Stupid World

[mashman]

The Government's ban on oil and gas exploration could cost up to $30b by 2050, NZIER say... cue pink floyd money..........

[Graystone]

I didn't add an additional accusation...
You did...



Not when it pertains to what my opinion is/was.



Oh, the Irony considering what started this particular line.

In case your memory is a little vague, you made a number of attributed quotes to me. I denied them and challenged you to post up the quotation - this was the response (as an aside - remember the whole 'integrity' thing - this is how it works, I make statements about you, you challenge me, I post them up, whereas you make statements about me, I challenge you, you start coming up with excuses):



I called you a hypocrite on this (see also, why I don't grant any good faith to you)

You then stated that I lie and obfuscate - that's the part we can infer your standards.

The irony is, I'm meeting your standards, yet you continually fail to meet them yourself.



Still applied by you, at your own whim.



You're conflating two things.

What has happened is clearly a post-hoc justification. You made a statement, you got called out on it, then you provided an exception as a get-out-of-jail card.

My Subjectivity is to decline to ascribe good faith to that justification, when taken in the full context of the various dishonest methods (such as the above conflation) you have employed.

Perhaps if you didn't repeatedly do things like that, I'd be a little more generous.



So, you agree it's applied by you, at your own whim.

You cannot have it both ways, which is what you are continually trying to do. You've tried to claim it as objective, whilst acknowledging it is subjective.



Who was the first person to disregard the content of the prior post, in order to make a Semantics argument about tangential details?

Wasn't me...



See above - the whole 'My subjective standard is objective' part.



Not quite, recognizing opinion isn't the benchmark for intelligence and Integrity.

But deliberately failing to recognize opinion is certainly a benchmark for the opposite.

Do I need to post the quote and context again? You said an accusation you made against someone else also applied to me, which is adding one.

Can't see that I ever asked or cared what your opinion was...

Read up on what the word 'whim' means. For it to be an exception added on a whim, you would need to assert that it was not already there before I was 'challenged' on it; but you already admitted that was a subjective opinion so you can make no such assertion. I have not claimed my application of it is objective. If you could stop making shit up that would be great.

Also, try bringing the context through when you quote, you're asking me to bring in posts after, and more than two before, in the interests of context when I quote you, yet you clip part of the sentence out? : You're just determined to show how unintelligent and unprincipled you are

[TheDemonLord]

Do I need to post the quote and context again? You said an accusation you made against someone else also applied to me, which is adding one.

If only I'd clarified it, with the context you are, again, ignoring.

I'll simply repeat: You added the accusation. Not me.

Can't see that I ever asked or cared what your opinion was...

And yet, you keep replying, so clearly - you DO care.

Read up on what the word 'whim' means. For it to be an exception added on a whim, you would need to assert that it was not already there before I was 'challenged' on it; but you already admitted that was a subjective opinion so you can make no such assertion. I have not claimed my application of it is objective. If you could stop making shit up that would be great.

Right.

You demand that I provide you with specific quotations to back up what I say about you (which I have repeatedly provided), then when I call you out on making shit up, You decline.

I call you a hypocrite (which, at this point, is demonstrably true, so not subjective opinion), you then start backpedaling (as you say) and referencing some mythical standard - I point out that you hold others to it, but curiously not yourself. And again refer to you as a Hypocrite.

Again, this is not a subjective matter. It's there in the written record.

Your excuse for this objective hypocrisy is a post-hoc explanation that you have exceptions, those exceptions (as you articulated them) are applied entirely at your discretion.

Then after that we get your continuing confusion by trying to play this as both Objectively applied and as Subjectively.

The only Subjective part on my behalf is where I say that based on the Objective hypocrisy, I'm not inclined to attribute any good faith subsequently.

But keep on conflating things, it makes for greater amusement when you try to claim I'm the one making shit up. *cough* Sargons Law *cough*

However, because I am a charitable sort of chap - there's a really easy way we could solve this: You could either post up the citations for the 2-3 baseless accusations you made against me, or you could retract them and admit you were making shit up.

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming.

Also, try bringing the context through when you quote, you're asking me to bring in posts after, and more than two before, in the interests of context when I quote you, yet you clip part of the sentence out? :

Funny, because it's still more than you've ever done...

Doubly funny when you've repeatedly been shown to ignore context yourself... *Also Sargons Law*

As for the posts - if it's all too much for you to follow references to what you've said previously, then that's fine - just admit the complexities of this debate are beyond you...

To finally address your actual critique - I cited the most relevant part: Namely your refusal to adhere to the standard you repeatedly set for others. If you are so aggrieved at this, then perhaps you should think a little more carefully about your actions and words.

You're just determined to show how unintelligent and unprincipled you are

You'd have a leg to stand on if I didn't provide you with the quotations as and when you asked for them
You'd further have a leg to stand on if you'd provided the quotations as and when you were asked for them.

The problem for you is, the opposite has occurred - and with that, It's a Sargonian Hat-trick.

[oldrider]

The Government's ban on oil and gas exploration could cost up to $30b by 2050, NZIER say... cue pink floyd money..........

Alas Mashy - - just another thread choked up with their endless ("exchange"?) diatribe.

[Graystone]

If only I'd clarified it, with the context you are, again, ignoring.

I'll simply repeat: You added the accusation. Not me.



And yet, you keep replying, so clearly - you DO care.



Right.

You demand that I provide you with specific quotations to back up what I say about you (which I have repeatedly provided), then when I call you out on making shit up, You decline.

I call you a hypocrite (which, at this point, is demonstrably true, so not subjective opinion), you then start backpedaling (as you say) and referencing some mythical standard - I point out that you hold others to it, but curiously not yourself. And again refer to you as a Hypocrite.

Again, this is not a subjective matter. It's there in the written record.

Your excuse for this objective hypocrisy is a post-hoc explanation that you have exceptions, those exceptions (as you articulated them) are applied entirely at your discretion.

Then after that we get your continuing confusion by trying to play this as both Objectively applied and as Subjectively.

The only Subjective part on my behalf is where I say that based on the Objective hypocrisy, I'm not inclined to attribute any good faith subsequently.

But keep on conflating things, it makes for greater amusement when you try to claim I'm the one making shit up. *cough* Sargons Law *cough*

However, because I am a charitable sort of chap - there's a really easy way we could solve this: You could either post up the citations for the 2-3 baseless accusations you made against me, or you could retract them and admit you were making shit up.

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming.



Funny, because it's still more than you've ever done...

Doubly funny when you've repeatedly been shown to ignore context yourself... *Also Sargons Law*

As for the posts - if it's all too much for you to follow references to what you've said previously, then that's fine - just admit the complexities of this debate are beyond you...

To finally address your actual critique - I cited the most relevant part: Namely your refusal to adhere to the standard you repeatedly set for others. If you are so aggrieved at this, then perhaps you should think a little more carefully about your actions and words.



You'd have a leg to stand on if I didn't provide you with the quotations as and when you asked for them
You'd further have a leg to stand on if you'd provided the quotations as and when you were asked for them.

The problem for you is, the opposite has occurred - and with that, It's a Sargonian Hat-trick.

You missed a bit, you said I'm wrong then pointed elsewhere, but didn't explain any reasoning as to how the elsewhere made me wrong. So what exactly did you say yes to? if it wasn't to confirm your accusation against another also applied to me?

Not about your opinion, it vaguely amuses me to watch your delusions is why I keep replying.

You have not already provided those. Where in the written record is it? I am posting citations for the first point of contention, as I've explained, if you cannot demonstrate some intelligence and integrity, why should I move on to another?

You cited a part which changed the meaning due to the absence of the rest of the post.

I've asked you for them in this post, and in the post before, you have not supplied them. Just how delusional are you? Or does 'as and when' mean something different to you?

[Graystone]

Alas Mashy - - just another thread choked up with their endless ("exchange"?) diatribe.

Oh I'm sorry, is this thread for your diatribe only? Aren't you clogging up enough other threads with your endless bigotry already? sharing is caring dude, now fuck off

[mashman]

Alas Mashy - - just another thread choked up with their endless ("exchange"?) diatribe.

ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... at least it isn't my fault

[buggerit]

Oh I'm sorry, is this thread for your diatribe only? Aren't you clogging up enough other threads with your endless bigotry already? sharing is caring dude, now fuck off

Well could you recommend a good heamorrhoid creme?

[Katman]

So what exactly did you say yes to? if it wasn't to confirm your accusation against another also applied to me?

Dude, you don't even remember what you're arguing about.

TDL didn't level any accusation at me - he asked me if he'd ever being guilty of calling for someone to be censored.

[oldrider]

Oh I'm sorry, is this thread for your diatribe only? Aren't you clogging up enough other threads with your endless bigotry already? sharing is caring dude, now fuck off

https://twitter.com/i/status/1098607565699731458 -

[TheDemonLord]

You missed a bit, you said I'm wrong then pointed elsewhere, but didn't explain any reasoning as to how the elsewhere made me wrong. So what exactly did you say yes to? if it wasn't to confirm your accusation against another also applied to me?

See Katmans post. You've argued against yourself to the point where you can't tell what's real and what's your imagination.

Not about your opinion, it vaguely amuses me to watch your delusions is why I keep replying.

See Above.

You have not already provided those. Where in the written record is it? I am posting citations for the first point of contention, as I've explained, if you cannot demonstrate some intelligence and integrity, why should I move on to another?

Well, for a start - you've made a statement about someone else, regardless of anything else, you should be able to back that up with a citation.

But more importantly, You're perfectly happy to demand citations from Me (who, doesn't meet your standard, remember?), yet when you, yourself, are challenged to produce a Citation - nothing is forthcoming - surely you meet your own standard yes?

However, I think the approach here is to simply restate:

"You could either post up the citations for the 2-3 baseless accusations you made against me, or you could retract them and admit you were making shit up.

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming."

Thanks for proving me right.

You cited a part which changed the meaning due to the absence of the rest of the post.

Well, here's the full quote:

Because this is exactly the point, why should I back up what I say about you, when you just lie and obfuscate instead of conceding a point that you are so clearly wrong on. What good does proving I'm not lying, when you are too irrational and illogical to even recognize what honesty is?

The relevant part is "Why should I back up what I say about you" (You know, the bit I quoted) - Doesn't matter if I lie or Obfuscate or anything else - the principal of the matter is you should always be able to back up what you say about someone else.

End of.

Here's the Rub, we both know why you've pissed and moaned about this: Because you stated something you know you can't back up, you refuse to retract (because you think that will somehow save face), and so your only option is this gordian knot of self-contradictory 'logic' in a piss poor attempt to avoid the point.

I've asked you for them in this post, and in the post before, you have not supplied them. Just how delusional are you? Or does 'as and when' mean something different to you?

Which is it? Did I cite something (as you agree I did) or did I not? Seems you are getting confused (again)

[Graystone]

See Katmans post. You've argued against yourself to the point where you can't tell what's real and what's your imagination.



See Above.



Well, for a start - you've made a statement about someone else, regardless of anything else, you should be able to back that up with a citation.

But more importantly, You're perfectly happy to demand citations from Me (who, doesn't meet your standard, remember?), yet when you, yourself, are challenged to produce a Citation - nothing is forthcoming - surely you meet your own standard yes?

However, I think the approach here is to simply restate:

"You could either post up the citations for the 2-3 baseless accusations you made against me, or you could retract them and admit you were making shit up.

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming."

Thanks for proving me right.



Well, here's the full quote:



The relevant part is "Why should I back up what I say about you" (You know, the bit I quoted) - Doesn't matter if I lie or Obfuscate or anything else - the principal of the matter is you should always be able to back up what you say about someone else.

End of.

Here's the Rub, we both know why you've pissed and moaned about this: Because you stated something you know you can't back up, you refuse to retract (because you think that will somehow save face), and so your only option is this gordian knot of self-contradictory 'logic' in a piss poor attempt to avoid the point.



Which is it? Did I cite something (as you agree I did) or did I not? Seems you are getting confused (again)

I don't follow the conversations you have with others. Nor do I think the meaning of what we are discussing will be greatly changed by such a clarification; but as always, you should make it and back yourself up right? instead of point elsewhere and saying it proves you right...
You said I'm wrong then pointed elsewhere, but didn't explain any reasoning as to how the elsewhere made me wrong. So what exactly did you say yes to? if it wasn't to confirm your accusatory question against another applied to me in the affirmative?

I am demanding citations from you on the first point, so that you do not gish gallop from one to another like usual.

So given that 'end of', why will you not back up your point that we are discussing above? why will you not provide reasoning to rationalise why you answered yes to a simple question? I've been clear about my reasons for not answering all of your requests for being able to back myself up; yet you demonstrate massive hypocrisy by demanding I do so, yet refusing to back yourself up with no justification at all...

[layton]

Alright, time to kiss and make up..

Does anybody even know what they are arguing about anymore ?

Does everyone feel better and have it out of there system?

Great, lets move on?

[Graystone]

Alright, time to kiss and make up..

Does anybody even know what they are arguing about anymore ?

Does everyone feel better and have it out of there system?

Great, lets move on?

Just put us on ignore like everyone else... :shrug:

[TheDemonLord]

I don't follow the conversations you have with others. Nor do I think the meaning of what we are discussing will be greatly changed by such a clarification; but as always, you should make it and back yourself up right? instead of point elsewhere and saying it proves you right...

Clearly, you do, since the original comment that started this, wasn't addressed to you or regarding you.

You said I'm wrong then pointed elsewhere, but didn't explain any reasoning as to how the elsewhere made me wrong. So what exactly did you say yes to? if it wasn't to confirm your accusatory question against another applied to me in the affirmative?

I've given you the context, you keep ignoring it. This is an Impasse. As Katman rightfully pointed out, the accusatory question wasn't against another, it was Rhetorical.

My pointing elsewhere is simply pointing at objective reality, which you keep refusing.

I am demanding citations from you on the first point, so that you do not gish gallop from one to another like usual.

I've given you quotes for all that you've demanded of me.
You've given me zero quotes for all that I've demanded of you.

So, stop using words like 'Gish Gallop' (which this clearly is not), and how about you either:

A: Retract the blatant fabrications (which, given I believe you know them to be false, I refer to as 'lies') you've made.
B: Post up something resembling a Citation.

Given that we both know that neither will happen, I'm entirely justified in calling you a liar on this.

So given that 'end of', why will you not back up your point that we are discussing above? why will you not provide reasoning to rationalise why you answered yes to a simple question?

I have done so. You just don't like it. There's the difference.
I've provided you the quotes both before and after that show what the correct context is, you refuse to accept them.
Your refusal is not my burden of proof.
Your moving of the goalposts is also not my burden of proof.

I've been clear about my reasons for not answering all of your requests for being able to back myself up; yet you demonstrate massive hypocrisy by demanding I do so, yet refusing to back yourself up with no justification at all...

See above. your 'reasoning' is you got caught spewing Bullshit that you can't back up and are trying to weasel your way out of it.

Irregardless of whatever I have or have not done (in your opinion) there is still a burden of proof hanging over your head for your own integrity, not mine to back up what you've said.

A Burden, which if you had any integrity, you'd meet or issue a retraction.

But as I've said (and you keep proving me right on this):

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming.