Stupid World

[TheDemonLord]

You have not explained, nor clarified this, you simply point to your 'context' to try to change the accusation, but in your 'context' the correct answer would have been no; since you would not have added that different accusation.

If only, in previous posts, I'd first made the clarifications, then referenced them in subsequent posts when you summarily ignored them...

If only...

So it does fit both narratives, your subjective take on it (and you just admitted to) is what I was calling you out for.

Sure, it is my subjective take, and I've given my reasons for it.

If you've got an issue with that - try arguing with some intellectual integrity.

So, it's another implicit thing is it? fuck you're big on subjective interpretation to fit your narrative. Where have I actually stated my standards?

You've stated what falls foul of your standard, from which we are allowed to infer certain things about it.

It's from that, which we find how your standard is curiously one sided.

Exactly, so we agree there is not contradiction.

You are not a 3rd party, neutral observer to your subjective opinion.

Do you see how above I acknowledged what was my subjective opinion, I laid out the reasons why I hold said opinion, but I never tried to paint it as anything else?

That's the intellectual integrity I'm talking about, which you are lacking.

[TheDemonLord]

To put it bluntly Your points are pointless, Yet they are far still far sharper than your barbs.

You complain I never make a logical point, then refuse to address them as they are pointless.

If they were as illogical as you claim, then you could easily rebut the with a few sentences, yet we get first the posturing, then the dismissal. Looks more like avoiding the question due to an inability to answer...

So was Harry potter, a shit load of John grishman novels, lord of the rings, the da vinci code,

All of which, curiously, happen to have a central core, based upon the positive Masculine story.

That story, although 'fiction' has an element that is deeply true, it's why they are popular. So too is JBPs book

as was the Female eunuch by Germaine Greer

Oh, so she's not some silly Bint now? Sounds an awful lot like you're backpedaling.

So which is it? Is she an Author with influence or not? You keep saying something about Cherry picking, so choose.

Which you dismissed as being radical feminism so that another of your misses. Especially considering she is a hell of a lot more famous than your kermitt the frog.

Considering that Germaine Greer has been ostracised by the Intersectional feminists (since she's a TERF - Trans Exclusionary RADICAL FEMINIST - there's a hint in the name) I'm not so sure she's more famous. Especially since not mere pages ago, you were trying to downplay her fame and influence in order to avoid conceding the point that certain viewpoints she helped promote and foster are tied (by your own evidence) to risk factors in Suicide.

Mcdonalds sells a lot of food but it doesnt mean it is goof=d for you or the best food, Peterson is fodder for his target market.

Red Herring.

Was was silly was for you to claim it suicide was the biggest killer of under 25's when you really ment only in a country in certain years. And that it was epdemic proportions when the truth was it was actually dropping and not only that female suicides were not static as you had said for those years you later specified they had risen by 40%. to get around the 40% rise you then tried to use a different set of years for the females. which you have never explained you just ignore that.

So you're back to this, despite the clarifications being made, despite the evidence being posted, despite an explanation as to why a small change in the number of Female deaths (which, I should point out, is still a tragedy) results in a large percentage change due to the lower based number.

You're still hellbent on a complete misrepresentation.

To top it all offf you then blamed radical feminism for the difference in the male adn female stats only issue is there is many other reasons behind the difference and no one other than Peterson cults thinks its radical feminism.

I've never said it was the only issue, in fact I've made it clear it's not. I've referenced several other Academics in related fields that think that the rise of a certain type of Radical Feminism is causal, funny how you've ignored those.

Did the person who wrote the article mention JBP? I don't think he did - so clearly the statement "no one other than Peterson cults thinks its radical feminism." isn't true

Nor does it explain why that difference has always existed.

I've explained that, Men are more willing to use Violent methods. Women are more likely to use non-violent methods, especially methods that will preserve their looks.

That is an issue of Biology, not of Feminism. Stop trying to conflate things that I've already explained and clearly differentiated.

Whatever no one else cares what you think enough to argue with you. Even cassina or whoever Graystone is, cant be bothered

And yet, you keep replying, despite declaring you are done.

i cant be arsed multiquoted you in replies its not worth the effort. 4/5 of your replies are plucked out of thin air.

And yet, you keep replying, despite declaring you are done.

You claim everything is proof, because you ignore anything that doesn't suit. You have the strongest confirmation bias this side of Katspam.

Fine, where is your standard of Proof then, we can settle this very quickly and succintly.

You post up your standard of Proof. We'll compare the points you make against said standard, then we'll compare the points I make against said standard.

If you are right, nothing I can post up will be able to meet that standard and you can summarily dismiss what I say.
But, if I can post up things that meet your standard (and given what you've cited thus far, we both know I can), then your entire premise is proved to be false.

From that, we can infer that the reluctance to state the standard of evidence is an admission that you know I can meet it and therefore you'd have to take the statement seriously and that would invalidate your entire ideological worldview.

Any thing on one side for you is proof any thing contrary is ignored or dismissed as not be significant to you, Yet this is what the worlds experts in suicide say, but you claim to know better.

Consider this: Whatever the 'World experts in suicide' are saying, it's clearly not working - so on that basis maybe some of their fundamental presupositions aren't correct

The funniest part is, most of what you've posted as proof, I've not ignored or dismissed - you've posted multiple facts, I've never disputed them. You've posted various stats of Rates - the only umbrage I've taken with them is that they are not showing the current data, for the current issue (although in your mind, using current data for current issues is somehow cherry picking - because reasons...).

Just like your total dismissal of the NZ mental heath foundation letter.

I didn't totally dismiss it. I pointed to 2 things:

1: It was written by a self-declared adherent of an Ideological Philosophy (Social Justice) that is fundamentally opposed to the idea being espoused. From the statements on the NZ Mental Health Foundation, it's clear that the organization as a whole also adheres (or at least is favourable) towards said philosophy. As such, it cannot be treated as objective. It would be no different than a Priest writing a rebuttal to an Atheist arguing that God does exist on behalf of the Church.

2: From the letter, there is a clear gendered preference in favor of Women, this is inline with both the aforementioned point and shows the biases that such a philosophy holds against Men. Furthermore, it shows that my fundamental claim (that various Radical Feminist ideas have entered into society) to be true and correct (Social justice is spawned from Intersectional Feminism).

So, I'm not sure how you can claim I dismiss it, when in fact, I've used it to show the point I'm making is true.

To be clear - I'll give you an example of what I mean - here's a full quote from the letter:

Among your readers will be countless numbers of women who live with the grief of suicide loss every day, who may have read your editorial and felt guilt or shame and perhaps wondered whether if they had just been a little less empowered and more dependent, their loved one may still be alive. This is a disgraceful message to send to these women. You owe each of them an apology.

No Sympathy for the Countless Men who also live with the grief of suicide loss every day, who may have read that editorial and felt guilt or shame and perhaps wondered whether if they'd been a little more assertive and Masculine, their loved one may still be alive.

[husaberg]

.

adds to ignore
But before he does

Gillette debuted its “We Believe in the Best in Men” ad campaign on its website yesterday, part of an overall shift to the slightly modified tag “The Best a Man Can Be.” The 1:48 length video starts out with images of remarkably troubled looking men as a narrator makes reference to bullying, sexual harassment, and toxic masculinity. It then poses the question “Is This the Best a Man Can Get.” The viewer then sees depictions of a series of very ugly and negative behaviors, including bullying, fighting, sexual harassment, and blatantly interfering with a woman speaking in the workplace. The ad goes on to state it is time for men to stop making excuses and to renounce the idea that “boys will be boys.” Gillette concludes that by calling for and showing images of men holding other men accountable and emphasizing that the boys of today will be the men of tomorrow.

If one of your daughters or sons came to you and said they were cheating on their partner, would you:
A: Hi-5 them and tell them 'Go you!'
or
B: Disaprove of their actions
If it's option B - then congratulations, you are part of Enforced Monogamy.
Not to mention this is a Red Herring, an attempt at Poisoning the Well AND a Character Assassination.

Why are you bringing up Trump? Doubly funny when:
But to answer the Question: I've never condemned him. Groupies are a thing. Women like rich and powerful Men, and as such the Women ALLOW said Men to do things they wouldn't for other people.
.

It's almost like theres a link between telling Men they are all tyrannical, Woman-Beating Rapists - and young men killing themselves.

Inversely there is a greater amount of woman beating rapists who beat and rape women.
Young people sadly kill themselves as they are to afraid of the stigma attached to asking for help. This has nothing due to feminism, quite the opposite.

here is a clue, men beat women to death and beat women and have been rapping women since well before feminism was invented.
its nothing to do with feminism its the total opposite.
Conversely, No rational person thinks any rational feminist targets all men for the crimes of a few.
Nor does any rational teenager commit suicide.
While it may make you feel better to blame another sex the simple explanation is men dont talk about their problems.
Trying to blame others in the hope of regaining some outdated macho stereotype isn't going to help.
its actually making it worse.

Why do men not like to talk about their problems?
Here's a few ideas:

1: Enemies who know about your problems can exploit them and therefore exploit you
2: Acknowledging problems is to voluntarily lower yourself down the heirachy of competence
3: Women don't find that attractive

What I am blaming Feminism for - is pushing concepts like Toxic Masculinity, a myriad of grievances starting with man-, self-righteously declaring what is and isn't acceptable behaviour AND setting a blatant double standard, for continually pushing an implicit narrative that Men are born with original sin and can only be saved by castrating themselves before the god of Feminism.

There are Just as many male nutjobs as female nutjobs
Women face all those issues your own expectation of how things must be shape how people act, your own excuses are adding to the problem.
if you are saying there is additional pressures on men ask yourself is that a result of their thinking or your own and societies out of date expectations

You argue blaming feminism for male suicide, Its ridiculous in concept and has no basis in reality

Before you can solve a problem you need to be honest with yourself that there is a problem, And seek the real causes, rather than blame what is convenient to you.
Interesting enough you go on about islam being dangerous due to its teachings and them not wanting to align their belief with modern societies expectations of dress and culture, yet you seem to agree with their polices toward women or societies expectations regarding behaviour.

On Thursday Mark Dawson, the editor of the Wanganui Chronicle, published an editorial suggesting that ‘the growing empowerment of women’ is partly to blame for New Zealand’s high rate of male suicide. The Mental Health Foundation’s Sophia Graham responds.

Dear Mr Dawson,

I read your editorial ‘Tough topic we need to talk about’ with dismay. Many people responded with outrage to your speculation that male suicide is caused by female empowerment, and the Mental Health Foundation echoes the criticism you have received and strongly encourages you to issue an immediate retraction and apology. I note that NZME, publisher of your paper, has already removed your column from their website.

You wrote of the disproportionate number of men dying by suicide compared to women, suggesting: “one explanation for this disproportion may be the growing empowerment of women and their increasing role in society.”

“…Is it an unfortunate side effect that men feel less secure, less sure of their place in a world where they were once more dominant?”

Firstly, to answer your question, no, male suicides are not “an unfortunate side effect” of recent female empowerment. Male suicide rates have been significantly higher than female suicide rates since at least the 1920s. Many countries see a similar pattern. Suicide prevention research since the 1920s has found changes in male suicide rates are tied more closely to economic pressures than changing social roles.

Mr Dawson, your comments are not only wrong, they’re dangerous. We know many men still find it extremely difficult to ask for help when they’re going through a hard time. Alongside other agencies in New Zealand we work hard, every day, to encourage men not to let pride or fear prevent them from seeking and accepting the help they need. We all go through difficult times and we all deserve support.

Your editorial undermines this message and reinforces toxic stereotypes that contribute to men feeling they must soldier on and never show a sign of weakness.
encourage you to reflect not only on the anger caused by your ill-informed words, but also the hurt. There are thousands of empowered women around New Zealand who have used their agency and education to work to support men from all walks of life to seek help and recover from challenges they face throughout their lives.

Among your readers will be countless women who live with the grief of suicide loss every day, who may have read your editorial and felt guilt or shame and perhaps wondered whether if they had just been a little less empowered and more dependent, their loved one might still be alive. This is a disgraceful message to send to these women. You owe each of them an apology.

Many people who have lost someone to suicide are left with questions that are difficult or impossible to answer. They seek desperately to understand why their loved one took their life and what could have prevented it. Contrary to your headline, your editorial shed no light on this issue for them but instead sought to place blame where none is warranted.

Additionally, you showed a marked lack of compassion toward women who live with depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses. Women experience almost twice the rates of psychological distress as men and are more than twice as likely to be hospitalised for intentional self-harm. The issue is not as black and white as you would have it appear. There are no winners here.

As an editor of a newspaper, you should know better. Journalists have an important role in shaping social attitudes to, and perceptions of, suicide. Your careless and dangerous words betrayed the trust your readers place in you as an editor and a leading voice in your community.

I acknowledge your editorial contained some valid and interesting remarks on the how the pressures men face can contribute to suicide. It’s a shame these were left unexplored.

There are a large number of organisations who would be willing to work with you to better understand the complexities of suicide and mental health in New Zealand, the Mental Health Foundation is among them. By talking to suicide prevention experts in your community or the Mental Health Foundation we could work together to support our shared goal of preventing suicide in New Zealand.

Sophia Graham is the communications and marketing manager at the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand.

For information about preventing suicide, see mentalhealth.org.nz/suicideprevention

Alcoholism is more than twice as common among men as women.
Typically, men are more likely to abuse illicit drugs and alcohol – 11.5% of males over 12 have a substance use disorder, compared to 6.4% of females.

[TheDemonLord]

adds to ignore
But before he does

So nothing then, just out of context quotes, cherry picked. Thanks for proving one of my points.

I'm going to leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XMdT2cF-ZM

For those interested - you can listen to the whole thing, but I'd recommend skipping to around the 49:30 mark - where the phone callers call in.

The first, a Lady (so not a long haired, single male gamer...), suffering from Depression all her adult life has found that JBPs insight in his book has helped her manage her Depression, by the adoption of responsibility.
The second, a Man who starts by saying 'I was starring into the Abyss' (I think it's safe to assume he means he was Suicidal), then says (thanks to JBP) He's not.

Husa would have you believe that this is work of a snakeoil salesman, devoid of factual content, with no predictive utility and promoted by someone knows nothing about Suicide for purely profitable reasons.

I ask you this: Assume in the first instance that everything Husa has said is correct, or at least could be true; Now compare it against the testimony given:

If it is Snakeoil - why does it appear to work? At worst you could call it a psychological placebo, but even then results are results.
If it is devoid of factual content - why does it ring true for such a diverse groups of people?
If it has no predictive utility - why do the outcomes that he sets out occur when the principals are applied?
If it is by someone who knows nothing about Suicide - why does he appear to have helped so many people in finding a path where they don't take their own life?
finally
If it is purely for profit - why does he post the lectures in full, on youtube, where they can be consumed free of charge?

It is at this juncture that any rational person can see, that at the very least, JBP is onto something, you may dispute how much or how little, but Quod Erat Demonstrandum Husa's pure ideological dismissals is nothing more than denialism.

[husaberg]

.

adds to ignore
But before he does

Gillette debuted its “We Believe in the Best in Men” ad campaign on its website yesterday, part of an overall shift to the slightly modified tag “The Best a Man Can Be.” The 1:48 length video starts out with images of remarkably troubled looking men as a narrator makes reference to bullying, sexual harassment, and toxic masculinity. It then poses the question “Is This the Best a Man Can Get.” The viewer then sees depictions of a series of very ugly and negative behaviors, including bullying, fighting, sexual harassment, and blatantly interfering with a woman speaking in the workplace. The ad goes on to state it is time for men to stop making excuses and to renounce the idea that “boys will be boys.” Gillette concludes that by calling for and showing images of men holding other men accountable and emphasizing that the boys of today will be the men of tomorrow.

If one of your daughters or sons came to you and said they were cheating on their partner, would you:
A: Hi-5 them and tell them 'Go you!'
or
B: Disaprove of their actions
If it's option B - then congratulations, you are part of Enforced Monogamy.

Why are you bringing up Trump? Doubly funny when:
But to answer the Question: I've never condemned him. Groupies are a thing. Women like rich and powerful Men, and as such the Women ALLOW said Men to do things they wouldn't for other people.
.

It's almost like theres a link between telling Men they are all tyrannical, Woman-Beating Rapists - and young men killing themselves.

Inversely there is a greater amount of woman beating rapists who beat and rape women.
Young people sadly kill themselves as they are to afraid of the stigma attached to asking for help. This has nothing due to feminism, quite the opposite.

here is a clue, men beat women to death and beat women and have been rapping women since well before feminism was invented.
its nothing to do with feminism its the total opposite.
Conversely, No rational person thinks any rational feminist targets all men for the crimes of a few.
Nor does any rational teenager commit suicide.
While it may make you feel better to blame another sex the simple explanation is men dont talk about their problems.
Trying to blame others in the hope of regaining some outdated macho stereotype isn't going to help.
its actually making it worse.

Why do men not like to talk about their problems?
Here's a few ideas:

1: Enemies who know about your problems can exploit them and therefore exploit you
2: Acknowledging problems is to voluntarily lower yourself down the hierarchy of competence
3: Women don't find that attractive

What I am blaming Feminism for - is pushing concepts like Toxic Masculinity, a myriad of grievances starting with man-, self-righteously declaring what is and isn't acceptable behaviour AND setting a blatant double standard, for continually pushing an implicit narrative that Men are born with original sin and can only be saved by castrating themselves before the god of Feminism.

There are Just as many male nutjobs as female nutjobs
Women face all those issues your own expectation of how things must be shape how people act, your own excuses are adding to the problem.
if you are saying there is additional pressures on men ask yourself is that a result of their thinking or your own and societies out of date expectations

You argue blaming feminism for male suicide, Its ridiculous in concept and has no basis in reality

Before you can solve a problem you need to be honest with yourself that there is a problem, And seek the real causes, rather than blame what is convenient to you.
Interesting enough you go on about islam being dangerous due to its teachings and them not wanting to align their belief with modern societies expectations of dress and culture, yet you seem to agree with their polices toward women or societies expectations regarding behaviour.

On Thursday Mark Dawson, the editor of the Wanganui Chronicle, published an editorial suggesting that ‘the growing empowerment of women’ is partly to blame for New Zealand’s high rate of male suicide. The Mental Health Foundation’s Sophia Graham responds.

Dear Mr Dawson,

I read your editorial ‘Tough topic we need to talk about’ with dismay. Many people responded with outrage to your speculation that male suicide is caused by female empowerment, and the Mental Health Foundation echoes the criticism you have received and strongly encourages you to issue an immediate retraction and apology. I note that NZME, publisher of your paper, has already removed your column from their website.

You wrote of the disproportionate number of men dying by suicide compared to women, suggesting: “one explanation for this disproportion may be the growing empowerment of women and their increasing role in society.”

“…Is it an unfortunate side effect that men feel less secure, less sure of their place in a world where they were once more dominant?”

Firstly, to answer your question, no, male suicides are not “an unfortunate side effect” of recent female empowerment. Male suicide rates have been significantly higher than female suicide rates since at least the 1920s. Many countries see a similar pattern. Suicide prevention research since the 1920s has found changes in male suicide rates are tied more closely to economic pressures than changing social roles.

Mr Dawson, your comments are not only wrong, they’re dangerous. We know many men still find it extremely difficult to ask for help when they’re going through a hard time. Alongside other agencies in New Zealand we work hard, every day, to encourage men not to let pride or fear prevent them from seeking and accepting the help they need. We all go through difficult times and we all deserve support.

Your editorial undermines this message and reinforces toxic stereotypes that contribute to men feeling they must soldier on and never show a sign of weakness.
encourage you to reflect not only on the anger caused by your ill-informed words, but also the hurt. There are thousands of empowered women around New Zealand who have used their agency and education to work to support men from all walks of life to seek help and recover from challenges they face throughout their lives.

Among your readers will be countless women who live with the grief of suicide loss every day, who may have read your editorial and felt guilt or shame and perhaps wondered whether if they had just been a little less empowered and more dependent, their loved one might still be alive. This is a disgraceful message to send to these women. You owe each of them an apology.

Many people who have lost someone to suicide are left with questions that are difficult or impossible to answer. They seek desperately to understand why their loved one took their life and what could have prevented it. Contrary to your headline, your editorial shed no light on this issue for them but instead sought to place blame where none is warranted.

Additionally, you showed a marked lack of compassion toward women who live with depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses. Women experience almost twice the rates of psychological distress as men and are more than twice as likely to be hospitalised for intentional self-harm. The issue is not as black and white as you would have it appear. There are no winners here.

As an editor of a newspaper, you should know better. Journalists have an important role in shaping social attitudes to, and perceptions of, suicide. Your careless and dangerous words betrayed the trust your readers place in you as an editor and a leading voice in your community.

I acknowledge your editorial contained some valid and interesting remarks on the how the pressures men face can contribute to suicide. It’s a shame these were left unexplored.

There are a large number of organisations who would be willing to work with you to better understand the complexities of suicide and mental health in New Zealand, the Mental Health Foundation is among them. By talking to suicide prevention experts in your community or the Mental Health Foundation we could work together to support our shared goal of preventing suicide in New Zealand.

Sophia Graham is the communications and marketing manager at the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand.

For information about preventing suicide, see mentalhealth.org.nz/suicideprevention

The same two years in the same country where you claimed males had rising substantially yet females rate had stayed the same actually showed Female suicides increased by 44 compared to the year before - a 30 per cent increase to 193. .


ie a child is twice as likely to attempt suicide if they are from a single parent family,
Also males raised in a broken homes to be three times as likely to have thought seriously about suicide as those whose parents had stayed together.
Us figures show About 40% of children who do not live with their biological father have not seen him during the past 12 months; more than half of them have never been in his home and 26% of those fathers live in a different state than their children.
Teenagers in single-parent families and in blended families are 300% more likely to need psychological help within any given year than teens from intact, nuclear families.
Then we have drug and alcohol use.
40% of patients seeking treatment for alcohol/substance use disorder report at least one suicide attempt at some point in their lives.
Acute alcohol intoxication is present in about 30–40% of suicide attempts and suicides.
Alcoholism is more than twice as common among men as women.
Typically, men are more likely to abuse illicit drugs and alcohol – 11.5% of males over 12 have a substance use disorder, compared to 6.4% of females.
While 95% of individuals with a mental illness and/or substance use disorder will not die by suicide, 90% of individuals who do die by suicide have either a mental or substance use disorder, or both
Between 40–60% of those who die by suicide are intoxicated at the time of those who death.
Studies conducted in substance abuse rehabilitation programs typically reported that 50–75% of clients had some type of co-occurring mental disorder.
Men are more likely to commit suicide than women. Researchers suggest that men suffering from depression are more likely to go unrecognized and untreated than women suffering from depression, in part because men may avoid seeking help (viewing it as a weakness). Men who are depressed are also more likely to have co-occurring alcohol and substance use disorders than women.
Women are more likely than men to attempt suicide.
Being a parent, particularly for mothers, appears to decrease the risk of suicide. Even pregnant women have a lower risk of suicide than women of childbearing age who are not pregnant.
75% of global suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries, so suicide is not a problem that occurs only in industrialized, wealthy nations as had often be previously suggested in the past.
Unemployment is associated with increased rates of suicide.
While i am sure you will fire back that radical feminism is the cause of divorce, given the reasons women cite vs men when seeking divorce this is clearly not the case.
For better or worse and love and cherish doesn't really include adultery or physical abuse or substance abuse.
Its not radical feminism fault that modern women expect to be not physically abused or not have your partner cheat or be a drunk or Drug user. Its common sense.


So here is an idea, maybe suicide is caused by vast number of social and economic and mental health and communication issues and have a lot to do with the victims environment that have nothing at all to do with your theories about radical feminism being the cause for the difference in Male and famale suicide rates.
Especially considering the undeniable fact more women attempt suicide than men.
No credible research has ever produced the link you claim, Which is why you have to attempt BS the NZ figures as Still dont support you theory even when you only cherry pick certain years data.

[Ocean1]

Oh noes! You should have stuck to copy and paste... because as soon as you says what you think it's fucking retarded... AGAIN!

Speaking of Jordan Peterson....

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/f...-gender-reveal

[Ocean1]

adds to ignore
But before he does

So you won't be seeing TDL's observation about you not ignoring shit any better than you actually comprehend it, then...

[husaberg]

So you won't be seeing TDL's observation about you not ignoring shit any better than you actually comprehend it, then...

I wont miss him talking in circles and being an epic hypocrite either.
I comphrehend TDL points better than you clearly do, the difference is i can see they are just baseless and built on a false and child like understanding of what actually occurs.
Whilst for the child its easy to blame others for your problems. Most adults don't do this.
Peterson wishes to profit of the pain and suffering rather than offering solutions, Some people are easier targets.
Look at your posts in the election thread for instance, You and TDL are all about unsubstantiated claims, but never produce any evidence to back them.
Funny enough also anything produced that shows you are wrong according to both of you should be ignored as being "propaganda"

[TheDemonLord]

So you won't be seeing TDL's observation about you not ignoring shit any better than you actually comprehend it, then...

It's funny - there's 3 people that I believe have got me on Ignore.

All, curiously, after I called them on their devotion to a certain left-wing Ideology or posted something heretical to said Ideology.

In all the years I've been here, Husa's never blocked Katman, yet (despite the many things Myself and Husa agree on), he's now blocked me.

One might conjecture that he doesn't block Katman, because most of what Katman posts is relatively easy to refute and argue against. I'm blocked because he can't refute and argue against it.

As an additional observation, he blocks me, but still attempts to 'win' the debate, by making points that he will never see the rebuttal of - which is the height of intellectual cowardice.

For the final point of hilarity - the claim that he understands the points better, yet he routinely misrepresented just about everything I said....

I guess Ignorance is truly bliss.

[Ocean1]

It's funny - there's 3 people that I believe have got me on Ignore.

All, curiously, after I called them on their devotion to a certain left-wing Ideology or posted something heretical to said Ideology.

In all the years I've been here, Husa's never blocked Katman, yet (despite the many things Myself and Husa agree on), he's now blocked me.

One might conjecture that he doesn't block Katman, because most of what Katman posts is relatively easy to refute and argue against. I'm blocked because he can't refute and argue against it.

As an additional observation, he blocks me, but still attempts to 'win' the debate, by making points that he will never see the rebuttal of - which is the height of intellectual cowardice.

For the final point of hilarity - the claim that he understands the points better, yet he routinely misrepresented just about everything I said....

I guess Ignorance is truly bliss.

I was going to just quote the bit most relevant to an observation; that I've never meet anyone who might benefit more from a close understanding of the 12 rules. Particularly *checks* 6,7,8,9 and 10

But I couldn't quite bring myself to ignore the opportunity to fuck up his ignore somewhat more completely than that, (metaphorical as I'm sure it is).

[Graystone]

If only, in previous posts, I'd first made the clarifications, then referenced them in subsequent posts when you summarily ignored them...

If only...



Sure, it is my subjective take, and I've given my reasons for it.

If you've got an issue with that - try arguing with some intellectual integrity.



You've stated what falls foul of your standard, from which we are allowed to infer certain things about it.

It's from that, which we find how your standard is curiously one sided.



You are not a 3rd party, neutral observer to your subjective opinion.

Do you see how above I acknowledged what was my subjective opinion, I laid out the reasons why I hold said opinion, but I never tried to paint it as anything else?

That's the intellectual integrity I'm talking about, which you are lacking.

All your clarifications do, is clarify that you should have answered no, instead of yes. So why did you answer yes? They have not been ignored at all, I'm not sure why you persist with this delusion.

No issue, since you have admitted it fits both narratives it renders any assumptions you make about which narrative is right, invalid.

Right, so you're going off half cocked about what I have 'stated' which was never actually stated.

Obviously not, nor have a claimed to be. So still not seeing the contradiction...

You accuse me of lacking intellectual integrity, yet what are you doing to show yours? Stacking assumptions and subjective opinion up so high you can't explain a simple yes vs no answer you made earlier, backing up claims of me 'blatantly' lying using inference and other bullshit... You're fucking pathetic dude, learn to own your mistakes, and maybe you won't be so lacking in both intelligence and integrity.

[TheDemonLord]

All your clarifications do, is clarify that you should have answered no, instead of yes. So why did you answer yes? They have not been ignored at all, I'm not sure why you persist with this delusion.

So, you acknowledge the clarifications, but continue to try and make a point as if they didn't exist. Who is truly the delusional one?

No issue, since you have admitted it fits both narratives it renders any assumptions you make about which narrative is right, invalid.

It's not an assumption, it's based on your actions. Since it's my interpretation, it's entirely valid.

Right, so you're going off half cocked about what I have 'stated' which was never actually stated.

Except you stated things that fall foul of your standard, from that it's quite easy to work backwards:

We can state the values that you gave for breaching the standard, and we can state that the inverse of those values must meet the standard.

Pretty simple stuff - I would have thought you could have worked that out...

Obviously not, nor have a claimed to be. So still not seeing the contradiction...

Clearly as that would require introspection and critical analysis...

It's very simple: You acknowledge you are not a neutral 3rd party observer - that means, your application of your own standard, with your own set of exceptions is done entirely at your own Whim.

Your waffle trying to assert it was not so is demonstrably false.

The contradiction lies between those 2 statements.

So which is it? The simple answer is that your standard is subject entirely to your own whims, and therefore my challenge of the exception to your standard and it's timeliness is entirely valid.

But you can't bring yourself to admit that, which is why you try and portray it as something objective, mandated by a higher power, over which you have no control.

I'll say it again: Pick one.

You accuse me of lacking intellectual integrity, yet what are you doing to show yours? Stacking assumptions and subjective opinion up so high you can't explain a simple yes vs no answer you made earlier, backing up claims of me 'blatantly' lying using inference and other bullshit... You're fucking pathetic dude, learn to own your mistakes, and maybe you won't be so lacking in both intelligence and integrity.

If everything you said were true, why have you been reduced to trying to make a semantics argument?

I've given the reasons why I've done what I did, the fact you don't like them, or more accurately; you are actively dismissing them to try and make a semantics point is not my concern.

The continued attempt at this line of argument, coupled with attempts to conflate a personal standard (which I'm dubious of, given how judicious you seem to be in applying the exceptions and your post-hoc justifications) with an objective standard only reinforces that this is due to an inability to argue the main point:

That the majority of people reject the Ideology of Social Justice (of which you are an adherent), the rejection is most pronounced when something that was previously successful drinks the kool-aid of Social Justice and ends up being a financial disaster.

Oh, and as proof of my integrity - see the parts above where I acknowledge what is my subjective opinion, you should try it sometime.

[Graystone]

So, you acknowledge the clarifications, but continue to try and make a point as if they didn't exist. Who is truly the delusional one?



It's not an assumption, it's based on your actions. Since it's my interpretation, it's entirely valid.



Except you stated things that fall foul of your standard, from that it's quite easy to work backwards:

We can state the values that you gave for breaching the standard, and we can state that the inverse of those values must meet the standard.

Pretty simple stuff - I would have thought you could have worked that out...



Clearly as that would require introspection and critical analysis...

It's very simple: You acknowledge you are not a neutral 3rd party observer - that means, your application of your own standard, with your own set of exceptions is done entirely at your own Whim.

Your waffle trying to assert it was not so is demonstrably false.

The contradiction lies between those 2 statements.

So which is it? The simple answer is that your standard is subject entirely to your own whims, and therefore my challenge of the exception to your standard and it's timeliness is entirely valid.

But you can't bring yourself to admit that, which is why you try and portray it as something objective, mandated by a higher power, over which you have no control.

I'll say it again: Pick one.



If everything you said were true, why have you been reduced to trying to make a semantics argument?

I've given the reasons why I've done what I did, the fact you don't like them, or more accurately; you are actively dismissing them to try and make a semantics point is not my concern.

The continued attempt at this line of argument, coupled with attempts to conflate a personal standard (which I'm dubious of, given how judicious you seem to be in applying the exceptions and your post-hoc justifications) with an objective standard only reinforces that this is due to an inability to argue the main point:

The the majority of people reject the Ideology of Social Justice (of which you are an adherent), the rejection is most pronounced when something that was previously successful drinks the kool-aid of Social Justice and ends up being a financial disaster.

Oh, and as proof of my integrity - see the parts above where I acknowledge what is my subjective opinion, you should try it sometime.

The point I am making, is that they do exist, and in light of them, you should not have said yes, to add an additional accusation that did not fit with them. How is that ignoring them?

Invalid to any constructive debate, subjective opinion counts for fuck all, remember.

right, and just forget or ignore all the other bits of it? Out of curiosity, which statement are you taking the inverse of? Has that been stated, or are you inferring shit there too?

Nope, that is not what whim means, my application of it is justified by the explanation of the exception. You have admitted your subjectivity in your assertion that the exception was not present all along so that is not something you can claim was added at a whim. I've not portrayed it as mandated by a higher power; can you just stop making shit up?

The difference between yes and no is not merely one of semantics... Rather than admit you were wrong, you have reduced it to an argument about tangential details with little bearing on the point at hand. Where exactly do you think I have overstated my opinion as anything more than that? And if simply recognizing opinion is your benchmark for intelligence and integrity, it just goes to prove my point that you have neither

[TheDemonLord]

The point I am making, is that they do exist, and in light of them, you should not have said yes, to add an additional accusation that did not fit with them. How is that ignoring them?

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

Invalid to any constructive debate, subjective opinion counts for fuck all, remember.

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

right, and just forget or ignore all the other bits of it? Out of curiosity, which statement are you taking the inverse of? Has that been stated, or are you inferring shit there too?

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):

why should I back up what I say about you,

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.

Nope, that is not what whim means, my application of it is justified by the explanation of the exception.

Still applied by you, at your own whim.

You have admitted your subjectivity in your assertion that the exception was not present all along so that is not something you can claim was added at a 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.

I've not portrayed it as mandated by a higher power; can you just stop making shit up?

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.

The difference between yes and no is not merely one of semantics... Rather than admit you were wrong, you have reduced it to an argument about tangential details with little bearing on the point at hand.

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...

Where exactly do you think I have overstated my opinion as anything more than that?

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

And if simply recognizing opinion is your benchmark for intelligence and integrity, it just goes to prove my point that you have neither

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.

[oldrider]

Latest "social engineering" redundancy? :- https://twitter.com/HenryMakow/statu...rymakow.com%2F - PMS. - Hello Unisex - genderless world?