Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: The liberal reign of terror on this forum
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I don't find it funny.  I find it very sad that people have to resort to a barrage of caustic remarks/insults.  It only escalates the hatred, and the differences don't go away.
Ah, good. I didn't think this would happen so quickly - this way, he can't make the claim that he wasn't aware of the forum rules.

Report will be written and submitted today.

Max the Bear Wrote:
You are wrong.


Why?

Max the Bear Wrote:

Simen Wrote:

Max the Bear Wrote:
You are wrong.


Why?


Probably due to your rhetorical tone-deafness and lack of comprehension that language has broad and complex meanings that can't be reduced to exercises in formal logic.


Both I, Illusion and Pikajedi understood the charitable and correct interpretation, yet you keep insisting that your knee-jerk reaction is correct. Even after clarifications. Astonishing.

Your post wasn't based on an actual understanding on the post you were replying to, but on what I can only guess was an emotional response to seeing pedophile and homosexual in the same sentence. Hence "knee-jerk". I can see why Illusion feels demonised.

ocampo Wrote:
No, you understood your interpretation in a way that was 'correct' for you. It doesn't mean it has to be 'correct' for anyone else.


Ahem. I read the sentence. If you interpret "I went to the mall today" as "I massacred ten people in a mall today", the interpretation isn't correct "for you", it's simply wrong. This was one of those cases where an actual reading of the post in question reveals the real meaning, and reveals that the attributes meaning was wrong.

Quote:
Oh, and a little tip Simen - if you want people to come around to your way of thinking, telling them that they're 'wrong' and insisting that they are wrong and you are right usually doesn't assist your case. It does however make people dig their heels in more and not want to listen to you.


Why don't you tell Max the same. He was, after all, the one who thought a one-sentence post with the two words "you're wrong" was a valuable contribution to this thread.

ocampo Wrote:

Simen Wrote:
Your post wasn't based on an actual understanding on the post you were replying to, but on what I can only guess was an emotional response to seeing pedophile and homosexual in the same sentence. Hence "knee-jerk". I can see why Illusion feels demonised.


Its also why Illusion, just like logical conclusion, will get banned.


I believe you. It is why he will probably get banned. But so far I haven't seen anything ban-worthy, although I haven't been following him closely. But he will probably be banned, because everyone reacts in the way they do, even when there is no reason for them to do so.

ocampo Wrote:

Simen Wrote:

ocampo Wrote:
No, you understood your interpretation in a way that was 'correct' for you. It doesn't mean it has to be 'correct' for anyone else.


Ahem. I read the sentence. If you interpret "I went to the mall today" as "I massacred ten people in a mall today", the interpretation isn't correct "for you", it's simply wrong. This was one of those cases where an actual reading of the post in question reveals the real meaning, and reveals that the attributes meaning was wrong.

Quote:
Oh, and a little tip Simen - if you want people to come around to your way of thinking, telling them that they're 'wrong' and insisting that they are wrong and you are right usually doesn't assist your case. It does however make people dig their heels in more and not want to listen to you.


Why don't you tell Max the same. He was, after all, the one who thought a one-sentence post with the two words "you're wrong" was a valuable contribution to this thread.


Rolleyes

Who cares, Illusion is going to get banned.


Who cares? I care that this forum is so irrational all the time. Maybe you don't.

Quote:
P.S. Max's 'you're wrong', as I understood it, was a twist on your attitude toward Ethel in her paganism thread. Funny thing, this interpretation of language isn't it.


RolleyesRolleyes (yup, double-rolleyes)

I didn't write one-sentence replies that only said "you're wrong". In fact, I just went and read all the posts in that thread and I couldn't even find any instance where I said "you're wrong" to Ethel at all. I'm not even sure the words occur in any of my posts in that thread except to defend the right to say it. I don't understand the antagonism here. You just want to hate someone, is that it?

IlluSionS667 Wrote:

I suggest you take a look at for eg. the research of J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn.


Specific studies, please. The best would be a direct quote from somewhere. You see, I suffer from the "delusion" that all science about race and intelligence has been proven to be bunk.

ocampo Wrote:
[quote]Insofar as antagonism? Towards you? Thats your interpretation, not mine. Things come off differently written down. As I said, I'm sick of the fact that this is a repeat of logicalconclusion. If you want to take that personally, go right ahead. You would, however, be wrong.


The you was plural, and the subject wasn't just me, but others as well. Incidentally, I agree completely about internet hate.

Max: It would be a lot better if you just admitted you were wrong, instead of making up elaborate mental structures in my mind to account for your error. That says more about you than about me.

I understand perfectly well that people invest different meanings in different words, it's just that I don't take responsibility for the fact that people choose to invest some words and phrases with meanings that aren't there. It's only on this forum that words take on these new meanings that normal discourse doesn't ever unearth. It's only on this forum that people are sensitive to words you see used perfectly well in the outside world. I understand that people here have some very idiosyncratic ways of thought, but that doesn't make them any more right.

On the other hand, I'm wondering whether you are capable of reading what people actually write and envisioning what it is they're saying... This skill is appreciated in some quarters, but apparently not here.

ichtms Wrote:

IlluSionS667 Wrote:
If saying that 'homosexuality is a deviance' implies homophobia, then I guess saying that 'Siamese Twins are a deviance' implies Siamphobia and saying that 'pedophiles are a deviance' implies pedofilophobia. Rolleyes


I can not see that Il667 compares homosexuality with pedophilia. I'm not 100% on it though. (He does not use the word pedophilia. I almost missed that he uses the word pedophile; + siamese twins. That is in itself a deviation).

Il667 has by his own admission stated that he thinks that homosexuality is a deviation (from the heterosexual norm I suppose). Someone has implied that Il667 therefore is to be labeled homophobic.


Yours truly--Sem Antics


Nice post.

ichtms Wrote:
Max the Bear, Post # 206. I'm with you on the nuance; all the way...

*fades into the wood*


Directly contradicting what you said in the post I replied "nice post" to. Not very nice.

ichtms Wrote:
Simen: I did buy into MtB and his talk of the nuances in language. I understand completely what he's talking about.

In the post I quoted, you argued for the same interpretation as I did. Then you say you completely agree with Max, who disagreed with my interpretation. So I'm confused.

Quote:
His beating on you is something between the two of you. I don't take sides there.


Good.

Max, do you enjoy doing this? You set it up so that whatever I say, you can just say, "that proves my point", then you sit and laugh. You tell me repeatedly I'm wrong but you don't even attempt to explain it. And of course, you tell me that I don't understand just because I disagree with you. And you accuse me of being unable to understand what others say, when in fact clarifications (as well as other posters) have made it clear that my interpretation was correct.

I don't know what to say to you, other than that I find your contributions to this thread, and especially your exchange with me, to be of incredibly low quality. I guess that doesn't surprise you. Bully on, brother. I bet you like it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Reference URL's