Topic: “Facts over Feelings”
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 weeks ago #134,504
Such a bizarre phrase. That used to have some meaning but got bastardized by debatebros engaging pseudo-intellectual discourse looking to get a “win”.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,431,706
But I guess in the case of left leaning people, they fuel the right in having it co-opted as a rhetorical cudgel. The move became label whatever you believe as “facts,” label whatever the other person feels as “feelings,” then declare yourself the rational one.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,707
There’s also a false dichotomy baked in. Emotions aren’t opposed to reason, I mean they carry real information, and ignoring them isn’t more rational, it’s just selectively blind, deaf and dumb all in one step. A person grieving a policy’s human cost isn’t being irrational. A person ignoring that cost because the spreadsheet looks clean isn’t being purely logical either no matter how you slice it.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,708
Also this is not an open invitation to “talk” religion or economics.
Jim from Nottingham joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,711
@previous (A)
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 56 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,726
@1,431,706 (A)
The distinction between facts and feeling is not some subjective vibe you get in your gut.
Lefties frame everything as opinion so that the conversation doesn't come down to an actual analysis of the data and form of the argument because if it did they would fail to defend their views.
The distinction between facts and feeling is not some subjective vibe you get in your gut.
Lefties frame everything as opinion so that the conversation doesn't come down to an actual analysis of the data and form of the argument because if it did they would fail to defend their views.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Darkness joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 19 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,731
@previous (C)
It’s so stupid how you said it’s objective then applied it immediately to your subjective political beliefs. You’re just proving OP’s point idiot.
It’s so stupid how you said it’s objective then applied it immediately to your subjective political beliefs. You’re just proving OP’s point idiot.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,733
@previous (Darkness)
It's leftists themselves that proclaim that everything is subjective.
It's not "my subjective beliefs" that they do this. They constantly take this position.
It's leftists themselves that proclaim that everything is subjective.
It's not "my subjective beliefs" that they do this. They constantly take this position.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,734
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,735
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,736
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,738
I’m just gonna say it, I’ve never met a smart ideologue.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,739
@1,431,736 (Darkness)
Every time you mock the idea of facts over feelings.
@previous (Darkness)
Being an ideologue is contrasted with someone who draws conclusions from data and deduction.
Ideologues don't care what the data says, and they don't care if their arguments follow the rules of logic.
Every time you mock the idea of facts over feelings.
@previous (Darkness)
Being an ideologue is contrasted with someone who draws conclusions from data and deduction.
Ideologues don't care what the data says, and they don't care if their arguments follow the rules of logic.
Darkness joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,741
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 57 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,742
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,743
@previous (C)
That’s not what the disagreement was about, the disagreement was that you said people who disagree with your political beliefs are being subjective but you’re being objective.
That’s not what the disagreement was about, the disagreement was that you said people who disagree with your political beliefs are being subjective but you’re being objective.
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,744
It doesn’t register to you how that’s a blatantly stupid thing to say?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,745
@1,431,743 (Darkness)
No I didn't say that, I said that leftists themselves will say that the issues are subjective, and rightists will say that the issues are a matter of objective reality.
No I didn't say that, I said that leftists themselves will say that the issues are subjective, and rightists will say that the issues are a matter of objective reality.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,746
@1,431,744 (Darkness)
It's not stupid to acknowledge that postmodern epistemology and relativistic morality are leftist ideas when they teach these dogmas constantly.
It's not stupid to acknowledge that postmodern epistemology and relativistic morality are leftist ideas when they teach these dogmas constantly.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,747
I don’t think everything is subjective as you baselessly accused me of. However, politics is one of the most subjective subjects. Political arguments are dependent on statements of value. You can argue that say abortion is good because it benefits women’s rights, or you can say it’s bad because it’s killing a fetus. But whether you think a woman’s life has value or the life of a fetus has value is something that can’t be objectively proven. You can argue democracy is good because people deserve to have a say in government. But the belief that people have to have a say in their government is based on feelings. Everything in politics is. It doesn’t make rational sense to say a political ideology can be objectively proven when all political ideologies are based on emotional premises.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,748
@previous (Darkness)
So right now you are framing politics as subjective, which is exactly what I claimed.
So right now you are framing politics as subjective, which is exactly what I claimed.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,749
@previous (C)
No, you claimed that I think everything is subjective.
@1,431,735 (C)
> You're a leftist and you constantly try to frame everything as subjective.
No, you claimed that I think everything is subjective.
@1,431,735 (C)
> You're a leftist and you constantly try to frame everything as subjective.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,750
@previous (Darkness)
Maybe I'm being hyperbolic, but when politics, religion, or economics comes up there's one side that tries to frame it in objective terms and one side that tries to frame it in subjective terms. Yeah, those aren't literally "everything", but that consistent pattern is inportant to notice.
Maybe I'm being hyperbolic, but when politics, religion, or economics comes up there's one side that tries to frame it in objective terms and one side that tries to frame it in subjective terms. Yeah, those aren't literally "everything", but that consistent pattern is inportant to notice.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 34 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,751
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,752
Economics also is subjective and objective. You can show that a certain action will have a certain effect, but what effect is to be desired is subjective. For example, left wing people (in general) lean towards equality while right wing people (in general) lean towards efficiency. There is a trade off between equality and efficiency but economics doesn’t tell you how much you should value equality or how much you should value efficiency, it just tells you how to achieve one or the other.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Darkness triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,753
Even though people frame the United States as capitalist, it technically is a mixed market economy with elements of socialism and capitalism. The left vs right spectrum is an either or fallacy, you don’t have to be completely right wing or completely left wing. Just because you value equality doesn’t mean you completely disregard efficiency and vice versa.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,754
@1,431,751 (Darkness)
So once again you are framing it as subjective, which was my original point.
@1,431,752 (Darkness)
Except that there are many, many economic (and political) issues which both sides will claim to have the same goals and when those issues come up which side believes in methodically analyzing the issues and which side constantly says things like "debate it pointless" or "we all have our own truths".
When leftists can't defend their beliefs (which is most of the time) they rely on excuses to shut down the conversation and will get offended someone disagreed with them in the first place.
So once again you are framing it as subjective, which was my original point.
@1,431,752 (Darkness)
Except that there are many, many economic (and political) issues which both sides will claim to have the same goals and when those issues come up which side believes in methodically analyzing the issues and which side constantly says things like "debate it pointless" or "we all have our own truths".
When leftists can't defend their beliefs (which is most of the time) they rely on excuses to shut down the conversation and will get offended someone disagreed with them in the first place.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,755
@previous (C)
I’m not saying there are multiple political truths, I’m saying that there is no such thing as a political truth. All political ideologies are flawed because the concept of ideology is the wrong way to think if your goal is objectivity. If you want to be objective, you should be pragmatic. Ideologues lack pragmatism because they strive for ideological purity even if evidence contradicts them.
I’m not saying there are multiple political truths, I’m saying that there is no such thing as a political truth. All political ideologies are flawed because the concept of ideology is the wrong way to think if your goal is objectivity. If you want to be objective, you should be pragmatic. Ideologues lack pragmatism because they strive for ideological purity even if evidence contradicts them.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,756
@1,431,753 (Darkness)
Just because neither side advocates for a total extreme on one side of the spectrum doesn't mean there isn't a debate about whether the country should be more on the left or right side of the spectrum.
The whole point if calling it a "spectrum" means it's not just binary.
And you are pretending I said it's a simple binary, which I never did. If you are going to, once again, make up strawman arguments I am done.
To avoid this in the future, ask yourself "did he actually say there are only two options? Did he actually deny that there were many positions between two extremes?". If you did that, you could avoid making the strawman to begin with.
The fact that you do this every single thread makes it clear you have some serious mental failings.
Just because neither side advocates for a total extreme on one side of the spectrum doesn't mean there isn't a debate about whether the country should be more on the left or right side of the spectrum.
The whole point if calling it a "spectrum" means it's not just binary.
And you are pretending I said it's a simple binary, which I never did. If you are going to, once again, make up strawman arguments I am done.
To avoid this in the future, ask yourself "did he actually say there are only two options? Did he actually deny that there were many positions between two extremes?". If you did that, you could avoid making the strawman to begin with.
The fact that you do this every single thread makes it clear you have some serious mental failings.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,757
I do believe that objective truth exists, I just believe that politics is an abstract concept made up by people, and if you’re wondering what’s true and what’s false, that’s completely the wrong subject to preoccupy your brain with. If you want objectivity, study math, study science, study engineering, study CS, study medicine. Politics is just a shouting match between people with different interests competing with each other and nothing more.
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,758
@1,431,756 (C)
I don’t think that the United States should be right wing or left wing. I think we would be better off if the two party system didn’t exist.
I don’t think that the United States should be right wing or left wing. I think we would be better off if the two party system didn’t exist.
Darkness triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,760
The reason why ideology exists is because powerful people want to manipulate the psychology of the masses for their own benefit. I don’t believe that the existence of this is a net positive for society. I think we would be better off with a government that completely ignores ideology, that is pragmatic, that only looks at the country from the perspective of problems and solutions. Neither the democrats or the republicans are anything close to that and you’re being completely dishonest if you pretend otherwise.
Darkness quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,761
The fact that there is a two party system has absolutely nothing to do with debate or ideas or any pie in the sky idea like that. It comes down to mathematics. We live in a winner take all system. It’s first past the post. First past the post single choice voting usually produces a two party system, it’s a flaw in the design of our democracy not some grand march towards truth as you’re portraying it.
Darkness quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 28 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,763
If I believed in "multiple truths" that would imply I believe everyone has the right to think whatever they want. Which is not true, I don’t believe that at all. I don’t think that you have the right to believe in the falsehoods that you believe.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,982
Anytime anybody uses that phrase it usually comes from an emotional place lol
Darkness joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,985
@previous (F)
Obviously. Even psychopaths have emotions. Anybody who says they’re purely logical is just lying.
Obviously. Even psychopaths have emotions. Anybody who says they’re purely logical is just lying.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,986
@previous (Darkness)
So you still don't know the difference between being motivated by emotion, and letting emotions interfere with rational thought?
Everyone has emotions but you should still have the self control to rationally think through arguments.
So you still don't know the difference between being motivated by emotion, and letting emotions interfere with rational thought?
Everyone has emotions but you should still have the self control to rationally think through arguments.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,988
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,989
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,990
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 56 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,992
I’m just saying, I’d have less issue with you if the opinions you defended to the death were smart, but they’re never smart.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,994
@1,431,990 (Darkness)
If you want to accuse me of something, give a concrete example. Most of the time you "catch" me making a mistake, it's entirely something you made up as a strawman.
@previous (Darkness)
Again, vague, and not referencing anything specific. If you are actually finding mistakes in the claims I made you could give a direct quote instead of alluding something while refusing to actually show what it was.
If you want to accuse me of something, give a concrete example. Most of the time you "catch" me making a mistake, it's entirely something you made up as a strawman.
@previous (Darkness)
Again, vague, and not referencing anything specific. If you are actually finding mistakes in the claims I made you could give a direct quote instead of alluding something while refusing to actually show what it was.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,995
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,998
This is all just grandstanding, there’s nothing of substance in what you just said, it’s all performative bullshit because you can’t argue the point you don’t have.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,999
@1,431,995 (Darkness)
So, no, you can't give any specific examples.
@previous (Darkness)
Argue against what? You refuse to give any specific example.
So, no, you can't give any specific examples.
@previous (Darkness)
Argue against what? You refuse to give any specific example.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,000
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 57 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,001
You know I think you’re stupid right?
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,002
@1,432,000 (Darkness)
I didn't make any claim here to give examples for, but you did.
@previous (Darkness)
It's mutual.
I didn't make any claim here to give examples for, but you did.
@previous (Darkness)
It's mutual.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,003
Why do you need specific examples? Can you not read?
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,005
When I reply to you which comment do you think I’m replying to? Is it the last one you made or another comment? What do you think? I don’t think you think.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,006
@1,432,003 (Darkness)
You said I refuse to acknowledge my mistakes, so what mistake did I make that I refused to acknowledge? It's not a trick question, here's your chance to embarrass me, just link to the mistake.
You said I refuse to acknowledge my mistakes, so what mistake did I make that I refused to acknowledge? It's not a trick question, here's your chance to embarrass me, just link to the mistake.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,007
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,008
I only need one counter example to prove that statement you made about me is incorrect.
@1,431,751 (Darkness)
> It’s dishonest to frame something that is objectively subjective as objective.
@1,431,751 (Darkness)
> It’s dishonest to frame something that is objectively subjective as objective.
Darkness triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 19 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,009
If I think everything is subjective, how can I believe something is objectively not objective?
Darkness quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,010
Have you noticed how you’re not saying anything… almost like I’m correct that you never admit you’re wrong because you’re a narcissistic jackass.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,011
@1,432,007 (Darkness)
And then I admitted it was hyperbole.
Since I admitted I was exaggerating, that's an example of me admitting a mistake.
Are you, now, going to admit that you just made a mistake here?
And then I admitted it was hyperbole.
Since I admitted I was exaggerating, that's an example of me admitting a mistake.
Are you, now, going to admit that you just made a mistake here?
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,012
@previous (H)
No, you lied that it was hyperbole. How come you always say I don’t interpret you objectively but then when you say something that’s wrong you want me to interpret it subjectively?
No, you lied that it was hyperbole. How come you always say I don’t interpret you objectively but then when you say something that’s wrong you want me to interpret it subjectively?
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,013
@1,432,010 (Darkness)
> you never admit you’re wrong because you’re a narcissistic jackass.
I admitted it was hyperbole, this is a terrible example for you to use.
You've made 100 mistakes, and then changed the subject or started calling me names, or posting walls of irrelevant text to try and distract from it.
> you never admit you’re wrong because you’re a narcissistic jackass.
I admitted it was hyperbole, this is a terrible example for you to use.
You've made 100 mistakes, and then changed the subject or started calling me names, or posting walls of irrelevant text to try and distract from it.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,014
Didn’t you get into a whole argument with me where you were arguing that language is precise and not probabilistic and everything is either completely true or completely false while I was arguing that’s not how humans interpret language? Well now why aren’t you sticking to your beliefs. You don’t believe language is subjective, so since you didn’t say it was hyperbole until after the fact when it was convenient for you, it was not hyperbole. It was only logical for me to interpret what you said by the objective literal meaning of what you said, so that’s what you said according to your own beliefs.
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,015
@1,432,013 (H)
> You've made 100 mistakes, and then changed the subject or started calling me names, or posting walls of irrelevant text to try and distract from it.
List all of them. Every single one of them.
> You've made 100 mistakes, and then changed the subject or started calling me names, or posting walls of irrelevant text to try and distract from it.
List all of them. Every single one of them.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,016
@1,432,012 (Darkness)
> No, you lied that it was hyperbole.
...What? I said you treat everything subjectively, you took that literally, and so I admitted it was hyperbole and that you obviously don't treat everything subjectively. That's me admitting the language I used wasn't technically correct.
You tried to split hairs and I just immediately acknowledged that you were technically correct. How is that not an example of me admitting a mistake?
> No, you lied that it was hyperbole.
...What? I said you treat everything subjectively, you took that literally, and so I admitted it was hyperbole and that you obviously don't treat everything subjectively. That's me admitting the language I used wasn't technically correct.
You tried to split hairs and I just immediately acknowledged that you were technically correct. How is that not an example of me admitting a mistake?
Anonymous H double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,017
@1,432,015 (Darkness)
We've been discussing many topics for years, and I don't have them all bookmarked, but I guarantee that if you find one of our threads that got really long (any of the 100+ threads especially) I can give an example of when you refused to admit a mistake. It doesn't really matter which one, because you make a lot of mistakes every time.
We've been discussing many topics for years, and I don't have them all bookmarked, but I guarantee that if you find one of our threads that got really long (any of the 100+ threads especially) I can give an example of when you refused to admit a mistake. It doesn't really matter which one, because you make a lot of mistakes every time.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,018
@1,432,016 (H)
You only said it was hyperbole after you realized that you couldn’t defend the position. You were literally trying to say that I don’t believe in objective truth and nobody who isn’t right wing believes in objective truth, and everything anyone who isn’t right wing always makes subjective arguments.
You only said it was hyperbole after you realized that you couldn’t defend the position. You were literally trying to say that I don’t believe in objective truth and nobody who isn’t right wing believes in objective truth, and everything anyone who isn’t right wing always makes subjective arguments.
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,019
Darkness triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,020
I only found out about this website last year, we haven’t been talking for many years.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,021
@1,432,018 (Darkness)
> You only said it was hyperbole after you realized that you couldn’t defend the position.
Alright? That's what admitting a mistake is. You realize it's not defensible, and you acknowledge the claim was incorrect.
> You were literally trying to say that I don’t believe in objective truth and nobody who isn’t right wing believes in objective truth, and everything anyone who isn’t right wing always makes subjective arguments.
It is the left that tries to frame issues subjectively most of the time. There's exceptions to every rule, but moral relativism is not popular on the right. The left is the side that embraces postmodernism and moral relativism.
> You only said it was hyperbole after you realized that you couldn’t defend the position.
Alright? That's what admitting a mistake is. You realize it's not defensible, and you acknowledge the claim was incorrect.
> You were literally trying to say that I don’t believe in objective truth and nobody who isn’t right wing believes in objective truth, and everything anyone who isn’t right wing always makes subjective arguments.
It is the left that tries to frame issues subjectively most of the time. There's exceptions to every rule, but moral relativism is not popular on the right. The left is the side that embraces postmodernism and moral relativism.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,022
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,023
@1,432,019 (Darkness)
@1,432,020 (Darkness)
It goes back at least a year. You change your name and don't use a tripcode, so you can't expect anyone to know exactly who you are.
@1,432,020 (Darkness)
It goes back at least a year. You change your name and don't use a tripcode, so you can't expect anyone to know exactly who you are.
Anonymous H double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,024
@1,432,022 (Darkness)
Saying it was hyperbole is an acknowledgment the claim wasn't technically correct, that it was an exaggeration. What do you think hyperbole means?
Saying it was hyperbole is an acknowledgment the claim wasn't technically correct, that it was an exaggeration. What do you think hyperbole means?
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,025
@1,432,023 (H)
So then why would you say that I’ve made 100 mistakes when you can’t name any mistakes I’ve made, you have no idea how long you’ve been talking with me, and obviously you must confuse me for other people if you think you were talking with me for several years. You always act as if you’re superior to everyone else and you don’t make mistakes while you’re constantly making mistakes right now.
So then why would you say that I’ve made 100 mistakes when you can’t name any mistakes I’ve made, you have no idea how long you’ve been talking with me, and obviously you must confuse me for other people if you think you were talking with me for several years. You always act as if you’re superior to everyone else and you don’t make mistakes while you’re constantly making mistakes right now.
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,026
Like honestly what the fuck is wrong with you?
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,028
@1,432,025 (Darkness)
> So then why would you say that I’ve made 100 mistakes when you can’t name any mistakes I’ve made
We've already been over this. There are multiple threads that got 100+ posts, you can pick any one of them, it really doesn't matter which, and I'll show you some.
I haven't showed you them, because you are refusing to pick one, because you know I'm right. Any of those threads will work.
> you have no idea how long you’ve been talking with me, and obviously you must confuse me for other people if you think you were talking with me for several years. You always act as if you’re superior to everyone else and you don’t make mistakes while you’re constantly making mistakes right now.
Letting you pick the thread means you can pick one you know that you were actually in.
> So then why would you say that I’ve made 100 mistakes when you can’t name any mistakes I’ve made
We've already been over this. There are multiple threads that got 100+ posts, you can pick any one of them, it really doesn't matter which, and I'll show you some.
I haven't showed you them, because you are refusing to pick one, because you know I'm right. Any of those threads will work.
> you have no idea how long you’ve been talking with me, and obviously you must confuse me for other people if you think you were talking with me for several years. You always act as if you’re superior to everyone else and you don’t make mistakes while you’re constantly making mistakes right now.
Letting you pick the thread means you can pick one you know that you were actually in.
Anonymous H double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,030
@1,432,026 (Darkness)
You spam threads with insults that don't go back to the conversation, and you will avoid over and over engaging with the actual topic of the thread.
The one example you gave of me making a mistake was one where I immediately acknowledged the claim wasn't technically correct and adjusted to give specifics of what I meant (I said postmodernism and moral relativism in that thread).
You are now refusing to pick one of our long conversations, because as you know I can find multiple mistakes you make and then do everything to avoid acknowledging when you are wrong.
It wouldn't be that bad if you just said "it was hyperbole" or "it was a joke" but you never even do that. You never retract the claims you make, even after they are proven wrong.
You spam threads with insults that don't go back to the conversation, and you will avoid over and over engaging with the actual topic of the thread.
The one example you gave of me making a mistake was one where I immediately acknowledged the claim wasn't technically correct and adjusted to give specifics of what I meant (I said postmodernism and moral relativism in that thread).
You are now refusing to pick one of our long conversations, because as you know I can find multiple mistakes you make and then do everything to avoid acknowledging when you are wrong.
It wouldn't be that bad if you just said "it was hyperbole" or "it was a joke" but you never even do that. You never retract the claims you make, even after they are proven wrong.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,032
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,033
You also openly admit to being racist and use racial slurs so I think I have the right to insult you if I feel like it. It’s only fair. I don’t respect you at all.
Darkness triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,035
If you don’t like that I insult you, then good, that’s the point.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,037
@1,432,032 (Darkness)
Yet you are still refusing to pick any thread for me to give examples, so you clearly know that's not true.
Yet you are still refusing to pick any thread for me to give examples, so you clearly know that's not true.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,038
@previous (H)
How can I pick a thread where you disproved a statement I made if you never disproved any statements I made? I can’t find something that doesn’t exist.
How can I pick a thread where you disproved a statement I made if you never disproved any statements I made? I can’t find something that doesn’t exist.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,039
@1,432,033 (Darkness)
Now you are moving the goalposts. I never denied being racist, but I'll just quickly admit when I made a mistake, but you will never admit you were wrong even when there is clear and definitive proof. Then you try and cheat by making up an argument for me and refuting something I never said so you can pretend you won something.
@1,432,035 (Darkness)
The point was that you will do anything to stay off topic, because you know you can't defend your stances. The insults wouldn't be an issue if you actually kept the conversation on topic, but you don't, it's just multiple posts with nothing but insults, and no relevant response or argument at all.
Now you are moving the goalposts. I never denied being racist, but I'll just quickly admit when I made a mistake, but you will never admit you were wrong even when there is clear and definitive proof. Then you try and cheat by making up an argument for me and refuting something I never said so you can pretend you won something.
@1,432,035 (Darkness)
The point was that you will do anything to stay off topic, because you know you can't defend your stances. The insults wouldn't be an issue if you actually kept the conversation on topic, but you don't, it's just multiple posts with nothing but insults, and no relevant response or argument at all.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,040
You don’t know yourself what I said and what I didn’t say, so you can’t make any claims about if I said things that were true or false. So if you make any claims, you’re lying.
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,041
@1,432,039 (H)
There is no clear and definitive proof I was ever wrong. Which is the issue you’re running into.
There is no clear and definitive proof I was ever wrong. Which is the issue you’re running into.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,042
@1,432,038 (Darkness)
There's another mistake you made!
I never asked you to find a thread where you made a mistake, you made that up (a strawman) to avoid responding to what I actually said: find *any* thread where we talked for a while (especially those 100+ threads, but it doesn't need to be quite that long) and I will give multiple examples.
There's another mistake you made!
I never asked you to find a thread where you made a mistake, you made that up (a strawman) to avoid responding to what I actually said: find *any* thread where we talked for a while (especially those 100+ threads, but it doesn't need to be quite that long) and I will give multiple examples.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,043
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 10 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,044
@1,432,041 (Darkness)
Then you can link one of our conversations, and I will fail to find an example, and you will be proven right.
What are you waiting for? The only reason to avoid finding one of our threads is that you know I can give examples, lol.
Then you can link one of our conversations, and I will fail to find an example, and you will be proven right.
What are you waiting for? The only reason to avoid finding one of our threads is that you know I can give examples, lol.
Anonymous H double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,045
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 9 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,046
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,047
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,048
@1,432,046 (Darkness)
@previous (Darkness)
If you have to play games, then it's clear that I'm right. If you were right, and you never do this, you could find one thread where we debated something and I would fail to find examples.
Goodbye. If you can actually find one later, maybe I'll come back to show you, but you aren't taking this seriously.
@previous (Darkness)
If you have to play games, then it's clear that I'm right. If you were right, and you never do this, you could find one thread where we debated something and I would fail to find examples.
Goodbye. If you can actually find one later, maybe I'll come back to show you, but you aren't taking this seriously.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,049
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,050
Imagine making a claim and then asking me for the evidence for your claim… the fact that you don’t have the evidence means you’re lying.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,051
@previous (Darkness)
Still me, different device.
> Imagine making a claim and then asking me for the evidence for your claim
No, not what happened, and I already went over this:
> I never asked you to find a thread where you made a mistake, you made that up (a strawman) to avoid responding to what I actually said: find *any* thread where we talked for a while (especially those 100+ threads, but it doesn't need to be quite that long) and I will give multiple examples.
If you could, you would. But every thread we debate you make a dozen mistakes and then your pride stops you from admitting it was wrong, or even saying it was hyperbole and rephrasing.
Still me, different device.
> Imagine making a claim and then asking me for the evidence for your claim
No, not what happened, and I already went over this:
> I never asked you to find a thread where you made a mistake, you made that up (a strawman) to avoid responding to what I actually said: find *any* thread where we talked for a while (especially those 100+ threads, but it doesn't need to be quite that long) and I will give multiple examples.
If you could, you would. But every thread we debate you make a dozen mistakes and then your pride stops you from admitting it was wrong, or even saying it was hyperbole and rephrasing.
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,102
@previous (I)
You said maybe if I find one later, you’d come back. I guess either you lied or I found one.
You said maybe if I find one later, you’d come back. I guess either you lied or I found one.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 weeks ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,133
@previous (Darkness)
Spending 3 hours trying to convince me you need a 25% increase to get a 20% increase in productivity overall, after I said it myself and ignoring every time I say "I know" is a good example of a thread where you made a mistake.
Seek help, bye.
Spending 3 hours trying to convince me you need a 25% increase to get a 20% increase in productivity overall, after I said it myself and ignoring every time I say "I know" is a good example of a thread where you made a mistake.
Seek help, bye.
Darkness joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,134
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,143
@previous (Darkness)
since you refuse to use a tripcode, theres not any real difference between what you say and what anybody says while using your name.
So yes, you did infact say that.
since you refuse to use a tripcode, theres not any real difference between what you say and what anybody says while using your name.
So yes, you did infact say that.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,144
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,148
@previous (I)
I love the smoothies from chink anus. I suck it straight out of the tap, so that it does not get any chance to cool down.
I love the smoothies from chink anus. I suck it straight out of the tap, so that it does not get any chance to cool down.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,150
@1,432,134 (Darkness)
You do this all the time. I remember once you had a 100 reply argument with one of the oatmeal boys and then got shitty with me in a different thread.
You do this all the time. I remember once you had a 100 reply argument with one of the oatmeal boys and then got shitty with me in a different thread.
Darkness joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,151
Anonymous I replied with this 2 weeks ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,155
Darkness replied with this 2 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,157
Darkness double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,158
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 2 weeks ago, 19 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,450
GhostOfTittyCock joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,452
He’s white you know, I’m an oatmaeal boy.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 days later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,046
EVANGELINE LILLY CALLS OUT DISNEY AFTER THE RECENT LAY-OFFS | Film Threat Newshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFXd8RLExSk