*sigh* I gave you a chance to turn back Danny. Just know that much.
So you can't be the aggressor cause your board is filled with a aggressive posters?
Exactly. We kept to ourselves doing what we usually do because that's our local custom.
On the other hand, you came here for the exact purpose of changing our morality and verbal traditions. That would make you the aggressors.
To which Danny replied:
This is weak.
You guys ganged up on Whomod so we came. We don't care about your stupid traditions anymore then you care for our rules.
And so:
Apparently you do since you're coming here for the sake of someone who's been here for years and can attest to the nature of this place. And yet, even after the thorough understanding of what a person must put up with if they decide to stay here, you still feel there's warrant to come here for the sake of justice. The problem here is that your definition of justice seems to be wholly different from ours.
We've already explained that you're no different from anyone else on this board in the way you interact with other posters, but all the same you still feel that you're a unique snowflake falling on this wasteland of ours.
By this logic you care about our rules cause you bitch about them.
It's a basic action/reaction thing. Deal with it.
I don't bitch about them. I say you're stupid for pretending they're relevant.
You don't have to react to us, and yet you choose to.
That's bitching.
We chose to react to your aggressions. That much is true.
*IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT HE EDITED THAT SECOND SENTENCE IN*
All that means is that you pick and choose what scenario qualifies as "bitching" according to what's convenient for you.
You've said multiple times are rules are stupid. Bitching.
Actually, it's just a statement of fact.
If I actually went over to your boards and then petitioned you through spam and alts to change your rules, due to them being stupid, then that would qualify as "bitching."
Now here's where we switch from Danny to Daniel!
By this logic you care about our rules cause you bitch about them.
It's a basic action/reaction thing. Deal with it.
I don't bitch about them. I say you're stupid for pretending they're relevant.
You don't have to react to us, and yet you choose to.
Hello kettle? This is the pot. You're black.
You've misused the phrase; I don't have a rules to contradict here and I haven't migrated to your board to give you lectures.
Pariah is claiming to own a phrase probaly older then everyone on this board? No wonder he's gotta go after minors.
How exactly does stating the proper use of the phrase qualify as me saying that I own it?
You don't get to decide that. The basic message of the phrase was clear.
His intent was clear based on the context of the situation, but that doesn't mean his message was clear. Because he made an erroneous comparison between my intentions and the Insurgency intentions, his point made no sense. In which case, he misused the phrase and made an ass out of himself.
You've misused the phrase; I don't have a rules to contradict here and I haven't migrated to your board to give you lectures.
Actually, friend, I'm paraphrasing its usage from a once popular television program (Friends, if you're feeling froggy). So I didn't, in point of fact, misuse the phrase. Perhaps if you got off the computer every so often and socialized with non-fuck wits you'd learn something...and maybe you'd stop trying to fuck minors. But I kind of doubt it.
What does you paraphrasing it have to do with the fact that you've misjudged the propriety of its use?
The phrase has been around longer than Friends.
To which Danny cleverly replied with:
Because he didn't. You're a reaching.
Actually, he did. I explained specifically that he misinterpreted my intentions for posting on messageboards for his own and therefore his attempt at being witty failed. No reaching has been done.
Don't assume. It makes an ass out of you, not me.
There are no assumptions. As I said, and Dan agrees, your intent was clear. Your execution was not.
By this logic you care about our rules cause you bitch about them.
It's a basic action/reaction thing. Deal with it.
I don't bitch about them. I say you're stupid for pretending they're relevant.
You don't have to react to us, and yet you choose to.
Once again,
.
You are in this very conversation doing the thing you are accusing the Insurgents of doing (that'd be reacting to us, whilst feigning to be above such things), therefore you are the kettle. You, good sir, are black. Figuratively speaking, anyway.
PS I win. That's how it's done around here, right?
Once again,
.
You are in this very conversation doing the thing you are accusing the Insurgents of doing (that'd be reacting to us, whilst feigning to be above such things), therefore you are the kettle. You, good sir, are black. Figuratively speaking, anyway.
PS I win. That's how it's done around here, right?
You've misused the phrase; I don't have a rules to contradict here and I haven't migrated to your board to give you lectures.
I come here to post. I'm posting.
I don't come here to go to your board in reaction to your "rules."
Thank you for playing.
And then he torches my ass with:
Straw man. No wonder you guys "win" all of your arguments here. You cheat.
WHOA!!
No strawman was used. I let your words speak for themselves and I responded to them.
I deflect your strawman.
And Danny was just so incredibly witty with:
Of course you do
Seek help. Seriously.
Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. It can refocus the scope of an argument or be a legitimate step of a proof by exhaustion. In contrast the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.
I used your exact quote and I responded to it with a direct statement. Not an interpretation of your meaning. You're floundering.
And then after all this conversation with mainly me formulating the arguments, Danny very smartly observes.
You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right.
There has been no denial. I have specifically pointed out the difference between responding to posters on your home board versus migrating to another board to tell the posters there that they are evil immoral individuals that are going to hell.
I'm sure you'd like that to be a strawman, but it's not.
And then, of course:
You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right.
There has been no denial. I have specifically pointed out the difference between responding to posters on your home board versus migrating to another board to tell the posters there that they are evil immoral individuals that are going to hell.
I'm sure you'd like that to be a strawman, but it's not.
No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias.
Actually, it doesn't. Try again.
No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias.
There has been no denial.
I'm sensing a pattern here...
Which are abridged quotes that precede and proceed full responses in other respective posts that have nothing to do with Daniel or our original conversations.
