Stop Asset Sales!

[CCS]

Yeah, go on. Play dumb. Try to change the subject to something else. Cop out.

[Lightspeed]

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.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

Yeah, go on. Play dumb. Try to change the subject to something else. Cop out.

Lol, I guess I should plunge into a shame spiral now... because I'm such a terrible, terrible cop out, of which you can clearly demonstrate with such substance. Woe is me.

[Golden Teapot]

Yep

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You're an idiot though. You're saying blah blah blah

That's what you heard, but not what I said. Blah blah blah.

Another circular argument which results in lolspeed copping out and then owning himself.

And that unless I provide evidence external to NZG that I support the vulnerable, clearly I do not.

Why would we believe you otherwise?

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Lol, I guess I should plunge into a shame spiral now... because I'm such a terrible, terrible cop out, of which you can clearly demonstrate with such substance. Woe is me.

Oh, you want proof? Here you go.

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:

Giving to the poor makes it much easier to justify a lifestyle that keeps the poor in their place.

Haha! What a great conspiracy theory! Come on lolspeed, why do you hate the rich so much? Why do you think that all rich people got there by trampling on the poor and vulnerable? Don't weasel out of it by saying that you've never used that exact same phrase, we can all see that it's how you feel. Anybody, that is, except for those who also hate the rich.

[cyc]

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!!

[CCS]

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~

[The Edge]

He's sort of like a less-technical Rocket...actually, no, they're probably pretty similar.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by CCS

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.

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It is possible I suppose that you care about the vulnerable.

LS has never stated that he categorically knows that GT does not care about the vulnerable, only that he has not been convinced that he does by anything that he has said. Something I agree with BTW.

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Giving to the poor makes it much easier to justify a lifestyle that keeps the poor in their place.

Yep, I agree, and it's an attitude that has existed for centuries.

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.

[GM]

This thread is boring and shit, you are now reading the best post in here.

[crocos]

^^^
And also: Trevor Mallard, lol.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by adonis

LS has never stated that he categorically knows that GT does not care about the vulnerable, only that he has not been convinced that he does by anything that he has said.

lol speed cast doubt on GT and GT proved him wrong. Lolspeed doesn't have the strength of character to stand up and admit that he was wrong to doubt GT. Simple.

[Nothing]

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.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by CCS

lol speed cast doubt on GT and GT proved him wrong.

No he didn't. I think your view of what constitutes adequate proof is dysfunctional.

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.

[Nothing]

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.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Nothing

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.

That's actually not the crux of what we're discussing right now.

Furthermore, if Lightspeed originally intended to discuss GT's politics

He didn't.

Originally Posted by adonis

No he didn't. I think your view of what constitutes adequate proof is dysfunctional.

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.

How can those two statements co-exist but not be contradictory? They can't. You've told me first off that my view is dysfunctional but then you've turned around and said it's just a difference of opinion of subjective material. So which is it? Or are you seriously trying to tell me that my opinion is dysfunctional because you happen to not agree with me?

Oh and Nothing - You're not missing anything, CCS just doesn't understand how to construct a proper argument. Well said.

Completely wrong. Unlike you and your dopey mates, I don't constantly revise my arguments to suit myself. To do so would be intellectually dishonest (a theme emerges!). You've already revised your position in the space of one post and ended up contradicting yourself. No doubt you'll come up with a loophole to justify your hypocrisy, a special little exception that you've just come up with just now.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Nothing

I have merely attempted to be as charitable as possible with Lightspeed's argument.

The problem with Lolspeed - and I'd be utterly amazed if you've never noticed this - is that he will absolutely never ever say what he means. You could question him for a week about what it means to 'care' for the vulnerable and he would constantly evade and you'd end up with nothing but frustration.

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.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by CCS

That's actually not the crux of what we're discussing right now.

Fair enough, I was only interested in attempting to clarify confusions around the arguments, and given that the confusions which I thought may have been there are not, I shall remove myself from the discussion.

Originally Posted by CCS

Completely wrong. Unlike you and your dopey mates, I don't constantly revise my arguments to suit myself. To do so would be intellectually dishonest (a theme emerges!). You've already revised your position in the space of one post and ended up contradicting yourself. No doubt you'll come up with a loophole to justify your hypocrisy, a special little exception that you've just come up with just now.

This is just a question for my own curiosity, perhaps I will learn something from you here. You say that you "do not revise your arguments to suit yourself". Under what circumstances is it acceptable to revise one's arguments? Clearly at some point (possibly when one finds convincing evidence of one's self being mistaken?) people do need to revise their views, and hence their arguments. Where does the line between doing this 'to suit one's self' and doing it because one has found one's self to be mistaken sit? Surely you must have revised your arguments when you found that your original communication did not clearly communicate your intended meaning at least once in your life? If you have managed to get through life without ever having to revise any of your arguments in this fashion, I would be most interested to know how you have managed it, because it would be a truly impressive feat as far as I can tell. Also, do you think that constitutes revising arguments to suit one's self? Or is it because you have in fact found an 'error' in your communication and thus required a new way of framing what you were wanting to say? If it is the latter rather than the former, then exactly what would constitute "revising one's arguments to suit one's self"? I just want to be clear that these are genuine questions, and I really am interested in your answers, they are not intended to be sarcastic or facetious in any way. Cheers!

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Nothing

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.

While this is true a problem with this type of proposition is defining what exactly is meant by being counter to the interests of a particular group. The time horizon over which measurement is made is important too.

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.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by CCS

The problem with Lolspeed - and I'd be utterly amazed if you've never noticed this - is that he will absolutely never ever say what he means. You could question him for a week about what it means to 'care' for the vulnerable and he would constantly evade and you'd end up with nothing but frustration.

It's not that I've never noticed it, because I have seen some of the arguments he has with people, and some of them really are just ridiculous. It doesn't really bother me though.

Originally Posted by CCS

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 don't pretend to have any answers about how you should respond to character deficits on his part, and I'm sure he has plenty. However, if you are uncharitable with his arguments then critical readers may find you considerably less convincing. Resorting to ad hominem attacks is widely regarded as a poor move in argumentation - even when your ad hominem attacks are in fact accurate. If you find him too frustrating to bother being charitable with his arguments then I don't see why you bother to argue with him at all. Wouldn't it be easier to just ignore him? Not that I care about it in any way, do what you like, it is of course up to you.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Green is the only party with an active agenda demonstrably counter to the interests of the poor and vulnerable.

My apologies if you have already explained your views on this earlier in the thread, as previously stated I haven't taken the time to read the whole thing. However, I am curious to know how the Green party's agenda is demonstrably counter to the interests of the poor and vulnerable. Would you care to elaborate?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

Oh and Nothing - You're not missing anything, CCS just doesn't understand how to construct a proper argument. Well said.

Haha delusional leftie comes in to defend his dopey mate. Look, CCS or GT weren't the ones constantly fucking on about how it's wrong to assume too much about others' beliefs and leanings based solely on what they post. Now the same DOPEspeed who makes this very point goes and states that based on GT's postings on NZG, GT does not strike Lightspeed as being particularly concerned about the poor.

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.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Nothing

Would you care to elaborate?

Probably not. But I'll think on this overnight before deciding. I'd hate to be the stoke of yet more pages of silliness and I expect the exploration of a viewpoint like this would do that.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Nothing

Under what circumstances is it acceptable to revise one's arguments? Clearly at some point (possibly when one finds convincing evidence of one's self being mistaken?) people do need to revise their views, and hence their arguments.

Usually if someone is mistaken then the honourable thing to do is to admit it humbly. If you still believe your argument is right except for the point on which you were mistaken, you really have to acknowledge that and incorporate it in your argument. If you ignore that a flaw has been found in your argument and you modify your argument to try to skirt around this, then it's reasonable to say that this would be intellectually dishonest.

Where does the line between doing this 'to suit one's self' and doing it because one has found one's self to be mistaken sit?

It depends largely on the nature and circumstance of the argument at hand, does it not?

Surely you must have revised your arguments when you found that your original communication did not clearly communicate your intended meaning at least once in your life?

Then this would not be a revision of the argument itself. It would be an attempt to make the same argument in a different manner.

If you have managed to get through life without ever having to revise any of your arguments in this fashion, I would be most interested to know how you have managed it, because it would be a truly impressive feat as far as I can tell.

Well that is a little bit facetious and a touch obnoxious.

Also, do you think that constitutes revising arguments to suit one's self? Or is it because you have in fact found an 'error' in your communication and thus required a new way of framing what you were wanting to say?

I think to be fair you have to accept the distinction that communication is the method of conveying an idea or concept, rather than the argument itself.

If it is the latter rather than the former, then exactly what would constitute "revising one's arguments to suit one's self"?

You're familiar with the common phrase 'moving the goalposts'? Here's a handy definition:

Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion

There's something also that I should point out. Lolspeed barely has the basis of an argument. What he has is an accusation, that GT met with examples of some ways in which he cares about the vulnerable. He pointed out that the examples weren't an exhaustive list. I think we can charitably say that these are good examples of how he cares for the poor. Whether they meet any other individuals' standard of truly caring for the vulnerable/poor is subjective and this debatable. What's important here is that lolspeed did not accept these examples gracefully, instead he rather cynically made a further accusation that GTs examples of how he cares for the poor were for self-serving reasons. He offered no proof, just a cynical accusation. It's fair to say that GTs example did not meet lolspeeds own standards.
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.

I just want to be clear that these are genuine questions, and I really am interested in your answers, they are not intended to be sarcastic or facetious in any way. Cheers!

I don't really believe you, I suspect this is a bit of the old bait and switch. But I've answered your questions nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Nothing

However, if you are uncharitable with his arguments then critical readers may find you considerably less convincing.

I realise that. But I think he's a cock and sometimes it's just more fun to remind him of this than to seriously debate him.

Resorting to ad hominem attacks is widely regarded as a poor move in argumentation - even when your ad hominem attacks are in fact accurate. If you find him too frustrating to bother being charitable with his arguments then I don't see why you bother to argue with him at all. Wouldn't it be easier to just ignore him?

I typically won't try to debate a point with him in order to convince him of my point of view. I know he is too intellectually dishonest (in other words, too much of a mental fucking fruitcake) to believe that there is any chance of that happening. So usually it's more fun just to call him a cock. Consider it a sport.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by CCS

You've told me first off that my view is dysfunctional but then you've turned around and said it's just a difference of opinion of subjective material. So which is it? Or are you seriously trying to tell me that my opinion is dysfunctional because you happen to not agree with me?

I said that your view of what constitutes "proof" is dysfunctional. I did not say that your opinion of GT's motivation is dysfunctional (An opinion that you have not implicitly stated, but given your opposition to LS's opinion I assume you have one.)

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.

Originally Posted by cyc

Haha delusional leftie comes in to defend his dopey mate. Look, CCS or GT weren't the ones constantly fucking on about how it's wrong to assume too much about others' beliefs and leanings based solely on what they post. Now the same DOPEspeed who makes this very point goes and states that based on GT's postings on NZG, GT does not strike Lightspeed as being particularly concerned about the poor.

I have not and do not intend to discuss the consistency of the method (or methods, if you believe he changes it regularly) by which LS forms and expresses his opinions. If you think I have, then it is you who are deluded. I have stated that this specific opinion regarding GT's motivations, as it was originally stated, is reasonable, GT's reply is not sufficient to adequately alter this perception, and that CCS's rebuttal is not logically consistent.

You can learn to read as well, cheers.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by CCS

There's something also that I should point out. Lolspeed barely has the basis of an argument. What he has is an accusation, that GT met with examples of some ways in which he cares about the vulnerable. He pointed out that the examples weren't an exhaustive list. I think we can charitably say that these are good examples of how he cares for the poor. Whether they meet any other individuals' standard of truly caring for the vulnerable/poor is subjective and this debatable. What's important here is that lolspeed did not accept these examples gracefully, instead he rather cynically made a further accusation that GTs examples of how he cares for the poor were for self-serving reasons. He offered no proof, just a cynical accusation. It's fair to say that GTs example did not meet lolspeeds own standards.
GT asked lolspeed for examples of how he cares for the vulnerable. This is a fair question.

The question itself sounded like a request based on GT's own standards, if the question was meant to be a request of how LS would help the vulnerable using his own standards, then a large part of this argument is based on an error of communication, a misunderstanding.

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.

LS rejected the location of these "goalposts", attempted to highlight that he could engage in it, if he believed it was an adequate test, and ultimately refused to engage in this kind of measurement.

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

[The Edge]

Knock yourself?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

I have not and do not intend to discuss the consistency of the method (or methods, if you believe he changes it regularly) by which LS forms and expresses his opinions. If you think I have, then it is you who are deluded. I have stated that this specific opinion regarding GT's motivations, as it was originally stated, is reasonable, GT's reply is not sufficient to adequately alter this perception, and that CCS's rebuttal is not logically consistent.

You can learn to read as well, cheers.

Why don't you take up your own advice and learn to read?

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.

[Nothing]

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.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Knock yourself?

out.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Nothing

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.

I don't intend to speak for anyone else but I suspect you're wrong in respect of CCS and GT as well as myself. Whilst I do mock Lightspeed in my responses to him, I do nonetheless make a point of presenting arguments against him. Some of my arguments may be more convincing than others but I at least try.

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.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by cyc

Why don't you take up your own advice and learn to read?

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?

If the argument was based solely on whether LS was being hypocritical in how he forms his opinions based on comments he has made in other threads I would have stayed out of it. I don't read this board enough to comment. However, the argument in this thread isn't entirely based around that contention.

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

Oh please, people say nasty shit about each other all the fucking time, harden the fuck up. Where was your moral outrage when crocos essentially accused me of either being either a student or a crackpot? You didn't see me throwing a hissy-fit over it. GT didn't over LS's 'accusation' either, to his credit.

Hell, you just accused me of being "friends" with LS? Why do YOU get to make "cheap shots" like that?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

Hell, you just accused me of being "friends" with LS? Why do YOU get to make "cheap shots" like that?

Because you're mindlessly defending him? Remember, I don't subscribe to LOLspeed's view that no one can ever judge anyone else based on what they write on a forum.

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by cyc

narcissism and arrogance.

That's you bro

[cyc]

Hi broken record.

[Nothing]

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.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Nothing you've ever said makes me think you particularly care about vulnerable citizens.

This is the statement I am defending. It was in response to,

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I expect labor will eventually get back into power and put our most vulnerable citizens through another roller-coaster ride.

GT's statement was made to imply that he cares about the vulnerable, LS challenged him on it, GT's response was inadequate (at least in my view), then CCS took us on this lollercoaster of a thread-fuck. That's the idiocy I'm arguing against.

Golden Teapot: I would like to hear your response to Nothing's question as well.

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by cyc

Hi broken record.

hihi ^_^

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Nothing

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.

No worries. I'd invite you to take a look at this thread and observe how long ago this was:

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.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by adonis

This is the statement I am defending. It was in response to,

GT's statement was made to imply that he cares about the vulnerable, LS challenged him on it, GT's response was inadequate (at least in my view), then CCS took us on this lollercoaster of a thread-fuck. That's the idiocy I'm arguing against.

Golden Teapot: I would like to hear your response to Nothing's question as well.

What the fucking fuck? GT's comment - if it is to be held to the same standard as Lightspeed's - surely contains sufficient evidence to suggest GT _does_ give a shit about the more vulnerable.

Fuck, that's it - CBF reading this thread any more - too retarded.