Free speech.

[TheDemonLord]

While I recognise you do not agree with them, I have shown you those things, and they most certainly have not been proven to be patently false.

Only if you completely re-invent what happened, substituting in your preferred narrative. Which is the only thing you've shown.

I expect you have taken his quote out of context (again) to come to the conclusions you are trying to argue against. How about you post what he said, with relevant context, and we go from there...

Except Husa already posted the full quote, you know the quote, I know the quote - you're just trying to divert from the obvious - that you'd willfully believe something false, than concede the point to me.

Why does one need to follow the other? The definition I have constructed from understanding how the words work, does not apply to all males. You claimed I said something I never did. One of these is very clear cut, the other, still a point of contention.

It's to do with how words work... Apparently you don't understand.

If you have a description that explicitly states all, then any subsequent vagueness is to be interpreted as all.
If you have a description that explicitly states not all, then any subsequent vagueness is to be interpreted as not all.

If you wish to challenge a description that explicitly states all, then using a vague statement does not suffice to rebut it. Only an explicit statement to the contrary will suffice of which, you cannot produce.

Right, so the govt failing to prevent you from changing the meaning of other peoples words and reposting them (a form of slander), also counts. You can't keep making these double standards mate. I do not love and praise censorship, desist with this silly strawman please.

Let's presuppose that this was a slander case - them for a start almost all of news media would be guilty of slander (such as interview editing) - the question also would be whether I've defamed his reputation - on which I could hang an entire defense that my words will have zero impact upon his reputation - therefore the threshold for Slander is not met.

However, the question is whether or not it drastically changes the meaning - in which my defence would be that when the additional statements are analyzed they cannot be true. Is it Slander if you fail to include a false statement?

Again, this is not a double standard.

You've made multiple statements in implicit support of Censorship - so it's not a strawman.

[Graystone]

Only if you completely re-invent what happened, substituting in your preferred narrative. Which is the only thing you've shown.



Except Husa already posted the full quote, you know the quote, I know the quote - you're just trying to divert from the obvious - that you'd willfully believe something false, than concede the point to me.



It's to do with how words work... Apparently you don't understand.

If you have a description that explicitly states all, then any subsequent vagueness is to be interpreted as all.
If you have a description that explicitly states not all, then any subsequent vagueness is to be interpreted as not all.

If you wish to challenge a description that explicitly states all, then using a vague statement does not suffice to rebut it. Only an explicit statement to the contrary will suffice of which, you cannot produce.



Let's presuppose that this was a slander case - them for a start almost all of news media would be guilty of slander (such as interview editing) - the question also would be whether I've defamed his reputation - on which I could hang an entire defense that my words will have zero impact upon his reputation - therefore the threshold for Slander is not met.

However, the question is whether or not it drastically changes the meaning - in which my defence would be that when the additional statements are analyzed they cannot be true. Is it Slander if you fail to include a false statement?

Again, this is not a double standard.

You've made multiple statements in implicit support of Censorship - so it's not a strawman.

Please point out which bits required a complete reinvention of the narrative, hypocrisy/rascism clearly is not that.

Try getting the quote from a more reputable source, husaberg is an idiot.

Anyone can re-describe shit to change the meaning without invalidating the initial one, I could do it to back up my interpretation. You still claimed I said something I never did, it's black and white, why do you fail to own up to this?

It isn't a slander case, I was pointing out the similarities, that changing what a person says and means is slander. I've also made many statements in explicit opposition of censorship; funny how you ignore those.

[TheDemonLord]

Please point out which bits required a complete reinvention of the narrative, hypocrisy/rascism clearly is not that.

You might notice - that Hypocrisy and Racism are two different concepts - that might give you a clue as to the re-invention part.

Try getting the quote from a more reputable source, husaberg is an idiot.

Firstly - I don't think he is, even if we do disagree politically
Secondly - it doesn't matter if he was the biggest idiot on the face of the earth - he still posted the correct quote and in full - unless you want to dispute this? But as I said - this is just more diversionary tactics.

Anyone can re-describe shit to change the meaning without invalidating the initial one, I could do it to back up my interpretation. You still claimed I said something I never did, it's black and white, why do you fail to own up to this?

Except, you know - when they make explicit statements. That's the bit you are still having trouble with:

I've presented an Explicit statement, you've only presented vague statements, you can't present an explicit statement contradicting what I've presented. And it's that last bit that's key - since that was your defence against it being a Racist, Sexist concept - and since you can't do it, you've resorted to all sorts of semantics, haggling over words etc.

As I said - I'll own up to it, when you own up to the fact you adhere to a Racist, Sexist concept and therefore that makes you a Racist and a Sexist.

It isn't a slander case, I was pointing out the similarities, that changing what a person says and means is slander. I've also made many statements in explicit opposition of censorship; funny how you ignore those.

And I was pointing out why comparing it to slander was laughable.

Okay - do you retract your statement that Censorship is honest? We can start there.

[Graystone]

You might notice - that Hypocrisy and Racism are two different concepts - that might give you a clue as to the re-invention part.



Firstly - I don't think he is, even if we do disagree politically
Secondly - it doesn't matter if he was the biggest idiot on the face of the earth - he still posted the correct quote and in full - unless you want to dispute this? But as I said - this is just more diversionary tactics.



Except, you know - when they make explicit statements. That's the bit you are still having trouble with:

I've presented an Explicit statement, you've only presented vague statements, you can't present an explicit statement contradicting what I've presented. And it's that last bit that's key - since that was your defence against it being a Racist, Sexist concept - and since you can't do it, you've resorted to all sorts of semantics, haggling over words etc.

As I said - I'll own up to it, when you own up to the fact you adhere to a Racist, Sexist concept and therefore that makes you a Racist and a Sexist.



And I was pointing out why comparing it to slander was laughable.

Okay - do you retract your statement that Censorship is honest? We can start there.

Splitting hairs, only the race was changed between the posts, so there is clearly a racist aspect. The hypocrisy is that they claim to deplore rascism, but in practice they only deplore racism against minorities. It's the same shit mate; try another one...

I do not believe he did post the correct quote in full, what makes you think that he did? Moreover, why have you gone down such a rabbit hole, without verifying what he posted was true and correct?

Why do I need to present a statement contradicting yours? You're trying to use one person's description to change a definition, what justification do you have that it should count as anything more than an opinion? Again, I've proven you wrong by calling you out out your claims of what I said, that's the only basis you would need to own up to it if you were trying to debate with any sort of genuineness.

Nah, since you tried to point it out on a subjective technicallity, it doesn't fly.

Once again you remove all context to suit your agenda... Censorship is honest in that is does not change the message of what people say, only its reach.

[TheDemonLord]

Splitting hairs, only the race was changed between the posts, so there is clearly a racist aspect. The hypocrisy is that they claim to deplore rascism, but in practice they only deplore racism against minorities. It's the same shit mate; try another one...

Now for the bonus round: What is the political affiliation of the various philosophical view points that claim that one can only be racist against Minorities.

I'll give you a hint - it's not the Right wing. And so you've rather neatly proved my point - Twitter has a left wing bias in how it applies it's ToS.

So that hair splitting is actually rather relevant.

I do not believe he did post the correct quote in full, what makes you think that he did? Moreover, why have you gone down such a rabbit hole, without verifying what he posted was true and correct?

If you've got a dispute, then post up to the contrary - however, it still will not change the fact that the statement about not monitoring content is objectively false - this is a technical limitation.

Why do I need to present a statement contradicting yours?

Cause you are trying to claim something (without evidence) that contradicts what I'm claiming (with evidence)?

You're trying to use one person's description to change a definition, what justification do you have that it should count as anything more than an opinion? Again, I've proven you wrong by calling you out out your claims of what I said, that's the only basis you would need to own up to it if you were trying to debate with any sort of genuineness.

Look, if you want to dismiss the entirety of the activist disciplines as mere opinion - I'm more than happy to make that concession. However, I don't think you want to do that... therefore trying to dismiss a piece of scholarly work from within those disciplines as mere opinion isn't going to work.

I'll simply restate - a description is more in-depth than a definition. I've provided something that clearly indicates "All Males" and you've provided NOTHING to contradict this.

First you tried to poison the well, when that didn't work you tried to claim a fallacy and when that didn't work, you tried an argument from semantics and when that didn't work you tried a red herring.

All your attempts to claim that the vagueness of the use of "Males" in any definition you present is to be interpreted as "Some Males" is therefore not accurate, absent any other description or definition, the vague wording is to be interpreted as per the description. Doing so means the concept fulfills your own definition of Sexist.

From there, since the usage of "Males" is to mean "All Males" (absent anything contradicting this from yourself), we can reasonably infer that "White" means "All White" - which fulfills your definition of Racism.

Leaving us with the conclusion - "White Male Privilege" is to be applied to "All White Males" - which makes it Racist and Sexist. Anyone who adheres to the concept is therefor a Racist and a Sexist.

All your "But thats not what I said" whining is simply a diversion from the fact that you can't disprove this point.

Nah, since you tried to point it out on a subjective technicallity, it doesn't fly.

But a technicality making it none-the-less laughable.

Once again you remove all context to suit your agenda... Censorship is honest in that is does not change the message of what people say, only its reach.

You should read up on Censorship, primarily in the Communist countries. Then you'd realise how monumentally stupid that statement is. Or you could read 1984 or Animal Farm.

After that, with any luck, you'd realise why the statement "Censorship is honest" is an implicit endorsement of Censorship.

[Graystone]

Now for the bonus round: What is the political affiliation of the various philosophical view points that claim that one can only be racist against Minorities.

I'll give you a hint - it's not the Right wing. And so you've rather neatly proved my point - Twitter has a left wing bias in how it applies it's ToS.

So that hair splitting is actually rather relevant.



If you've got a dispute, then post up to the contrary - however, it still will not change the fact that the statement about not monitoring content is objectively false - this is a technical limitation.



Cause you are trying to claim something (without evidence) that contradicts what I'm claiming (with evidence)?



Look, if you want to dismiss the entirety of the activist disciplines as mere opinion - I'm more than happy to make that concession. However, I don't think you want to do that... therefore trying to dismiss a piece of scholarly work from within those disciplines as mere opinion isn't going to work.

I'll simply restate - a description is more in-depth than a definition. I've provided something that clearly indicates "All Males" and you've provided NOTHING to contradict this.

First you tried to poison the well, when that didn't work you tried to claim a fallacy and when that didn't work, you tried an argument from semantics and when that didn't work you tried a red herring.

All your attempts to claim that the vagueness of the use of "Males" in any definition you present is to be interpreted as "Some Males" is therefore not accurate, absent any other description or definition, the vague wording is to be interpreted as per the description. Doing so means the concept fulfills your own definition of Sexist.

From there, since the usage of "Males" is to mean "All Males" (absent anything contradicting this from yourself), we can reasonably infer that "White" means "All White" - which fulfills your definition of Racism.

Leaving us with the conclusion - "White Male Privilege" is to be applied to "All White Males" - which makes it Racist and Sexist. Anyone who adheres to the concept is therefor a Racist and a Sexist.

All your "But thats not what I said" whining is simply a diversion from the fact that you can't disprove this point.



But a technicality making it none-the-less laughable.



You should read up on Censorship, primarily in the Communist countries. Then you'd realise how monumentally stupid that statement is. Or you could read 1984 or Animal Farm.

After that, with any luck, you'd realise why the statement "Censorship is honest" is an implicit endorsement of Censorship.

We get that you have a different interpretation, but I've supported mine.

That's not how quoting works, the onus is on you to get it right. What is the statement about not monitoring content you speak of?

My claim has evidence, you vastly overstate yours. To refute the term's definition based on how the english use of the words in that order, you would need to provide a definition from another source, which you have not. All you have is a derivation from a description.

What I actually said, is consistent with my point that I do not need to refute what you have found, it is not a valid piece of evidence in the way you are trying to use it. It's not a definition. It's not from who you claim was the originator of the term, it's not from peer reviewed journals. That's why I take object to you resorting to deception of what I had claimed to bolster your own piss weak arguments; you have nothing, and your lies and deception show this, as does your unwillingness to own up to them.

Disagree, changing what a person says and means is slander.

And not a statement I made, please learn how context works.

[Katman]

Who will win? Autism or Anxiety? Anxiety or Autism?

Place bet now!

[carbonhed]

Who will win? Autism or Anxiety? Anxiety or Autism?

Place bet now!

Return to thread after fifty page absence... same shit

Somebody should introduce these guys to porn and masturbation........... waaaaaaay more productive.

[Katman]

Somebody should introduce these guys to porn and masturbation........... waaaaaaay more productive.

I suspect Graystone's sweaty palms would give him a distinct advantage there.

[TheDemonLord]

We get that you have a different interpretation, but I've supported mine.

Not really, you've asserted a different interpretation, which is not borne out of the facts - you've had to add an entire layer of conjecture. And then from your own conjecture, you've come up with possible scenarios.

Effectively you've introduced a compound error in your reasoning.

That's not how quoting works, the onus is on you to get it right. What is the statement about not monitoring content you speak of?

Funny how you've not objected until now - it's almost like you realise you lost that point.

My claim has evidence, you vastly overstate yours. To refute the term's definition based on how the english use of the words in that order, you would need to provide a definition from another source, which you have not. All you have is a derivation from a description.

Your evidence is vague. And furthermore - no, you can use a description to refute a definition - Ever heard of the Appeal to Dictionary Fallacy (hint, it's what you are committing at the moment)?

What I actually said, is consistent with my point that I do not need to refute what you have found, it is not a valid piece of evidence in the way you are trying to use it. It's not a definition. It's not from who you claim was the originator of the term, it's not from peer reviewed journals. That's why I take object to you resorting to deception of what I had claimed to bolster your own piss weak arguments; you have nothing, and your lies and deception show this, as does your unwillingness to own up to them.

So you're going for the dismissal approach - you get to dismiss something you don't like from within the field that you put forward as valid... Cherry Picking much? And then you claim it's me being irrational...

Of course that leads us to summise that the only reason for doing so is because you are unable to argue against it.

Disagree, changing what a person says and means is slander.

Only if it damages their reputation (it's that last bit that is important)

And not a statement I made, please learn how context works.

You mean like the context of you trying to rebut a statement by using a definition that isn't contrary to that statement? Which is it? Is Context important or not? Or is it only important when Graystone needs it to be important to try and win a point?

It looks to be more and more like the last one.

[TheDemonLord]

Return to thread after fifty page absence... same shit

Somebody should introduce these guys to porn and masturbation........... waaaaaaay more productive.

It's either arguing with Graystone or trying to debug why my SQL script isn't doing what I want it to do.

I'm a master of procrastination.

[Graystone]

Not really, you've asserted a different interpretation, which is not borne out of the facts - you've had to add an entire layer of conjecture. And then from your own conjecture, you've come up with possible scenarios.

Effectively you've introduced a compound error in your reasoning.



Funny how you've not objected until now - it's almost like you realise you lost that point.



Your evidence is vague. And furthermore - no, you can use a description to refute a definition - Ever heard of the Appeal to Dictionary Fallacy (hint, it's what you are committing at the moment)?



So you're going for the dismissal approach - you get to dismiss something you don't like from within the field that you put forward as valid... Cherry Picking much? And then you claim it's me being irrational...

Of course that leads us to summise that the only reason for doing so is because you are unable to argue against it.



Only if it damages their reputation (it's that last bit that is important)



You mean like the context of you trying to rebut a statement by using a definition that isn't contrary to that statement? Which is it? Is Context important or not? Or is it only important when Graystone needs it to be important to try and win a point?

It looks to be more and more like the last one.

The posts were clearly racist, the change was race only, how is it patently false to say it was racism related?

My objections have arisen as I've won the point that you dishonestly removed context to change his meaning, so I'm moving on to see if you have learnt from that, and are willing to back up your claims about what he said in addition to that. Given your evasion it seems like you have seen you own errors, but refuse to face them. Or simply put, he never said that they monitor behavior without monitoring content, nor any words to that effect; we both know that now (otherwise you would have posted a quote), yet you've been claiming for pages that he did; again, grow a pair and admit when you are wrong.

I'm not using a dictionary definition, perhaps that needs to be added to pile of fallacies you don't know how to use...

That is an irrational summation, the evidence you have put forward is simply not compelling, for the reasons I have listed.

Which is subjective, and a technicality; you could argue in this case no, but as a habit, or when done by people who are relevant, it would be slander eventually. That's the parallel I was drawing.

That's not context at all, that's just your narrative after the fact, you really do need to learn how context works.

[TheDemonLord]

The posts were clearly racist, the change was race only, how is it patently false to say it was racism related?

Let's for a moment take that as fact (which isn't entirely true - you've omitted a fair amount of nuance, but it'll do for now) - If both posts are racist, you have to point to what the difference between the two which caused one to be censured and one not. At that point you present a secondary series of conjecture for which you have no evidence.

Now, I simply point that if you hold to a certain left-wing philosophy namely that Racism is only applicable to minorities - then this without any additional conjecture required - see Occams Razor explains precisely what happened.

At which point - the claim that Twitter has political bias in it's application of the ToS is proven.

My objections have arisen as I've won the point that you dishonestly removed context to change his meaning, so I'm moving on to see if you have learnt from that, and are willing to back up your claims about what he said in addition to that. Given your evasion it seems like you have seen you own errors, but refuse to face them. Or simply put, he never said that they monitor behavior without monitoring content, nor any words to that effect; we both know that now (otherwise you would have posted a quote), yet you've been claiming for pages that he did; again, grow a pair and admit when you are wrong.

And I've pointed out that the statements when analyzed cannot be factually true, which is why I ommitted them.

You're upset at a context that is demonstrably false - which is where I'm laughing that you would rather willfully believe a lie, than concede the point.

I'm not using a dictionary definition, perhaps that needs to be added to pile of fallacies you don't know how to use...

I never said you were... The fallacy is when someone points to a definition (not necessarily from a dictionary) and refuses any other evidence that modifies, expands or conflicts with it.

Which is what you are doing.

That is an irrational summation, the evidence you have put forward is simply not compelling, for the reasons I have listed.

Cherry Picking.

Which is subjective, and a technicality; you could argue in this case no, but as a habit, or when done by people who are relevant, it would be slander eventually. That's the parallel I was drawing.

And entirely relevant for the hilariously bad parrallel you are drawing.

That's not context at all, that's just your narrative after the fact, you really do need to learn how context works.

Right - Context only matters when Graystone says it matters, when it's supposedly in your favor.

Again with the Cherry picking.

[Graystone]

Let's for a moment take that as fact (which isn't entirely true - you've omitted a fair amount of nuance, but it'll do for now) - If both posts are racist, you have to point to what the difference between the two which caused one to be censured and one not. At that point you present a secondary series of conjecture for which you have no evidence.

Now, I simply point that if you hold to a certain left-wing philosophy namely that Racism is only applicable to minorities - then this without any additional conjecture required - see Occams Razor explains precisely what happened.

At which point - the claim that Twitter has political bias in it's application of the ToS is proven.



And I've pointed out that the statements when analyzed cannot be factually true, which is why I ommitted them.

You're upset at a context that is demonstrably false - which is where I'm laughing that you would rather willfully believe a lie, than concede the point.



I never said you were... The fallacy is when someone points to a definition (not necessarily from a dictionary) and refuses any other evidence that modifies, expands or conflicts with it.

Which is what you are doing.



Cherry Picking.



And entirely relevant for the hilariously bad parrallel you are drawing.



Right - Context only matters when Graystone says it matters, when it's supposedly in your favor.

Again with the Cherry picking.

Racism would be one, where twitter bloke is racist, so sees no problem with posts racist against whites, but does with posts racist against other minorities. It may be a left wing philosphy as well, but it is still racist. Twitter bloke may also have seen a post which only changed the race aspect, as being one designed to incite attacks on the original poster, or racist discussion.

Which changed the intended meaning. And also relied on you understanding the ommitted statements, which you clearly do not, as you cannot even quote them. I'll reiterate; he never said that they monitor behavior without monitoring content, nor any words to that effect.

That's sargons law though, you are asserting that the term cannot have another meaning other than the one you have found in your description. My assertion is that there is another meaning which is applicable; do you see the difference? Do you understand the fallacy? I'll give you a hint, it is to ensure a term is not overly constrained by definition so as to be used to narrowly define said term, especially when there can be multiple interpretations, or the actual usage has changed over time. But, history has shown you are incapable of understanding basic fallacies and work to create exceptions in your own favour, so I really can't be arsed starting a detailed discussion on this one until you finish the last one...

No, context matters when its removal changes the intended meaning. Context is not a subjective narrative. This is simple shit dude...

[husaberg]

Captain America's been torn apart
Now he's a court jester with a broken heart