|
25th April 2011, 15:05 | #121 |
Stunt Pants
|
Yeah, go on. Play dumb. Try to change the subject to something else. Cop out.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
25th April 2011, 15:07 | #122 |
|
You're an idiot though. You're saying because GT donates an unspecified amount of his resources to some apparently worthy causes, we should ignore his politics which as I see it has little or no concern for the vulnerable.
And that unless I provide evidence external to NZG that I support the vulnerable, clearly I do not. Seriously.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
25th April 2011, 15:08 | #123 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. Last edited by Lightspeed : 25th April 2011 at 15:09. |
|
25th April 2011, 15:12 | #124 |
Love, Actuary
|
Yep
|
25th April 2011, 15:42 | #125 | ||||
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
Another circular argument which results in lolspeed copping out and then owning himself. Quote:
Quote:
But seriously, you would never accept any proof that I or anyone else give you. You'd always move the goalposts, deny the obvious, weasel out of it and say it somehow doesn't apply to you. The usual stuff that makes you such a fraud. Just like when GT gave you examples of how he cares for the vulnerable and you still weren't satisfied because his examples didn't meet your constantly changing standards. I love the part where you said that GT only makes his contributions to the poor so as to have something to display any time his caring nature is challenged. Fuck man, get real. You truly are living on another planet. He's giving away money so as to give the appearance of caring? Really? What, because GT is so concerned with how people on nzgames view his generosity? Yeah, I'm sure GT is kept up at night by how people think of him. No doubt you'll say that I've come up with a meaning different to that which you clearly wrote but that would just be another one of your cop outs. You are a seriously cynical individual as well as a mammoth hypocrite. Oh, and this one was also pretty hilarious: Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
||||
25th April 2011, 15:45 | #126 |
Objection!
|
LOLspeed, give up before you are completely humiliated. Wait, it's too late for that even!
Edit: And, of course, he's avoided responding to my post and just about every point that others have made to him. LOLSPEED!! Last edited by cyc : 25th April 2011 at 15:48. |
25th April 2011, 16:09 | #127 |
Stunt Pants
|
Well that's the classic lolspeed cop-out! Just ignore what people have said and talk about something else instead!
His forum title should be changed to HYPOCRITE! No no, FRAUD! No no no... HYPOFRAUD 8===D~
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
25th April 2011, 16:18 | #128 |
|
He's sort of like a less-technical Rocket...actually, no, they're probably pretty similar.
|
25th April 2011, 17:10 | #129 | |||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Lightspeed hasn't actually stated any definitive opinion on GT, just an opinion that is based on the limited information he has. I see nothing wrong with this, it's you punks who have blown it way out of proportion, as usual. GT seems to be of the opinion that the differing levels of wealth between his "class" and that of the lower "classes" is currently not wide enough, and that National intend to restore the "balance". I think this is an idiotic POV with little or no justification that doesn't include basic human greed. |
|||
25th April 2011, 17:39 | #130 |
|
This thread is boring and shit, you are now reading the best post in here.
|
25th April 2011, 17:42 | #131 |
|
^^^
And also: Trevor Mallard, lol.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
25th April 2011, 18:11 | #132 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
|
25th April 2011, 18:26 | #133 |
|
I'm not saying Lightspeed is right, or that GT doesn't care about the vulnerable. Frankly, I don't particularly care about either of those things. Lightspeed may well be wrong, and GT may well care about the vulnerable. Whoop-de-fucking-doo.
However, I do want to point out that caring about the vulnerable by way of giving to charitable causes in no way precludes one from subscribing to a political view which is decidedly counter to the interests of poor and/or vulnerable people. Furthermore, if Lightspeed originally intended to discuss GT's politics (as might reasonably be inferred, given that this is in fact a politics forum), then GT's defence of his politics by providing evidence in the form of charitable donations doesn't really perform the function that you claim it does CCS. Having said all of that my disclaimer is that I haven't bothered reading the whole thread in depth, and nor am I interested enough to do so, so there could be some point in there that demonstrates that what I'm saying is completely wrong, and if there is, that's fine with me. |
25th April 2011, 18:34 | #134 | |
|
Quote:
Lightspeed stated an opinion, your opinion differs, but there is insufficient proof to prove either opinion as fact, even if there is such a thing when discussing such subjective material. Oh and Nothing - You're not missing anything, CCS just doesn't understand how to construct a proper argument. Well said. |
|
25th April 2011, 18:36 | #135 |
|
Also, it occurs to me that a relevant source of confusion in the ongoing argument is the exactly what is meant by the word 'care' by the different parties of the argument.
Indeed it is possible that donations made to charity can be made in order to alleviate guilt associated with living an opulent lifestyle. This is not news. If by 'caring' about the vulnerable Lightspeed intends a particular kind of political caring, then he might be justified in saying that donations to charity do not constitute evidence of the particular sort of 'caring' he intends to refer to. Again, I'm not saying that GT does not possess this caring, for all I know he does. Neither am I actually saying that Lightspeed is correct. I am suggesting that if you really want to knock his argument flat then you ought to be charitable with his argument and knock the best possible interpretation of his argument flat rather than a cheap caricature of it. I have merely attempted to be as charitable as possible with Lightspeed's argument. |
25th April 2011, 18:52 | #136 | ||||
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
||||
25th April 2011, 18:57 | #137 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
We could be charitable with lolspeeds argument, put when he plays infantile games like refusing to clarify beyond doubt what his argument is, or what his definitions are and when he moves the goalposts when it suits him, why bother giving him the benefit of charity? He's never been one to give charity to anybody else's argument. Usually if one suggests that he ought to, he plays the indignant card and makes out like everyone is picking on poor little lolspeed.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
|
25th April 2011, 19:19 | #138 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
25th April 2011, 19:32 | #139 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
For me long term sustainability with inter-generational equity is important and so from my perspective Green is the only party with an active agenda demonstrably counter to the interests of the poor and vulnerable. And to be clear of my political affiliations: I support National and Maori. |
|
25th April 2011, 19:32 | #140 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
25th April 2011, 19:36 | #141 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
25th April 2011, 19:41 | #142 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
GT chose to respond by pointing out that he has given money to the poor, in order to show that he does care. Now one can accept that LOGICALLY it may be possible for GT to give money to the poor and still not give a crap about them. But that's not the point we are debating. The point we are debating is how DOPEspeed will put up convenient shields like "Oh you don't understand me!", "Don't assume so much about me based on what I say on here!", and variants to this effect when it suits him whilst at the same time attack someone based solely on what that person otherwise wrote on here. Now, unless you don't care about intellectual honesty and moral consistency (often braindead lefties don't), you ought to have a problem with this. The question then is this: are you a braindead hard left moron? P.S. Save the crap about how the left/right label is too simple. Of course it is. The label "braindead leftie" is just my all encompassing label for idiots of particular permutations. For what it's worth, my social views are pretty centre-left. |
|
25th April 2011, 20:05 | #143 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
|
|
25th April 2011, 20:06 | #144 | ||||||||||
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
GT asked lolspeed for examples of how he cares for the vulnerable. This is a fair question. In gaining an insight into how lolspeed cares for the vulnerable, one would gain an understanding of what constitutes lolspeeds own standards. Note that lolspeed would not respond, instead quite haughtily refused, further accusing GT of only contributing to the vulnerable only for appearances; a spurious accusation at that. So in refusing to give examples of how lolspeed cares for the vulnerable he makes it harder to discuss what would meet a standard for caring about the vulnerable. This allows him to constantly move the goalposts. Very disingenuous. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
||||||||||
25th April 2011, 20:14 | #145 | ||
|
Quote:
Lightspeed's opinion is obvious and has been stated simply, yet you still lack the ability to process it. Based on that observation, I have come to the conclusion that you are either: A. Trolling, and generally doing a bad job of it, since you leave the option for my next possible conclusion. B. A stupid fuck, who's unable to read, comprehend, and construct logically consistent replies. Perhaps you're just having a bad day. GT might also be trolling with his rather brazen bourgeois attitude, but if he is at least he's cunning enough to make his arguments logically consistent and engaging enough for me to reply to without me having to resort to repeating myself. I'll say it again, learn to read. Actually I think that will be my standard reply to you whenever you decide to quote me without actually understanding a single thing I've said. Quote:
You can learn to read as well, cheers. |
||
25th April 2011, 20:44 | #146 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't see anything wrong with taking offence at LS's 'accusation' (I'm not sure that word is appropriate, he presented it as a possibility not a fact). If you want to cry about it, knock yourself |
||
25th April 2011, 21:25 | #147 |
|
Knock yourself?
|
25th April 2011, 21:28 | #148 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
You're being deliberately selective to defend your "friend" LOLspeed. His opinion on GT isn't one that he ought to reasonably hold in view of LOLspeed's extremely vociferous pushing of the "Don't judge others based on what they write on NZG!" line in defense of himself. He's never/rarely attempted to clarify, refine or contextualise that standard and thus it was incredibly hypocritical, cheap, and unfair of him to suddenly withold that from another person when doing so suited LOLspeed's purposes. Yet you keep pretending that you can discuss the reasonableness of LOLspeed's response without having regard to this -- are you this stupid? And here's another problem: in the world that most of us live in, when you make a nasty insinuation/contention about another, the burden of proof is ON YOU. This is how the law works in respect of matters like defamation, this is how serious journalists get their arguments across, and this is also the gold standard in academia. Get the drift? Neither LOLspeed or you get to cheapshot someone and throw the "YOU PROVE ME WRONG, MOTHERFUCKER!" line. At least you won't succeed in the eyes of anyone who's not a retard. |
|
25th April 2011, 21:41 | #149 |
|
CCS: Cheers. I appreciate that based on some of our past discussions it would be quite reasonable for you to have seen my questions as bait and switch. However, I said that they were genuine, and I meant it. Thanks for your answers. I think you make a really good point about communication as a method of conveying an idea or concept as distinct from the argument itself.
My apologies if that little bit in there came across as facetious and/or obnoxious. It's just that I don't recall ever having seen you admit to having been in error. Of course this does not mean that you have not done so, but it occurred to me that it is at least possible that you might have the experience of having never been in error. I did not want to discount this possibility without giving you the opportunity to rebut it. I meant only to comment that it is perhaps unusual and, as I stated, a reasonably impressive achievement if it is the case. Given how it would be unusual, I really was interested in how you might have managed it had it been the case. Once again, I apologise if I caused offence with that statement, it was not my intention. I must admit that I did think that there was a good chance that when asked to define what constitutes "revising ones arguments to suit one's self" you would respond by saying something along the lines of: "Oh, well that's obviously what lolspeed does!". That would've been a bit of a bummer, because it would've been a sort of circular definition. I really like the fact that you actually came up with a detailed explanation of what you consider it to be. It's perhaps particularly helpful that you also took the time to give clear and concise examples of exactly how your definition applies to Lightspeed's behaviour in this discussion. Thanks again for your answers. Lightspeed: I think there are two things that come out of what CCS said that you might do well to take on board. First there is the explanation given by CCS of the particular behaviours that you exhibit in this discussion which a number of posters on the forums find objectionable. I do think that it is very reasonable to expect that you should provide some clarifications around exactly what you mean with regards to your standards of caring. If you totally refuse to do that then to me it would be obvious that you are not really that interested in having a rational discussion about the topic. Perhaps my more charitable interpretation of your argument was accurate, and perhaps it was not. If it was accurate and you really do wish to discuss political caring with reference to GT's point of view then there has been a clear path set out for you to achieve this discussion by CCS. Of course even allowing that you do as CCS suggests, that doesn't guarantee that GT will want to have that discussion. Still, I don't see how it can do any harm for you to indulge them with respect to the charitable activities you participate in, and it might have the result of taking this discussion from a pissing contest to something that would actually resemble political debate (Shh, I know some of you will say that political debate is just a pissing contest anyway.) I hope that making precisely what people's objections to your contributions on this forum are crystal clear as has been done here might be helpful for you in avoiding the pile ons that seem to so regularly happen to you. If you're interested in avoiding them that is. Secondly, another point for you to absorb is that at least CCS, probably cyc, and possibly a variety of other members of the forum, are not interested in actually having any kind of rational debate with you. CCS even went so far as to point out that he doesn't much care if third parties reading the discussion find his posts less convincing because of their ad hominem content. He's not interested in convincing anyone of anything, it's probably also reasonable to conclude that he's not open to being convinced of anything much by you either (CCS: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.) They have concluded that you are in fact a crackpot and their primary motivation is to gain entertainment from making fun of you. I find it hard to understand why you would bother to continue engaging them in arguments or discussion at all in such circumstances. As I understand it the forum has an ignore function, and I'm sure there are other members here who you can have more constructive discussions with. GT: Fair enough, I understand exactly what you mean. Although I will say that should you decide to actually elaborate, I would very much be looking forward to reading what you write. |
25th April 2011, 21:47 | #150 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
25th April 2011, 22:10 | #151 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
What I find really objectionable about Lightspeed is his narcissism and arrogance. He appears to have scant regard for simple respect for others by endeavouring to engage with others and their critical faculties by offering up reasons which can be properly grasped and critiqued by others when he's making bold and often times sensationalised claims. When called up on it, all he offers are arrogant, self-centred replies or further insults to others' intelligence. My refusal to give him any kind of faux-respect in light of his obvious propensity is no more than calling a spade a spade. |
|
25th April 2011, 22:29 | #152 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Hell, you just accused me of being "friends" with LS? Why do YOU get to make "cheap shots" like that? |
||
25th April 2011, 22:32 | #153 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
|
|
25th April 2011, 22:34 | #154 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
25th April 2011, 22:37 | #155 |
Objection!
|
Hi broken record.
|
25th April 2011, 22:42 | #156 |
|
Well cyc, I'm quite happy to be wrong about that as well. It just seemed to me to be the best interpretation on the basis of the way some people respond to him, as well as some of the comments people have made. My apologies if I misrepresented your view.
|
25th April 2011, 22:52 | #157 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Golden Teapot: I would like to hear your response to Nothing's question as well. |
||
25th April 2011, 22:55 | #158 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
25th April 2011, 23:06 | #159 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
http://www.nzgames.com/forums/showth...22breast%2A%22 Threads like that and how long LS has been practising his sophistry gives a bit of context on why people get fed up with him. |
|
25th April 2011, 23:33 | #160 | |||
|
Quote:
Fuck, that's it - CBF reading this thread any more - too retarded.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية Last edited by crocos : 25th April 2011 at 23:34. |
|||