welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2014-03-26: Sexy Pain
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You built your argument on top of your fuck up. People called you on it, you continued to fuck up. No one has to appreciate you or what you say here. For someone arguing about how you don't have to concern yourself with other people's needs, you sure are whining a lot about how people are being mean and not respecting your opinion.

If you don't like it, get the fuck out. All you have to do is log off and not come back.

If you want to stay -and- be respected, apologize for your bullshit and stop making more.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10898
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geareye wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:

Yes people could make that claim but I'd kind of like to see a little more backing that claim up than just treating it as statement of fact.


What sort of backing would you want? What sort of backing could even exist? If they claim they feel bad/hurt because of it, you can of course assume they're lying, but as far as backing goes...what do you want? A brain-wave test or something?

To be clear, I agree with your edit, people should be able to express their disapproval to kinksters, if they feel bad because of something they hear them say, but as far as whether the claim that this expression of disapproval or the need/obligation to censor themselves to avoid said expression of disapproval causes emotional/psychological harm/hurt to them is legitimate or not.....what would you want as proof that this is a legitimate claim?

If the best evidence they can come up with is that they feel bad, then I would accept that not being able to discuss their kink whenever and wherever they want has a total effect of making them sometimes feel bad. It's up to each of us to support our own arguments. If they wanted to claim greater harm then they need to figure out how to demonstrate it. I'd accept testimony for a lot - for instance, I have no reason to doubt OK-S has experience with PTSD - but it would depend on the severity of harm a person was trying to claim. Bigger claims require better evidence.

The expectations that people support their arguments with evidence and that it's up to them to produce it seem like sound rules to me.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Geareye wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:

Yes people could make that claim but I'd kind of like to see a little more backing that claim up than just treating it as statement of fact.


What sort of backing would you want? What sort of backing could even exist? If they claim they feel bad/hurt because of it, you can of course assume they're lying, but as far as backing goes...what do you want? A brain-wave test or something?

To be clear, I agree with your edit, people should be able to express their disapproval to kinksters, if they feel bad because of something they hear them say, but as far as whether the claim that this expression of disapproval or the need/obligation to censor themselves to avoid said expression of disapproval causes emotional/psychological harm/hurt to them is legitimate or not.....what would you want as proof that this is a legitimate claim?

If the best evidence they can come up with is that they feel bad, then I would accept that not being able to discuss their kink whenever and wherever they want has a total effect of making them sometimes feel bad. It's up to each of us to support our own arguments. If they wanted to claim greater harm then they need to figure out how to demonstrate it. I'd accept testimony for a lot - for instance, I have no reason to doubt OK-S has experience with PTSD - but it would depend on the severity of harm a person was trying to claim. Bigger claims require better evidence.

The expectations that people support their arguments with evidence and that it's up to them to produce it seem like sound rules to me.


I do think that someone who is responsible for making actual decisions that would affect either party does also bear some responsibility for seeking out more information on both sides, and giving opportunity for that backing-up to occur, and/or finding or assigning an advocate to do that work when the burden on an individual who is hurting would be too great to bear personally.

But, yes, in matters of logic, the burden of proof is on the side making a claim to demonstrate the truth of their claim, not on the other side to disprove it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get why someone would want to discuss their kink with someone else whom they are giving a literal panic attack to, for no other reason than they want to discuss it. That seems a little odd, and doesn't make me think you want to be respected as a person.

I don't mean just mentioning kink, either - because that can be done in a non-explicit way. I don't think BDSM itself should be shamed. Also, talking about rights with people who may not agree that you should have them is important - and there are folks who do try to take away the rights of adults to participate in freely consenting activities. I'm talking about discussing in explicit detail one's sexual activities and inclinations without warning, and without respect to social context.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 370

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sorry double post.

Last edited by OklahomanSun on Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 370

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
Rune wrote:
Dogen wrote:
Geareye wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:

Yes people could make that claim but I'd kind of like to see a little more backing that claim up than just treating it as statement of fact.


What sort of backing would you want? What sort of backing could even exist? If they claim they feel bad/hurt because of it, you can of course assume they're lying, but as far as backing goes...what do you want? A brain-wave test or something?

To be clear, I agree with your edit, people should be able to express their disapproval to kinksters, if they feel bad because of something they hear them say, but as far as whether the claim that this expression of disapproval or the need/obligation to censor themselves to avoid said expression of disapproval causes emotional/psychological harm/hurt to them is legitimate or not.....what would you want as proof that this is a legitimate claim?

If the best evidence they can come up with is that they feel bad, then I would accept that not being able to discuss their kink whenever and wherever they want has a total effect of making them sometimes feel bad. It's up to each of us to support our own arguments. If they wanted to claim greater harm then they need to figure out how to demonstrate it. I'd accept testimony for a lot - for instance, I have no reason to doubt OK-S has experience with PTSD - but it would depend on the severity of harm a person was trying to claim. Bigger claims require better evidence.

The expectations that people support their arguments with evidence and that it's up to them to produce it seem like sound rules to me.


I do think that someone who is responsible for making actual decisions that would affect either party does also bear some responsibility for seeking out more information on both sides, and giving opportunity for that backing-up to occur, and/or finding or assigning an advocate to do that work when the burden on an individual who is hurting would be too great to bear personally.

But, yes, in matters of logic, the burden of proof is on the side making a claim to demonstrate the truth of their claim, not on the other side to disprove it.




Classic.

Page 12 -- Rune says that the burden of proof sits with the person making the claim.

Page 11 -- Rune claims that everything I've said is irrelevant and wrong, but provides no examples and when I mention that, insists it's my responsibility to do it, not Rune's to back up the claims.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9585

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

this thread sure's been something
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10626
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, but in terms of train wrecks, this has been a minor derailment resulting in no loss of life and minimal property damage.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6566

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I couldn't even think of something funny to doodle about it.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
Page 12 -- Rune says that the burden of proof sits with the person making the claim.

Page 11 -- Rune claims that everything I've said is irrelevant and wrong, but provides no examples and when I mention that, insists it's my responsibility to do it, not Rune's to back up the claims.


Since reading comprehension isn't your strong suit: I didn't say "everything," I said "most." You're the one who keeps adding the absolute. So, just in case you're wondering, that's not the kind of thing that gets disproved by one example of something you said that wasn't totally fucked up. There have been a few of those. There have also, however, been a shit ton of lousy arguments with awful implications and continuing derails based on you defending your lousy arguments that were addressed as they arose. I said I wasn't going to dredge up examples, yes, because I (and others) have already argued your sorry ass into the ground plenty earlier on in this very thread. There's no need to produce a picture of bigfoot when he's already standing in the middle of the room, just because some lazy ass doesn't want to look to the side. You're not asking for arguments where they don't exist, you're asking for re-statements, and I'm saying no, I really don't care to say it again.

Nice try.

Most of my criticisms were stated to explain my own dismal opinion of your participation here, and you know what? You don't have to care. You really don't have to care in the least what my opinion of you is. There are a great many things--everything that is not participation on this forum, in fact--that will be entirely unaffected by my personal opinion of your participation here.

But here's the thing. You have proven to me that you have very little conversational integrity. You have proven to me that you're not really worth treating seriously. And now, to me, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that you actually are capable of enough logical and moral integrity that you're worth paying any amount of serious attention to, if you do, in fact, want me to treat you that way.

Oh, and, pro-tip: when you've shot your own credibility all to hell as badly as you have done, in both the realms of ethos and logos, you don't regain ground or defend yourself by trying to play silly gotcha games against the people you're trying to convince to take you seriously again. stripeypants already gave you a simple set of instructions on how to do that, if you do care.

Or, you know, just keep doing what you're doing and then asking for proof of what you're doing. That's certainly it's own kind of entertaining.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samsally wrote:
I couldn't even think of something funny to doodle about it.


May I suggest bigfoot tap-dancing in the middle of the room and a guy asking, "But do you have any proof?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 370

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
Page 12 -- Rune says that the burden of proof sits with the person making the claim.

Page 11 -- Rune claims that everything I've said is irrelevant and wrong, but provides no examples and when I mention that, insists it's my responsibility to do it, not Rune's to back up the claims.


Since reading comprehension isn't your strong suit: I didn't say "everything," I said "most." You're the one who keeps adding the absolute. So, just in case you're wondering, that's not the kind of thing that gets disproved by one example of something you said that wasn't totally fucked up. There have been a few of those. There have also, however, been a shit ton of lousy arguments with awful implications and continuing derails based on you defending your lousy arguments that were addressed as they arose. I said I wasn't going to dredge up examples, yes, because I (and others) have already argued your sorry ass into the ground plenty earlier on in this very thread. There's no need to produce a picture of bigfoot when he's already standing in the middle of the room, just because some lazy ass doesn't want to look to the side. You're not asking for arguments where they don't exist, you're asking for re-statements, and I'm saying no, I really don't care to say it again.

Nice try.

Most of my criticisms were stated to explain my own dismal opinion of your participation here, and you know what? You don't have to care. You really don't have to care in the least what my opinion of you is. There are a great many things--everything that is not participation on this forum, in fact--that will be entirely unaffected by my personal opinion of your participation here.

But here's the thing. You have proven to me that you have very little conversational integrity. You have proven to me that you're not really worth treating seriously. And now, to me, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that you actually are capable of enough logical and moral integrity that you're worth paying any amount of serious attention to, if you do, in fact, want me to treat you that way.

Oh, and, pro-tip: when you've shot your own credibility all to hell as badly as you have done, in both the realms of ethos and logos, you don't regain ground or defend yourself by trying to play silly gotcha games against the people you're trying to convince to take you seriously again. stripeypants already gave you a simple set of instructions on how to do that, if you do care.

Or, you know, just keep doing what you're doing and then asking for proof of what you're doing. That's certainly it's own kind of entertaining.


A few pro tips for you as well and some golf claps.

Golf clap for not actually addressing the fact that you made the comment earlier that people with claims should be the ones to supply information to back them up. We're still sitting at you claiming my points (however many you want to say) are irrelevant, but not doing anything to prove your point.

A pro tip -- It usually takes other people to conclude that you argued someone into the ground. This isn't usually something a person decides for themselves.

Another pro tip -- If you're claiming I shot my credibility to hell, I'd like to know where. Again with the unsubstantiated claims. The only reason I'm "playing gotcha games" on page 12 is because I'm responding to exactly the same tactics from you and people acting like you who are not engaging the topic, but mislabeling me.

You say I have little conversational integrity? I stayed in this thread for 11 pages trying to argue the various topics that branched off from the first page. It wasn't I that started the insults and the "irrelevant" and the "asshole" and the "fuck up" comments.

Please explain how arguing a position is in any way wiping out my "logical and moral integrity"?

You do realise the statements you've made there and the other ones are not designed to engage an argument, but designed to attack a person directly, regardless of their argument? They're used to discredit a person so that the argument doesn't need to be engaged.


I will take the time after this and summarise the comments I've made and put it on this thread. People will then have the opportunity to read them and make their own decision if I have any integrity. If people choose not to even read them, I'd expect them to avoid commenting, because I can assure you that insulting a person based on their comments without even reading them is actually a pretty good description of a person who has lost integrity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
Samsally wrote:
I couldn't even think of something funny to doodle about it.


May I suggest bigfoot tap-dancing in the middle of the room and a guy asking, "But do you have any proof?"


OMG please yes! That is wonderful.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6566

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
Rune wrote:
Samsally wrote:
I couldn't even think of something funny to doodle about it.


May I suggest bigfoot tap-dancing in the middle of the room and a guy asking, "But do you have any proof?"


OMG please yes! That is wonderful.


Omg you guys couldn't ask for something easy or anything? lol



I think the -real- question here is "Where does the yeti get his tap shoes?"
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think he'd have to get regular shoes from a yeti owned shop, and then he'd have to diy the tapping part.

I did find places that do custom tap shoes, but no one does them big enough for bigfoot.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 12 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group