|
Post by profdunebastard on Feb 8, 2004 15:28:16 GMT -5
I don't mind playing his games. If there was an honest misunderstanding(which I doubt very much) he starts on a new foot and we all become chums (bitter laugh(not at the prospect of being friends Magonus, just at the prospect of it every happening. If not, I don't mind debating with Maggy. I remember the homosexual debate and I remember using logic and law instead of dubious, scripture based evidence. I don't fear that kind of debate. I think we need to put on a legitimate face to the public on this message board. We have alot of people lurking for whatever reason, probably deeming us uncouth savages who actually mean it when we say we are going to kill people. I don't like hypocracy, that is why I am no longer religious, but saying what we do doesn't appear to mesh well with our group's message statement to people looking to see us fail. I know it is harmless in- talk, we all do, but it is the biggest weapon of our nay sayers right now. I want to show we can play fair by offering serious debate, I want to show we live up to our mission statement. This is our home board, let us be the hospitable ones and extend welcomes. If those we welcome turn out to be rabble rousers, we'll handle them then. The sin of Sodom and Gommorah was inhospitality afterall And if rabblerousers do oppress us, well I say play it like ghandi because I am certain we can endure any hit that is thrown at as. I figure if dissenters want to argue, let them argue as much as they want, because I like to win.
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Feb 8, 2004 18:27:02 GMT -5
very well said, Ian. I agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Feb 8, 2004 22:55:52 GMT -5
Second the notion.
Honestly, I'm never against a true back and forth. I usually try to avoid them, since they usually do turn out in the direction of name calling or blanket stereotyping, but I'm always game.
I was just in a 2+ hour debate a couple weeks back. Found it useful to stir my blood, and stretch the legs of my arguing skills.
But I do still stand by the disclaimer on the punching bag. We've got to release the pressure someplace, lest we start coming unhinged and really start thinking mass murder as a viable option. This society will do it to you. (Reference Sean's post about the thumping pilot in Issues in Freethought)
~Roger
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Feb 9, 2004 1:02:13 GMT -5
The point I'm making is that he back-peddles and lies about stuff like he just did. When he's wrong or when he figures out his point of view is absurd he tries to weasle out of it instead of adjusting his opinions. That or, as I said, he honestly doesn't understand the meaning of the words he keeps using. I'm as much up for debate (well, more often arguing) as anyone else, but let's look at what he's contributed on the board here. He's like the hideously misshapen retarded cousin of Cygnus, who flew in terror (Or was it disgust?) so many months ago. I suppose it boils down to the fact that I'm less concerned with the way the public sees me (and by extension MSUFA) than you are. I support efforts to make the group (not us as people) appear more chummy and tolerant, but that's what we have people like you with us for. I love debates, and discussions. But there are certain rules which a person must adhere to when engaging in one, and the person in question has shown he will not do that.
|
|
|
Post by FishBait on Feb 9, 2004 8:47:25 GMT -5
Second the notion. Honestly, I'm never against a true back and forth. I usually try to avoid them, since they usually do turn out in the direction of name calling or blanket stereotyping, but I'm always game. I was just in a 2+ hour debate a couple weeks back. Found it useful to stir my blood, and stretch the legs of my arguing skills. But I do still stand by the disclaimer on the punching bag. We've got to release the pressure someplace, lest we start coming unhinged and really start thinking mass murder as a viable option. This society will do it to you. (Reference Sean's post about the thumping pilot in Issues in Freethought) ~Roger maybe we should make a section just for debate or something, so they don't keep coming in here
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 9, 2004 13:34:43 GMT -5
I don't know there, Baity, I've seen many a debate sub-board go the way of cob-webs and tumble-weeds. People like Magpie are only here to cause trouble and make a public spectacle. Given the chance to debate, they never opt for it, choosing instead to, well, continue being idiots. AvG had over 3500 members at its prime and the debate board still went to waste. There's something about logic and sound arguments that really turn these people off.
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Feb 9, 2004 14:15:43 GMT -5
The fact that they shy away from debate is reason enough to shoot for it even more, play the polite card, and only respond when the outlanders (hehe) already lost face. If we pick fights and insult and distrust every mame we don't recognize, then we are the bullies and intolerant ones. If newcomers are truly coming just to rouse our blood, the best weapon against them is simply not get roused, instead we either steer the battle to an arena we are comfortable with, or we don't battle and let them waste their bullets. See, I don't care if I know a person is toying with us, because they don't have anything to say I haven't heard before. I don't even care if I get baited into a trap and am playing along with the dissenter, as long as I know it is a trap, a game, I'll play it, because in this game, even if I am baited into conceding something that make make the opponent's point, I know ultimately I can win. This is generally what they do at avg, although brook nonsense less and can be harsh. This we are an actual organization with credit to lose though, we can't afford that kind of directness. I indeed would rather be a Malcolm X instead of a Martin Luther King, but I think the way our group is devised, we need to be more passive. Logic has enough hp to take anything that a religious dissenter may cast at us, so I'm not worried about being aggressive, even if it is a faster way to win battles, because it also starts more. I'd rather theists with a grudge break our teeth on us than bring us down us down with our own aggressive rhetoric turned against us. The botton line is this group is one of the most successful campus groups of our kind and I'd hate to lose that. Individuals give us wonderful diversity, but if we are too individualistic and gung ho, the group is going to suffer. It is a concession we kinda are forced to make since we are so much in the public face. And Nathan I agree with you about when a person debates he has to follow the rules or pay the consequences-ie, being called a lying, hypocrite. I think though, that we need to let people reveal their lies a little bit more openly before we respond though-we may be able to see ahead in the argument and see lies for lies, but the public probably can't see as far ahead as we do. Let's use debate to draw out the lies and contradictions to an irrefutable degree of certainty. We all know how pre-emptive strikes can turn turn out, especially if the hidden weapons in question turn out to not be there...
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Feb 9, 2004 14:58:27 GMT -5
Well, the issue at hand here is not looking to the future for lies, but looking to the present and the past. Honestly, did he expect shit like that to just slide? I think I made comment of Cygnus in my last post, and I'll bring him up again. He's really the highest ideal of a theist I've met yet. Reference the "Justice for all" or whatever thread, and note that he <i>actually</i> even saw a point for the opposing team and threw it in (homosexuality as providing a benefit to ancient cultures), showing that he's more concerned with transferral of ideas and viewpoints than he is about dogma and proving to everyone just how big a shitwit he is.
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Feb 9, 2004 15:18:54 GMT -5
I agree with you. Ii is curious though that Cygnus left-he probably had some ulterior motive he was ready to spring but Valviilis drove him out before he did. I think Maggg...neto is probably being more honest than cyg was, he isn't pretending at all to be openminded, and hasn't shown any real evidence of intelligence or a novel point. The problem is, we can't choose who we want to play with-I would prefer 10 cygnuses, at least they leave, but since the master of magnetism himself keeps coming back hoping to rile us, I think we need to do our best to not be riled. Since he is using a different name, and really hasn't said anything super duper stupid (he just feferenced stupid things he said before in a stupid way) I say we give him the benefeit of the doubt, a second chance with a second name, and let him say dumb things again so we can thrash him till he runs away. Then the circle of life will continue. I say just let it happen, and for the interests of the public eye, even though it hurts my pride and instincts(to let a known mad dog bite me again), to let him draw first blood. Only then can we put ol yeller out to pasture.
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Feb 9, 2004 19:22:58 GMT -5
I move that "feferenced" become a real word at nearest possible opportunity.
And since I somehow neglected to get this jibe in earlier..."solarus oth mithas my ass"
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Feb 9, 2004 19:42:05 GMT -5
I find I can only agree with Ian on this point. He'll either prove himself a dumbass (in which case, we can ignore or ridicule him, according to preference) or have actual, thought provoking debate. At the very least, it gives yet more insight into the Collective.
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Feb 9, 2004 19:43:16 GMT -5
By the way...if christians are Borg, then is Jesus their Queen?
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Feb 9, 2004 19:57:46 GMT -5
I find I can only agree with Ian on this point. He'll either prove himself a dumbass (in which case, we can ignore or ridicule him, according to preference) or have actual, thought provoking debate. At the very least, it gives yet more insight into the Collective. ...he hasn't already? If I am not mistaken I am already at the phase you describe as "ridicule", and no doubt will quickly progress to the "ignore" phase.
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Feb 9, 2004 21:21:34 GMT -5
He could be described as merely ignorant and wrong-headed....if he decides to continue to be idiotic, proving that he learned nothing from his experience, then he may be classified as a dumbass.
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Feb 9, 2004 21:45:24 GMT -5
I suppose it's a good sign that he's backpeddling. It means he's at least embarassed enough to want to lie about it.
|
|