

Yes, I do. Though I hate to drag this thread back off topic again, you wanted a response from me, so I feel need to answer.

"Controlled" is a harsh word for it. All we're asking of him is that he doesn't post offensive cracks, jokes and what-have-you on the board. And if he does accidentally offend anyone, he apologize for it and simply move on, rather than getting his panties all in a bunch and attacking the people he's already upset by offending.

It's not a hard concept. It's civil discussion. Maybe he's not used to that on other messageboards, but we have respect for each other and each other's feelings on this board.

... Well, I (clearly) don't have any respect for his, but that's because he's proven time and time again to me that he doesn't deserve my respect. But that's a personal issue between the two of us. He can call me names til he's blue in the face for all I care, just don't say stuff that upsets my friends (read: other CMers).

starvingeyes wrote:i think the fact that you are so drunk with power and self righteous zeal over this mod position on a tiny back of the web OLP board speaks volumes about your personality. i can only imagine what a person like you would be like if you were say, the manager of mcdonalds.

It's amusing you think that my issues with you and my readiness to be honest with my feelings about you have anything to do with "power". Yes, I'm an admin. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said to you on this board.

If I were "drunk with power", I would have banned you long ago. But instead, I've conversed back and forth with you for days.

I've brought the issue of you up with the other mods in the mods forum, yes. I did that because I don't just go banning people without the other mods/admins agreeance. But hey, I'm drunk with power! I guess getting a vote on this instead of doing it on my own is just me being self righteous.

nikki, almost every person to a man that i have spoken with on this board regarding you describes you as "drunk with power". it is literally the first thing people say about you when asked, the second being "bitch".

congratulations. you know, i am widely unpopular on this board, that much i'll happily admit. however, so are you. the difference between us is, you don't know it. people pretend to like you and then they talk shit about you behind your back.

you have less friends on this board than me. this is because you've got a serious inferiority complex, which i suppose is well deserved considering your station in life. you and other mentally comprimised adults who need a real life which run this board have turned it into your own personal "cool kid club".

while i am softening my stance a bit, i still think the way you guys run the message board is ridiculous. you don't even pretend to be fair or impartial, it's hilarious. in fact, despite the fact that matt readily admits that he was way out of line to edit my posts, and despite the fact that this situation is largely a result of that one, he is still considering banning me over the fight that HE started.

that's some nice logic there.

I AM ME wrote::GASP:
I'd say that all involved, including MOD's should just leave it alone for a bit. People are getting way to upset over something trivial. I'd like to say, in Chris's defense that in several cases moderator's have abused or misused their power from time to time on this board. Esspecially over the last year or so. But in almost all cases Rob has been fair and reasonable. I think we just need to let this cool down a bit so everyone can look at this clearly without passion obstructing their vision.

I would like to add though, that locking of Chris's Censorship thread was un-needed. It's very likely it was a sarcastic jab at misuse of mod powers, but he remained civil in the thread, and it had a legitimate argument in it.

this type of talk is likely to get you banned for association. while i appreciate the support i don't want anybody else getting banned on account of me, so next time just fire me a PM.

Anyways, sorry to drag this off topic again but I want to touch on something I said in my earlier post. How would one, in a Anarchist world protect oneself from groups classifying themselves and banding together? As human beings naturally act in this way, how would you protect yourself from these renegade violent groups? Or even assuming most wouldn't be violent, are they not just forming another form of government? What's to stop certain people from taking advantage of a lack of organization? How would one stop these people from taking what they wanted, killing whom they wished, and pressing their views upon other beings? And if weaponization is the cure then how do we stop the endless violence it would entail?

we would not attempt to stop people from doing anything, up to and including forming their own "governments". all we would try and stop them from doing is imposing those governments on us.

Yes, I'm sure you talk to the people on this board who truly matter to me.

I am in no way insecure. I also am in no way gullible. Try again, buddy.

Good job avoiding everything I said in my post, by the way.

Chris,

I know that you've thrown down the gauntlets or whatever, but there's no need for personal attacks from any party involved (no, not just you). You spoke out against personal attacks against you, so the least you can do is not use them against others (even if they use them against you).

No, he can do it all he wants, Robbo. I honestly don't care what he has to say about me.

Thanks, though.

haha, alrighty Just do it in PMs then. There's no reason for personal attacks to be exchanged (by anyone) all over the board.

Axtech wrote:haha, alrighty Just do it in PMs then. There's no reason for personal attacks to be exchanged (by anyone) all over the board.

Thankyou!

i don't really consider them to be personal attacks, just object statements of truth. the reality is, the way you matt and nikki act absolutely REEKS of small people (or people who think/feel small) trying to act big.

i know you don't want to hear that and i know it's not going to get through. i know, in fact, that you are going to use this post as further evidence that i am a shit disturber. you are right, i am. however, the shit i'm disturbing is going to HELP this board, not hinder it.

as i have said before, with the departure of my debate partners (most of whom who have now attributed their leaving this message board due to over moderation. i know you're going to ignore that, but this is the feedback i've been getting.), i don't care if you ban me or not, i know it's in the works no matter what i do.

the only reason i am continuing to bring this up is because in the case of rob, i used to think you were cool, and in the course of this conflict, i have found out that there are several others who USED to think you were cool as well. the fact that i now have to preface that with USED to kind of upsets me, so i'm merely trying to bring you back to earth.