Hedgemistress wrote:

It may have been on the flamey side, but it wasn't pointless. Read the rest of that thread and you will see that there was a method to my mad-ness. A proliferation of imitators who didn't understand the subtlety of my method (that is, they felt that screaming insults was always the first resort best way to get results) forced me to stop, but for a while, it was a great way to teach newbies the importance of going through the steps.

As for the central issue here, it certainly was an insult. Calling someone who advocates less civility "uncivilized" is an insult but calling someone "inestimably stupid" isn't? It was also a flame, yes, but the reason it was a flame instead of just noisy spam is because it was insulting.

I read the entire thread. Still say it was pointless. Coupled with what else I've learned about you over the course of *this* thread, I'd say it was right on the money. While your arguing style may have calmed a bit, the signal/noise ratio is about the same.

Meh, it doesn't even bother me anymore. I seem to "do wrong" by people even if I don't even try. It's actually funny, a compliment, even.

I think you're mistaking "rule of law" for "rule of justice"

Justice is an ideal to be strived for, it is an abstraction. Law is a concretion. A law is not guaranteed to be just, but it's necessary to have some sort of structure to stand on when we strive for justice. In this imperfect world full of imperfect humans, we will never have a "rule of justice" for a group of people of any appreciable size without first establishing a "rule of law."

It's called "subtext." You must be a wonderful speaker if you can use it so effectively and not even know it. Quite a few of your arguments rely on the unspoken mental image of burning and pillaging.

If you picture burning and pillaging when I speak of unacceptable violence, that might* speak to what you consider unacceptable. I'm not arguing against burning and pillaging because there's a pretty decent chance anyone reading this forum would agree on the unacceptibility of that.

I've made it clear what I'm talking about: violence in general. I'm not comparing punching someone to burning and pillaging. I'm saying punching someone is very rarely justified.

*On the other hand, it might be that you're trying to consciously paint me as an extremist. As I said, at the same time you rail against me for allegedly twisting the way you present your beliefs, it seems you're attempting to do the same thing to me!

Evolution is not a function of Society, its a function of a species. Society is cyclcic, NOT linear. Barbarism->Civilization->Decadence->Barbarism->r epeat

Evolution is a function of any complex system capable of both change and of reproducing itself against the threat of extinction. Evolution is in no way linear. Biological evolution is cyclical in the same way societal evolution is... every once in a while, nearly the whole thing gets razed and the whole thing starts again from a slightly different point.

I didn't say anything about back alley brawls, so put the strawman away please.

You didn't use that phrase, but here's where I got it from:

a simple fist-fight out back

If you want to say a brawl cannot describe a fight between two people, I'll cede you that. I think it can, but I'd agree that the connotation is a mass of people. "Out back" would be behind a building, often in a back alley.

Back alley fight, then. In any event, it's not a strawman. Settling disputes with a "fist-fight out back", a "back alley brawl", a "trial by combat", or "a rousing bout of fisticuffs" all mean the same thing: using violence to "solve" something that has nothing to do with violence.

That crack about our "shared single-celled ancestor" was a direct attempt at an attack on me, not my views nor my beleifs. Look up "ad hominem."

Firstly, if anything you say ever sends me the dictionary, it'll probably be because you're deliberately reaching... I know what ad hominem means. I seek to provoke people into questioning their own motivations, but there's a slight distinction here. An example of an ad hominem argument would be, "Why does Geminidomino seek to promote violence as a justifiable alternative? Maybe because he owns a bandage company!"

I ask you why you appear to object to being called uncivilized at the same time that you rail against civilization. I think that's a valid question. It would not diminish your position in the slightest to a) clarify your position or b) get past the negative connotation you're applying to "uncivilized", accept the label as valid, and move on.

Now, for the personal attack, let's look at what I said:

"You raise a lot of valid points about society, but your conclusions show your barbarity. "Our bloated tort law system must be reformed... no wait, we'll just settle our disputes by fighting!" Didn't I see you posting something about how many billions of years of evolution it took to produce you? I bet our shared single-celled ancestor would be thrilled to learn how evolved you are. :P"

Throughout the whole paragraph, am I saddling you with a sloping brow or bad posture, or a vestigial tail, or anything like that? No, I'm clearly talking about your viewpoint... so at the end, when I say you're unevolved, it should be obvious that it's specifically in your viewpoint that you are unevolved.

Strawmen. Ad hominem. You obviously learned a lot of fancy debate terms at some point in time. Is there a Latin phrase that means "Trying to turn criticism of one's viewpoint into a personal insult because it's so much easier to deflect the personal insult than it is to address legitimate criticism?"

Once again, I find NOTHING insulting about being called uncivilized. I admit it. I flaunt it. And I know it makes me superior to the mindless sheep that comprise "civilization"

An example of an ad hominem argument would be, "Why does >Geminidomino seek to promote violence as a justifiable >alternative? Maybe because he owns a bandage company!"

Yes, that WOULD be an example of an ad hominem. And so would your crack. An ad hominem is something that attempts to use an attack on the opponent rather than his/her arguments as a valid debate tactic. Your comment qualifies.

A more obvious example:
"I have done extensive research showing that seat belts save lives!"
"Why should we listen to you? You had an affair and cheated on your wife!"

is also an ad hominem.

Looking over your posts, there's no need for me to paint you as an extremist. It would appear you do that quite well on your own.

Okay, I can see where you got a "back alley" from "out back." but that just comes from the old rule that if you can help it, you don't fight in front of women and children, i.e. in the back yard, not in the middle of the street.

Other than that particular miscommunication, I have seen nothing "legitimate" about any of your criticisms. Your opinion differs, diametrically, from mine. Rather than shutting up and moving on when it became clear you weren't going to convince me to follow your One True Way, you just kept repeating the same drek over and over again, with a few digs thrown in for flavor.

You repeatedly made your point, "violence is bad." Had you left it at that, there would be no problem. Unfortunately you seem to be under the impression that your opinion should be (if you'll pardon the expression) gospel. It isn't and probably never will be, unless you want to start a cult.

Hedgemistress wrote:

Other than that particular miscommunication, I have seen nothing "legitimate" about any of your criticisms. Your opinion differs, diametrically, from mine. Rather than shutting up and moving on when it became clear you weren't going to convince me to follow your One True Way, you just kept repeating the same drek over and over again, with a few digs thrown in for flavor.

My last thought on the subject: That's your interpretation of my posts, and while I can see how you could look at the situation and see it that way, you would be wrong... furthermore, take an objective look at the whole thread... is there anything in this paragraph that doesn't equally apply to your posts?

Admittedly, there is only one large difference. I *did* try to walk away from it but let you goad me back into it.

The smaller difference is perhaps more obvious. I didn't post anything other than meant to specifically refute your comments. I was "on the defensive" as it were.

A mistake that won't be made again. I'll be implementing that proximitron rule now. Good day.

I wasn't placing any threats there, just a small comment. A very sarcastic comment, but it wasn't a threat.

Hedgemistress wrote:

homophobia is beyond wrong,

So someone who's scared of homosexuals or being scared of becoming a homo is wrong? I see nothing wrong with fear. Now discrimination is wrong that's what I believe we have here a case of not homophobia.

She used a very bad example there as well. A knife is a mandmade object as you said, and its not a neat fit between two ribs. Thats like saying a stick fits between two rocks neatly.

It's not flawed at all. If we're assuming an all-powerful, all-knowing God that micromanages every detail of our existence, there is nothing in existence that is NOT part of His plan. As for how well it fits, it's no more or less actually perfect than is the fit between a randomly selected man and woman would be.

If you want to be really picky, though, I'll put it this way: does the fact that your finger fits in your nose prove that God wants it there?

Actually It's human instinct to pick your nose, so yes god wants you too!!!! PICK YOUR NOSE!

Gah when did this happin? I never got to choose :P.