How to Handle a Tard's Complaint

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:53 pm

BSmack wrote:
Derron wrote:Over / under that BitchSmacked bastard ends up on the dole someday ??
Idiot with 3 kids receiving government checks says what?

Just exactly how disingenuous can you get? You’re equating a serviceman with a welfare recipient? You really should have exited this thread some time ago.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:56 pm

and to think I was almost going to tear this up !!

No trolls ?? Nice try Bri.
You really stepped in it this time. What you going to do--destroy this board ??

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:58 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:You really should have exited this thread some time ago.

Hey, they spit on military servicemen. Not like they were spitting on thier food or anything.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:02 pm

Wolfman wrote:
and to think I was almost going to tear this up !!

No trolls ?? Nice try Bri.
You really stepped in it this time. What you going to do--destroy this board ??

~15,000 posts say he's off to a good start.

Luther · Post by **Luther** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:05 pm

B, are you now equating people who work for the government, the military, as being on the dole? Tell me you don't really feel that way. Or is it that anybody serving their country during a republican administration is really a job for idiots? Or is a soldier serving during a democratic administration a person with vision, a person with a quest for fairness, a person that is the arm for peace and tranquility?

Maybe you're just having a bad day. Maybe this is "harsh" day at t1b. Damn, we even had smack run on Bill Walsh who died today. Hell, I even added IndyFrisco to my tard list. Great company you got there, sauce maker.

Rip City

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:22 pm

Luther wrote:Hell, I even added IndyFrisco to my tard list. Great company you got there, sauce maker.

Rip City

Luth,

Don't believe everything you read in the smack forum.

viewtopic.php?p=446223&highlight=#446223

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:23 pm

BSmack wrote:
Derron wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Actually, Brian, you should thank each and every soldier that signs up for the next 25 or 30 years, because they’ll reduce the possibility that one of your sniveling spawn might get drafted.
Yeah.. but they don't want queer nogger half breeds with no brain anyway. And that's my respect for your child since you have none for mine. Cocksucker.
Yo bitch. What you be implyin I be black?

Over / under that BitchSmacked bastard ends up on the dole someday ??
Idiot with 3 kids receiving government checks says what?

No. not at all..... I am saying your old lady fucks noggers you fucking jerk off...and if you ARE black, then keep perpetuating the stereotype and run the DNA test to make sure the little bastard is yours... forbid that birthright to it...

And since you are the bleeding pussy liberal, you don't know what a day's work is like, and I can guarantee you those in the military work for every dime the goverment pay's them.

velocet · Post by **velocet** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:58 pm

FRAGNBASTICH, were he around, would love him summa this thread. BSmack was his favorite adversary on TNW.

velocet

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:13 pm

Derron wrote: No. not at all..... I am saying your old lady fucks noggers you fucking jerk off...and if you ARE black, then keep perpetuating the stereotype and run the DNA test to make sure the little bastard is yours... forbid that birthright to it...

Jesus Christ, Derron, that's just ignorant. Trailer ignorant. Damn.

As for spitting on vets, snopes and cecil adams both dealt with it, and according to them it's bogus:

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=2360

I wish I had the link to the guy who was in Nam and years after the fact swore that he had been spat upon, but a male family member said that the original story was that he was treated well upon his return. If I remember correctly (and I probably don't, for the irony of ironies) the male family member said that if you repeat a story often enough, it will 'become true' and you'll have people swearing shit that never happened to them, swearing shit they never did, as gospel truth. It was in the same thread as some hippie chick talking about how her and her housewife friends treated them with loving care because they thought the soldiers were pawns in a horrible game, I think the word she used was 'babies'... but don't quote me on it.

Me, I don't know. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for stupid fucks to spit on soldiers. Maybe the folks who didn't have anything to lose anyway, for whom it was all fun and games and distant. You know how it goes. I don't know, I wasn't there.

But from hearing some of the things my dad talked about when he was in Indiana State during those years, people didn't hate the soldiers -- they felt bad for them, and maybe a little afraid. Vietnam vets came back changed. They were matured in ways that those who remained back home couldn't begin to understand or touch. Their eyes were different. Their personalities were changed. They were more quiet. But my dad didn't talk about hating them. Those were his buddies. He talked about them like you were kinda careful around them; that 'didn't know what to say' vibe. But I never got the vibe that he hated them. You can disagree with the war without transferring that hate to folks who got that letter 'there but for the grace of god' you could have also gotten. You know what I mean?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:14 am

Wolfman wrote:and to think I was almost going to tear this up !!

No trolls ?? Nice try Bri.
You really stepped in it this time. What you going to do--destroy this board ??

What are you going to do old man? Go to the personal info card? Because you don't agree with me?

You're fucking pathetic.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:26 am

Smackie Chan wrote:When I was in the Air Force, my first permanent duty station ('79-'81) was Luke AFB, which at the time was probably about 20 miles west of Phoenix's populated areas. Most of the area between the base and the city was undeveloped desert and cotton fields. I lived in Glendale, and haven't been back to the area since then, but with Phoenix now the nation's fifth most populated city, I can only imagine the westward development that has taken place there in the 25+ years since I left. When I was there, Luke was an F-15 training base, and I regularly was able to see the maneuvers those awesome fighters were capable of performing.

I pretty much grew up in the Tempe and Scottsdale area during Summers every year since I was a young little turd. Grandpa was an Air Force O-5 and we would go out to the remote sites called Williams and Luke. There were no housing developments near either AFB and it was cool that he would take me out to those places and get some young officer let me climb into a jet. I always dreamed of flying one day and it was cool being a Navy flyer to take a civilian plane out to the Scottsdale airport to visit a few times before Grandpa died. He climbed into the cockpit and would look at the instrument panel of that 1962 Piper Aztec twin engine airplane I used to own.

To hear people like BSacked dissing servicemen because he disagrees with our fucked up CIC's policy's and whatnot is disturbing. Reminds me of Bacefelice and his rants. I've always let Brian express himself over the years, but this time he is wrong. The fact that our guys and gals are dying doesn't sit well with anyone nor should it. To bash those that serve in the military is flat out wrong.

Brian you have had multiple chances to get out of this thread yet you keep bashing those that are pawns of our fucked up government. I've known a number of people that died during their time in the "man's" service and to read your shit is offensive. Uber tards that predictably shit all over this board that are like spammers have zero cred and I avoid their threads as much as possible. To read your shit you've spewed actually offends me.

Fuck you.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:42 am

I'm no authority on Japanese culture or customs, but from what I've read and been told, when debating or negotiating, the party who doesn't lose their cool gets 'bode. I view smackboards in a similar context - if someone is able to offend me or in some way get under my skin, he or she has won. Doesn't matter how tardish the takes may be or how badly the poster gets piled on, the enemy's mission has been accomplished if I allow some anonymous imbecile to raise my hackles.

I'll be damned if I'll let some cretin like BeenSmoked offend me. He can spew as much rubbish as his little heart desires. I'll never be offended by anything he or anyone else posts on the interwebs.

Luther · Post by **Luther** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:32 am

"Be happy in your postings."

Sincerely,

Colonel Saito

I lived in Japan for a year and a half and I might not agree so much with that assessment but it doesn't matter. Bsmack is one of the best posters around and excels especially in arguments involving politics and the history of politics. He does a pretty good job with general history even though he's no mvscal. It is just in this debate regarding the military that I think he should have jettisoned long ago. Had mv been around today you would have probably seen some very visceral posts. For all the mvscal fans who missed his responses, I can probably guess some of the highlights:

[align=center]* You wouldn't know where the business end of a rifle is even if it was jammed up your ass.
* Liberal cocksucker.
* You're just a blithering crybaby, liberal, ass sucking son of a bitch from New York.
* Cun*
* You couldn't survive a cub scout weekend outing, mister fister.[/align]

I really respect most peoples opinions if they are offered up with a non troll stance. B, you just grabbed a stance that is pretty much out there, IMO. I know you're not trolling, so the issue is that you really do feel the way you do. For that, I wouldn't put it on a resume. The media will put all the bad things about war, the people in it, out there to basically sell stories. Many if not most are factually correct. Abu Ghraib was an embarrassment for our country and our military. The prisoners weren't beheaded, weren't burned, didn't have punji sticks shoved up beneath their fingernails. They were just humiliated with the dog collars, the nudity, the pig pile deal. It was an incident that shouldn't tarnish all the military. Murder during war happens, that is why it is such an ugly endeavor.

The United States of America has done more for this world than any nation in history. Well, OK, I won't include healthy restaurants, crime, and or a couple of dozen other things. But we are the top dogs in almost anything of substance. We have helped more countries than any Johnny Cash song. We step up when others won't. We are at the top of the hill and everyone is taking shots at us. We are infidels. I don't know about anybody else here because I really don't want any troll stop meetings, but if your friends are like my friends then they probably share the same traits; Good buddies, honest, caring, intelligent, honorable and decent. They would do anything for you. You all go down to the Idle and quaff beers, they play disc golf with you and you trust them. The people in the military are the same type of folks. I believe that a tremendous majority of them are great soldiers, fathers, sons, daughters and neighbors.

It is all about the respect.

Do I have to break out the Risa R-E-S-P-E-C-T wytched pic? haha

Rip City

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:36 am

Smackie Chan wrote:I'm no authority on Japanese culture or customs, but from what I've read and been told, when debating or negotiating, the party who doesn't lose their cool gets 'bode. I view smackboards in a similar context - if someone is able to offend me or in some way get under my skin, he or she has won. Doesn't matter how tardish the takes may be or how badly the poster gets piled on, the enemy's mission has been accomplished if I allow some anonymous imbecile to raise my hackles.

I'll be damned if I'll let some cretin like BeenSmoked offend me. He can spew as much rubbish as his little heart desires. I'll never be offended by anything he or anyone else posts on the interwebs.

But you still have to call them out on it.. sure Bitch Smack is a liberal fuck and stupid, and educational really...you have to understand your enemy to know how to deal with him....gotta call bullshit when it runs out...

Society has all different elements, criminal, devious, stupid, smart, pious, etc...always have and always will... and you will ahve lose fucks like B Monica to kick around.

God Bless America and God Bless our service men and women for their selfless service to protect freedom of speech for loser fucks like B Monica.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:03 am

Derron wrote:But you still have to call them out on it

No argument there, and I believe I have called him out for the stance he's taken in this thread. I was referring primarily to AP's post in which he stated:

To read your shit you've spewed actually offends me.

To me, that's tantamount to tapping out, raising the white flag, and conceding victory. It's no knock on AP, per se, since it appears what BS posted has had the same effect on others. I just, as a matter of principle, refuse to let anything get to me. What's gained by doing so?

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:57 am

Smackie, I understand you and have been respectful to you as you are a good dude.

Brian doesn't win this one for the following reason:

Brian isn't a spammer or a troll. I don't believe he posts to troll out responses. It's never been his style over what, the 10 years I've known his persona?

Yes, it got under my skin in a way but I'm not gonna go Tardowen and off myself over it (in his trolling ways). Brian is flat out wrong and I'm not raising a white flag either. I'm just expressing my opinion.

So Smackie, I am disagreeing with your "white flag" assessment. I've never had a bone to pick with Brian in the first place. Just pointing out he's wrong.

the_ouskull · Post by **the_ouskull** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:00 am

Smackie Chan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:unlike BitchSmacked, and least the Tard had the sack to own his mistake and come correct.
Still, no racks for McRae. Dude prolly apologized to make his phone stop ringing and to keep from receiving more hate mail. I imagine dude to be one of those types who sends at least one letter to the editor every week because he likes seeing his name in print. Rather than do any research into why an event occurred, dude impulsively clacks out a missive to the fish wrap before realizing what the repercussions may be. Maybe dude is sincere with his apology, but, especially as an alleged war vet, he shoulda known better than to publicly criticize the military for doing something as dastardly as waking him up before 10:00 a.m.

More than just that... if there were 4 planes, low-flying in formation, near an AFB, then, as a former military man himself, shouldn't he have figured something more than just a "civilian drive-by" was up...?

the_ouskull

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:25 am

B_Smack owning muthafuckas in this thread, BIG TIME.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:30 am

BSmack wrote:
Wolfman wrote:and to think I was almost going to tear this up !!

No trolls ?? Nice try Bri.
You really stepped in it this time. What you going to do--destroy this board ??
What are you going to do old man? Go to the personal info card? Because you don't agree with me?

You're fucking pathetic.

Oh, please. He blocked out your fucking name. Like there's not a number of us who know it what it is. Not because we put it in a spreadsheet, just because it's such an odd fucking name. You're the one that's pathetic. Yeah, feel free to queue up a IKYABWAI retort on that one, it's about all you've got. Yeah, when your only support in a thread is Perk, you're a little short on backup.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:41 am

Goober McTuber wrote:Yeah, when your only support in a thread is Perk...

Together with Phibes, we are the:

Uber
Savvy
Smack
Runners

We will rock you.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:48 am

Martyred wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Yeah, when your only support in a thread is Perk...
Together with Phibes, we are the:

I'mber
avvy
Shitmack
tRollunners

We will suck you.

No shit you little cocksucker. Why do Canatards exist? So they can whine about their pimp.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:48 am

Atomic Punk wrote: Why do Canatards exist?

I thought we were cool?

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:20 am

Atomic Punk wrote:Brian doesn't win this one for the following reason:

Brian isn't a spammer or a troll. I don't believe he posts to troll out responses. It's never been his style over what, the 10 years I've known his persona?

To me, that is irrelevant. The way I see it, to the extent that there is "competition" on these boards, winning can be accomplished in at least two different ways:

1) If the debate revolves around facts, the poster who proves that what he or she says is right, and that what another poster says is factually incorrect, wins. Right trumps wrong.

2) If the argument is centered on opinions, there is no right or wrong. As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes - everybody has one, and they're all shitty ('sup, PUSFAN?). In this case, the loser is the one who melts, or allows a contrary opinion to negatively affect him/her (i.e., be considered offensive). Doesn't matter if the opinion is almost universally disagreed with by everyone else who chimes in on the subject, or if it's posted by a troll. The winner is the one who is best at shedding the impact of his opponents viewpoints like water off a duck's back.

A prime example of a Type 2 winner is the squadron CO who responded to McRae's letter to the editor. I'm guessing that he initially took offense to the letter after reading it, but rather than express umbrage, he addressed the writer in a calm, cool, and collected manner, and by so doing, got McRae to come correct and show humility - he melted. Ultimate bode.

Brian is flat out wrong and I'm not raising a white flag either... Just pointing out he's wrong.

Again, I would argue that neither one of you (nor anyone else) is right or wrong. This debate is a matter of differing opinions - you have yours, and he has his. No empirical evidence exists to show that either one has more factual merit than the other. The only thing left to do, then, is for the combatants to defend their respective views in an effort to get the other to melt, or to simply ignore each other. You flinched. Game over. Frankly, I woulda much rather seen a different outcome, since my opinion is more in line with yours than with his. Just didn't happen that way. Maybe next time.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:01 pm

Dammit, someone better write some more speaking lines for the corpse in Weekend at Smackie's 2

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:48 pm

Smackie Chan wrote: 1) If the debate revolves around facts, the poster who proves that what he or she says is right, and that what another poster says is factually incorrect, wins. Right trumps wrong.

Unless you melt.

Was the objective being right, or causing a meltdown?

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:58 pm

Risa wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote: 1) If the debate revolves around facts, the poster who proves that what he or she says is right, and that what another poster says is factually incorrect, wins. Right trumps wrong.
Unless you melt.

Who's melting - the poster who's right or the one who's wrong? If it's the one who's wrong, the scoring would be similar to that of a gammon - double points awarded to the winner. Why would the poster in the right melt? In the event that this does happen, however, a draw will be declared.

Was the objective being right, or causing a meltdown?

Being right would be the primary objective, with the secondary being to cause meltage. Achieving both is hitting the exacta.

Any other questions, just ask. As if that needed to be stated.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:06 pm

How to handle a tard's complaint?

At minimum, they should log McRae out at least every other day.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:06 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
Risa wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote: 1) If the debate revolves around facts, the poster who proves that what he or she says is right, and that what another poster says is factually incorrect, wins. Right trumps wrong.
Unless you melt.
Who's melting - the poster who's right or the one who's wrong? If it's the one who's wrong, the scoring would be similar to that of a gammon - double points awarded to the winner. Why would the poster in the right melt? In the event that this does happen, however, a draw will be declared.

The sky is blue vs The sky is plaid.

It doesn't matter how blue the sky is, if Plaid can make Blue lose their cool. Plaid also wins if their argument is met with more approval than Blue's argument, in spite of being 'wrong'; Plaid wins if Blue starts conceding to Plaid, cutting off toes to save the whole leg; Plaid 'wins' if Blue starts playing along (though Blue's performance can also win); Plaid always wins when Blue loses their top in any way or fashion.

Being right is irrelevant. Audience reception is relevant.

Was the objective being right, or causing a meltdown?
Being right would be the primary objective, with the secondary being to cause meltage. Achieving both is hitting the exacta.

Any other questions, just ask. As if that needed to be stated.

So an exacta is hitting two; a trifecta is three; what's a triple crown?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:15 pm

Now waitaminute...

See if I've got this right...

Bannie is discussing the finer points of "winning" an internet debate?

You freaking slicksters, you.

Almost had me, until your trolljob went a little too far over the top.

OK... who is it?

PSU?

UCan't?

Which one of you bastards decided to take on the Risa nick?

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:29 pm

Risa wrote:The sky is blue vs The sky is plaid.

It doesn't matter how blue the sky is, if Plaid can make Blue lose their cool. Plaid also wins if their argument is met with more approval than Blue's argument, in spite of being 'wrong'; Plaid wins if Blue starts conceding to Plaid, cutting off toes to save the whole leg; Plaid 'wins' if Blue starts playing along (though Blue's performance can also win); Plaid always wins when Blue loses their top in any way or fashion.

Being right is irrelevant. Audience reception is relevant.

Uh, OK. If you already knew the answer, why'd you ask the question? OCMike's challenge isn't until tomorrow. He's the one who asks when he already knows.

So an exacta is hitting two; a trifecta is three; what's a triple crown?

Oh no...I'm not falling for this again. You go ahead and tell me.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:31 pm

Risa wrote:what's a triple crown?

When you lay the wood to Sarah Jessica Parker, Sue Bird, and Mrs. Doggiestyle in the same week.

velocet · Post by **velocet** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:52 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:1) If the debate revolves around facts, the poster who proves that what he or she says is right, and that what another poster says is factually incorrect, wins. Right trumps wrong.

2) If the argument is centered on opinions, there is no right or wrong. As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes - everybody has one, and they're all shitty ('sup, PUSFAN?). In this case, the loser is the one who melts, or allows a contrary opinion to negatively affect him/her (i.e., be considered offensive). Doesn't matter if the opinion is almost universally disagreed with by everyone else who chimes in on the subject, or if it's posted by a troll. The winner is the one who is best at shedding the impact of his opponents viewpoints like water off a duck's back.
[...]
Again, I would argue that neither one of you (nor anyone else) is right or wrong. This debate is a matter of differing opinions - you have yours, and he has his. No empirical evidence exists to show that either one has more factual merit than the other. The only thing left to do, then, is for the combatants to defend their respective views in an effort to get the other to melt, or to simply ignore each other. You flinched. Game over. Frankly, I woulda much rather seen a different outcome, since my opinion is more in line with yours than with his. Just didn't happen that way. Maybe next time.

Facts vs. facts-----> your assertion makes sense.

Opinion vs. opinion---------> nope. First a definition of opinion needs to be settled upon, and no, the given cliche won't work. But however one attempts to parse the idea of clashing "subjective views" or however 'opinion' is conventionally understood, it is a mere sideshow. The main event is beyond boring factual disputes. The key to knowledge, the road to truth and the absolute best measure of winning is superior reasoning. There is right and wrong, there is retarded and competent. The vomit pit of radical subjective relativism, i.e. "no one is really right or wrong it just depends on your point of view", is the most welcoming safe haven for those profoundly intellectually limited.
I guess mob rule can determine who wins a smack battle strictly speaking but that is not to say that popular voting doesn't recognize when one smacker reasons well and the other poorly or not at all.

velocet

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:23 pm

velocet wrote:There is right and wrong, there is retarded and competent.

Retarded and competent have nothing to do with right and wrong. Mengeles was competent at killing people in the name of science. The folks who wanted Rommel to take Hitler's place were incompetent at assasinating Hitler and getting Rommel to agree to it in the first place.

John Brown and Nat Turner were incompetent at freeing the United States from slavery by means of force. Thomas Jefferson was competent at speaking out of both sides of his mouth regarding the issue.

The vomit pit of radical subjective relativism, i.e. "no one is really right or wrong it just depends on your point of view", is the most welcoming safe haven for those profoundly intellectually limited.

And to refuse to accept that ethics are muteable, is to be intellectually (and ethically) dishonest.

Think outside the box.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:51 pm

Martyred wrote:
Atomic Punk wrote: Why do Canatards exist?
I thought we were cool?

Good shutyomouth ref. Not many would see your humour like I do.

I wish you and Bace all the best during the ectopic pregnancy.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:00 pm

what's a triple crown?

Well, Sissyroo?

velocet · Post by **velocet** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:42 pm

Risa wrote:

Innocent Bystander, you shouldn't have! I'm honored that you'd bestow such a gift... Xmas in July!

Well, I mean, damn... dunno what to say 'cept THANKS!

Risa wrote:Think outside the box.

Another hackneyed cliche... Jeebus will they ever end? Errrrr anyway what I know you're trying to say is: your gift came in a nice (post) box but outside of it is what counts, that being the thought.

Observed. And I thank you again.

Not to look a gift post in the grammar, but I'm trying to figger out why...

OF COURSE! This is an anniversary! Right around this time 7 fukking years ago our first smack battle took place.

What can I get you? Maaaaaaaaaan I am remiss and there is no excuse.

Well, lemme see. Knowing your masochistic tendencies, how about I take you out to a nice thread in the Cul de Smack and treat you to some choice insults, followed by a punishing beatdown of smack you'll never forget? I will make it memorable! And for that special woman I can arrange to have a hand picked array of delectable n-bombs imported from mvsico all inscribed with her name on them!

velocet

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:01 am

velocet wrote:First a definition of opinion needs to be settled upon

Fair enough. A couple generic ones that I doubt will cause much controversy might be:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal

Do either or both of these meet with your approval? I'll assume they do and move on, but if you take issue with them, simply give me a better one.

The key to knowledge, the road to truth and the absolute best measure of winning is superior reasoning.

Pretty heady stuff there. I'll accept it.

There is right and wrong

Factually speaking, this is true. But by definition (1) above (and (2), for that matter), this doesn't pertain to opinions.

there is retarded and competent.

Also true; however, in many (but not all) cases, these classifications are subjective.

The vomit pit of radical subjective relativism, i.e. "no one is really right or wrong it just depends on your point of view", is the most welcoming safe haven for those profoundly intellectually limited.

I would argue that the intellectually limited are those who view the world in simple terms of black and white, right and wrong, with no capacity for deeper analysis. Of course, to those who disagree with this, derogatory labels for deeper analysis such as subjective relativism or moral relativism are applied, the views of those who disagree with the simplistics are then dismissed out of hand, they then claim bode, and are able to therefore hold their opinions, by virtue of what they will call reasoning, to be morally and intellectually superior to opposing views.

Consider this scenario: Two individuals square off in a debate about a topic with more significance than, say, whether blue is a better color than red - perhaps the morality of abortion, or the existence of God. Both individuals are of average intelligence, have similar educational levels, and are otherwise fairly evenly matched at an intellectual level. The debate occurs, and by all accounts, when the dust settles, one of the two has clearly won the debate. Does this turn the position the winner has defended from being an opinion to now being a universal truth? By your "reasoning," it does. The winner of the debate then moves on to the next round, where he is pitted against someone who has a higher IQ, better vocabulary, more education, better debating skills, etc. The winner of the first round gets trounced. So now, what had originally been shown to be an inferior opinion (and, in fact, by your scorecard, a blatant lie), has now replaced the opposing view as the "fact." This can go on ad infinitum, (not to mention ad nauseum), and in the end, what is the result? All that's really been proven is that some people are better at defending their opinions than others. But the "rightness" or "wrongness" of each viewpoint has still not been determined with any certainty.

In one of Plato's writings (it might be The Republic, but don't hold me to it), Socrates, in fact, deftly "proves," through brilliant deductive reasoning, that God does indeed exist. Now, far be it from me to put myself on the same intellectual plane as Socrates, but should I accept his conclusion as fact simply because I concede that he was smarter than me and that he did a better job of defending his stance than I could possibly do of defending the opposing view? I'll let you answer that.

I guess mob rule can determine who wins a smack battle strictly speaking but that is not to say that popular voting doesn't recognize when one smacker reasons well and the other poorly or not at all.

Again, all this shows is that some people are better at debating, running smack, and using the power of reason than others. It does nothing, however, to change the nature and definition of opinions.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:54 pm

Velocet, I would not have expected you to steal another poster's style if you weren't directing your post towards them. Cease the wonders.

You are not Invictus; I am not Trev.

And I don't remember ever fighting you. I was in love with your style, your personality and your precision. I agreed with you 99% of the time, and you made me laugh just as often. But I had no fight with you.... which isn't the reason why people dogged you out by claiming I was your troll. It took a special person to battle you and succeed, and a special degree of skill beyond that to get under your skin.

Did boredom kill the smack artist, or familiarity?

Poor little broken white boi. I honestly mourn the fresh Velo. Do you want me to leave?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:57 pm

Risa wrote:I honestly mourn the fresh Velo. Do you want me to leave?

DO THE RIGHT THING, VELO!!!!

velocet · Post by **velocet** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:03 pm

Risa,

I'm not imitating Invictus, though if such an activity were the sincerest form of flattery, I'll let you think that... since you can't see that I'm merely joking around here.

Smackie,

That was funny. I've never seen anyone attempt an argument against arguing. There is a little problem involving contradiction there, which is no surprise considering that such an "argument" has as its foundation relativism, which sports a self-contradictory nature: if one says "all statements of belief/opinion are equal" then that includes the statement "not all statements of belief/opinion are equal."

P and not-P?

Dins,
Why would I ask Risa to leave? She gives me presents!

Jsc,
You're not referring to the exchange between Smackie and I, are you? Surely you mean what he did earlier in the thread.
But hey, once you get better and go forth to court again, try out some of the things we've seen in this thread! It will be fun!

When the opposing counsel states his case, just flash a grin and say to the judge and jury "that's just his opinion. Mine is no better or worse. There is no truth we can know, no you, no one. We're just gonna decide this by who has the better courtroom style."

C'mon man, do it DO IT DO IT!
Then let us know what happens.

velocet

T1B

How to Handle a Tard's Complaint

Re: How to Handle a Tard's Complaint