Fap

Spearthrower wrote:Fap

There is no baseline in this forum, if not your contributions to it, Spearthrower. I wonder how this kind of performance could thrill someone, in such a tiny community. And the advertised age, 45... smh.

Fap

The argument is here, numbered 1-4 for convenience (plus the final couple of lines, so 1-5 really), if there's a valid argument against it.

If the premise is questionable (the relevance of the Morales incident in making sense of the Belarus incident), the follow-up post arguing for why the premise is valid, is here.

arugula2 wrote:the follow-up post arguing for why the premise is valid, is here.

And the response to the self-indulgent, special-me, derogatory preening is here

Actually, that follow-up post I linked isn't self-indulgent or preening. Derogatory? If that's code for you taking it personally, that's fine, but since the post is a critique of the "arguments" it addresses - conveniently for you - its claims can be dismantled. Saying, essentially, that you don't like the messenger, proves only that you can't come up with reasons why the critique is invalid. It probably isn't, then. Judging by the quality of your opinions on the thread topic (and in most threads about serious events), nobody should be surprised.

Those "arguments" (the ones I believe I summed up fairly, which summation you dismiss as "derogatory") are preserved on the same page, for anyone to read. They are, in fact, embarrassing regurgitations of social-media-style propaganda, and show no awareness of history or context, no interest in the topic beyond what someone can glean in a Twitter post, and - most embarrassing of all, imo - no faculty for critical thinking.

The claims in both posts can be dismantled (otherwise they're not worth making... take note, btw). I welcome the dismantling, but it's not going to come.

arugula2 wrote:Actually, that follow-up post I linked isn't self-indulgent or preening.

I say it is.

arugula2 wrote: Derogatory? If that's code for you taking it personally, that's fine,...

No, not a code word - just another example of you pulling a jamest and declaring that other people are inferior to you.

It's about once every 2 months from what I can tell.

I don't know why some people find it so stimulating to tell people they elect to spend time with that they're all unworthy, but there you go - some people just need that ego boost, I guess, even if it is onanistic.

arugula2 wrote:but since the post is a critique of the "arguments" it addresses - conveniently for you - its claims can be dismantled.

Good luck.

arugula2 wrote: Saying, essentially, that you don't like the messenger, proves only that you can't come up with reasons why the critique is invalid.

I didn't say "I don't like the message" - I said it was performative onanistic preening on your part, where you seek to make yourself look superior by putting other people down. It's a cute little routine you trot out from time to time. Of course, it's substance free, but then it's not really meant to be about substance, it's about you making yourself feel good.

arugula2 wrote: It probably isn't, then. Judging by the quality of your opinions on the thread topic (and in most threads about serious events), nobody should be surprised.

Yeah, you don't speak for other people. In the past when you've tried this, I note that those other people noted that you frequently jabber out a load of speculative nonsense that at best people just ignore because there's nothing coherent to even address.

arugula2 wrote:Those "arguments" (the ones I believe I summed up fairly, which summation you dismiss as "derogatory") are preserved on the same page, for anyone to read.

Don't lie.

I didn't call your arguments derogatory, I called your dry-humping of people's legs derogatory.

arugula2 wrote:They are, in fact, embarrassing regurgitations of social-media-style propaganda, and show no awareness of history or context, no interest in the topic beyond what someone can glean in a Twitter post, and - most embarrassing of all, imo - no faculty for critical thinking.

Oooh look - more substance-free declarations about how inferior I am comparative to your knowledge. It says a lot how you always need to tell people how great you are rather than show it.

Incidentally, I'll defer to your knowledge of stupid social media posting because I've never participated in social media - oops, best pop your vacuous prejudice back in your pocket - I don't need to watch you play with it in public, cheers.

arugula2 wrote:The claims in both posts can be dismantled (otherwise they're not worth making... take note, btw). I welcome the dismantling, but it's not going to come.

The first post amounted to either ignorance or naivety on your part, so I simply ignored it - like I generally do with most of your substance-free posts.

The second post was you engaging in some dry-humping to boost your sense of self-worth, so I did dismantle it with just one word: fap. A dismissal of your derivation of pleasure from being a twat to people requires no more than that.

Now, if you've finished dry humping my leg, I'd like to get back to my usual state of not knowing or caring you exist. Thanks!

arugula2 wrote:
Rational Skepticism, my tokhes.

HAHAHA now these morons will take me seriously!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2766528

Should've saved myself the time and just copy and pasted from the last time you launched into this public onanism. I'll remember that for future.

Edit: added spoiler for space:


(Thanks for the link in the last post.)

I'm sifting through your longer reply, and trying to find where you address my claims in the previous page:

I'm not superior to you, and you're not inferior to me. I don't exist. If you then read my criticisms on bottom of the last page, you'll see you can still address them, without deflecting. You choose not to.

You misread "messenger" as "message"... but it doesn't matter, because you're not addressing the criticisms at bottom of the last page anyway. You're emoting and deflecting.

When I write "nobody should be surprised" I certainly wasn't alluding to the joke of a popularity contest that came to your mind. Again: I don't matter. My popularity doesn't matter. Thumb clicks don't matter. People echoing trolls doesn't matter. Those are the most embarrassing aspects of this forum. My "nobody should be surprised" isn't a rhetorical device, it's a principle.

You make a fallacious distinction between my "argument" and your dismissal of it as "fap", just to call me a liar (halfway down) & avoid meeting the challenge. That's dishonest and evasive. If you tone down your emotion, you might realize this.

I repeat the criticism (of earlier posts on page 1) which is at bottom of the last page, and... you dismiss it as a personality contest, which has never interested me but which you seem obsessed with. That, too, is dishonest and evasive. Try to ignore both our "egos" where you perceive them, and you'll see the criticisms can still be directly addressed... you apparently decided to finally give it a shot with three sentences (yikes...) at the very bottom of your trolling post:


Your actual response to my two posts on page 1:

Spearthrower wrote:The first post amounted to either ignorance or naivety on your part, so I simply ignored it - like I generally do with most of your substance-free posts.

(This post.) Your response to it now is that it is ignorant and naive, and that you "ignored it", which you say is what you "generally do" with posts like that. That's evasion. I don't think anyone reasonably thinks otherwise.

The second post was you engaging in some dry-humping to boost your sense of self-worth, so I did dismantle it with just one word: fap. A dismissal of your derivation of pleasure from being a twat to people requires no more than that.

(This post.) I'm worthless - so your apparent excuse for evading those criticisms too is just as bad as your evasion of the arguments in the first post (summarized above). You or anyone else can still challenge/dismantle those arguments. The invitation is open.

Now, if you've finished dry humping my leg, I'd like to get back to my usual state of not knowing or caring you exist. Thanks!

You really do not interest me at all. This isn't about you or me - we're irrelevant. This is about reacting to discussion of externalities with practically all the worst qualities of argumentation a human brain can muster. And, yes, regardless of how it makes you feel, the adjective is appropriate: embarrassing. And yes, regardless of how it makes you feel that someone should say this: do better. That's the whole point of the forum.

Belarus plane - Morales plane - government police actions - civil rights. Worthwhile & codependent issues. Anyone could try to actually address this argument.

You choose not to.

Correct, and I already explained before you even posted why I 'choose not to' - but you apparently don't think that my reasons are good enough, you want me to use your reasons instead.










Edit: aphasia

arugula2 wrote:
(This post.) Your response to it now is that it is ignorant and naive, and that you "ignored it", which you say is what you "generally do" with posts like that. That's evasion. I don't think anyone reasonably thinks otherwise.

Once again, with nothing other than your personal antipathy, you decide on other people's behalves that they share your antipathy of me.

But of course, you've pulled that out of your rectum.

When you keep pulling things out of your rectum, you cease to be taken seriously. The reason I don't reply to you is that your posts are full of condescending self-preening, and most of all, the apparent need to be taken seriously by people you continually put down.

You read just like jamest to me, and as I usually ignore jamest, I am being consistent. Ignoring crap isn't 'evasion'.

You can carry on blaming me if that floats your boat, or alternatively, you could aspire to post more interesting and less egotistical content and thereby attract the attention you apparently crave.

Here's how we'll do it then arugula.

I will take my time to respond to your post (#19) once you look again at what you've written (i.e. post #20, #22), acknowledge that being an arse to people doesn't actually induce them to responding seriously or consider indulging you further, perhaps even apologize for setting such a hostile tone in the first instance... and then, maybe then, I will respond to the content of that post (#19).

But if you keep acting like an arse, I will keep dismissing you like an arse.

arugula2 wrote:Actually, that follow-up post I linked isn't self-indulgent or preening. Derogatory? If that's code for you taking it personally, that's fine, but since the post is a critique of the "arguments" it addresses - conveniently for you - its claims can be dismantled. Saying, essentially, that you don't like the messenger, proves only that you can't come up with reasons why the critique is invalid. It probably isn't, then. Judging by the quality of your opinions on the thread topic (and in most threads about serious events), nobody should be surprised.

Those "arguments" (the ones I believe I summed up fairly, which summation you dismiss as "derogatory") are preserved on the same page, for anyone to read. They are, in fact, embarrassing regurgitations of social-media-style propaganda, and show no awareness of history or context, no interest in the topic beyond what someone can glean in a Twitter post, and - most embarrassing of all, imo - no faculty for critical thinking.

The claims in both posts can be dismantled (otherwise they're not worth making... take note, btw). I welcome the dismantling, but it's not going to come.

Dude, you said "simp" to me like it's a normal word, and you're accusing others of social media regurgitations?

I didn't even know it was a word: I thought it was a typo!

Seabass wrote:Dude, you said "simp" to me like it's a normal word, and you're accusing others of social media regurgitations?

Do lay off, Seabass. Using a word that has recently become popular in the social media is nowhere near the meaning of 'social media regurgitations' in the context arugula2 used it. smh

Nobody caught my misspelling “principle” as “principal”? ...smh.

(Will catch up when I wake up. Hoping there’s stuff about piracy/Belarus/planes/journalists/whistleblowers/sanctions/etc.)

Edit: ah... “simp”. I wasn’t sure about it, so I consulted Urban Dictionary, I think. Probably heard it on YouTube or in person. Couldn’t think of a simple alternative... a pretty nifty word, all things considered.

arugula2 wrote:Nobody caught my misspelling “principle” as “principal”? ...smh.

Actually, I spotted it immediately, but I only comment on errors that involve substituting one almost identically sounding word with an almost entirely different meaning to the one intended by virtue of slightly different spelling when I am in a fowl mood.

Spearthrower wrote:Here's how we'll do it then arugula.

I will take my time to respond to your post (#19) once you look again at what you've written (i.e. post #20, #22), acknowledge that being an arse to people doesn't actually induce them to responding seriously or consider indulging you further, perhaps even apologize for setting such a hostile tone in the first instance... and then, maybe then, I will respond to the content of that post (#19).

But if you keep acting like an arse, I will keep dismissing you like an arse.

Pass. My criticisms on bottom of page 1 are both valid and civil. Here is the link again, so it's not lost in these^ latest diversions and creeping excuses. I reserve my vitriol for public figures who aren't concerned with you or me.

Between this thread and the thread you linked above, I notice you have an unhealthy obsession with my body parts. The metaphor is so eroded, it's not really a metaphor - in fact, you refer to my member explicitly in the other thread, and here to my rectum. I can assure you, neither is interested in you personally, nor am I. I've been casually considering if maybe mental illness is at play here, but that, too, doesn't hold my interest for more than the few moments it occurred to me.