Posted: Mar 18, 2019 11:14 pm
by Thommo
jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:Since my last response, about three days ago, there has been nothing significant and serious/relevant enough to respond to. I include on that list Thommo's post (32) on page 2, which was worthy of a reply until his last paragraph when suddenly he seemed to be accusing me of being a right-wing extremist. Wtf. So, room 101 for that shit.

And so, you're all mystified by my silence, really!?! :nono:

Not mystified: Thrilled to bits.

You have nothing reasonable, or interesting to say as far as I can tell. So I'm delighted you've chosen not to say it.

Then why the fuck did you give a detailed response (post 32, page 2) to what I had previously said?

I gave an explanation of the lack of logic, and what logic actually says for largely the same reasons I've previously explained special relativity to relativity deniers:

Because I have a background which privileges me with a little knowledge and the ability to pass on a more accurate summary of what those disciplines say, and that I have a personality which feels rewarded by passing along that genuine learning to the extent my limited abilities allow.

Do not mistake my intent, this is like debunking a flat Earther, I don't see it as a debate, and I don't honestly relish the prospect of your rebuttal. I just think logic is a fantastic tool that makes human civilisation better - when used correctly. So I hate to see its name or concept taken in vain.

jamest wrote:... A post which, let us not forget, ultimately semi-accused me of being the kind of right-wing extremist who wants to eliminate anyone other than of Aryan/Christian stock, seemingly.

It didn't. You've imagined that.

The very worst implication of what I wrote would be that you've used words that were buzzing around your head after seeing them on the news all day in a kind of tone-deaf and thoughtless fashion as a jumping off point for a rambling chain of thought. And the best implication would be that it was me who'd made the unfortunate association (the words were certainly buzzing around my head after hearing them all day long). I didn't investigate further.

I think, hand on heart, I would probably say I suspect (and it's nothing more than a suspicion) that's on you and not me - in that you got drunk, decided to get an endorphine rush from provoking some ratskeppers late at night and bigging yourself up in the process with your usual stream-of-consciousness rambling and riffing based on whatever was in your head in the moment (that phrase) and portraying the result as some sort of "rational" or "logical" output which it clearly wasn't. But as I say, I could be wrong, there's a lot of margin for error here which is why I merely noted the similarity instead of suggesting anything stronger. I'd hate to pretend there's no margin of error where there's clearly a huge one.

Anyway, I'm absolutely sure this conversation is going nowhere, focussed as it is on your ego and not on the logical content that made up almost the entirety of my point until I was pressed to clarify these trivial details.

Edit: typo.