Discussion about acceptable styles of argument in VPT

Mugwump · Post by **Mugwump** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:23 pm

^ sigh*. Wokko's views are that Islam is a violent expansionary relgion. Saddam Hussein's views were that America is a violent imperialist power that had no business invading Iraq. That does not make Wokko the EDL, and it does not make you Saddam, or a Saddam sympathiser. If you have evidence that Wokko acts like the thugs in the EDL picture and has a record of .anti-Islamic violence against people in our community then post it.

Over and out on this thread - you can have the last word.

Morrigu · Post by **Morrigu** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:30 pm

pietillidie · Post by **pietillidie** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:20 am

Mugwump · Post by **Mugwump** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:38 am

^

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/hate-groups/edl/

Did the picture you posted show a group of people engaging in a bulletin board discussion about Islam, or a group of hate-filled and threatening street fighters ? Of course, the fact that EDL is legal is neither here nor there. The BNP in the Uk is legal. It is also (like the EDL) a hate group with a vigilante record of actively threatening and intimidating Muslims within the host society, and you showed that with your picture. It may have disowned its violent fringe, but you chose to show a picture of that fringe as representing Wokko's views. I think that's unfair.

If anyone advocated that kind of vigilante action on this board, most (and probably all) of the people with reservations about Islam here would be down on them like a ton of bricks, because they (we) do not have the views you misattribute to us. None of us want to menace innocent people who are part of our community. Many of us have reservations about the effects of Islam as a movement within our society, however, and want public policies to manage the effects in a peaceful and liberal way.

I'll say it one more time - this meme of posting pictures of false association to goad a response should stop. I've been thus associated in the not too distant past with George Bush, Tony Abbott, and Bibi Netanyahu. Or perhaps you can post more pictures of Wokko in a rubbish bin, for a laugh ("wassa matter, can't you take a joke?" etc). Just bring your excellent intellect, prodigiously wide learning and original world view to enrich a respectful discussion on what is, after all, just a bloody football social board. If you want to fight the great battles of state via a political blood-sport, then join a party and have a go ; but most of us are not looking for that level of concussion here. If you think it's ok, then people will manage it as best they can, but you must expect it'll cause a negative reaction from time to time.

I said I'd leave you the last word, and I've broken that here, because your last post required it. But now let be. You can have the last word, and flail away to your heart's content.

pietillidie · Post by **pietillidie** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:47 am

Post by **think positive** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:23 am

Jokes are supposed to be humourous, funny, make people laugh, take the piss in a nice way. I'm pretty good at laughing at myself. I'm pretty sure plenty here remember my shake the paint can accident, fall in the bathroom black eye of epic proportions, and more recently, get attacked by a gym machine bruise.

If you tell a joke, and no one laughs, if you are in fact told by the majority that the joke is not funny, but is in fact highly offensive, then it's not a joke.

Wokko · Post by **Wokko** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:41 am

pietillidie · Post by **pietillidie** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:48 am

^That, or post a really over-sized image in the midst of a forum discussion

think positive wrote:Jokes are supposed to be humourous, funny, make people laugh, take the piss in a nice way. I'm pretty good at laughing at myself. I'm pretty sure plenty here remember my shake the paint can accident, fall in the bathroom black eye of epic proportions, and more recently, get attacked by a gym machine bruise.

If you tell a joke, and no one laughs, if you are in fact told by the majority that the joke is not funny, but is in fact highly offensive, then it's not a joke.

False. Plenty of jokes are hilarious, yet some group hates them. You don't get to control who laughs at what and who thinks something is or isn't a joke.

Just ask the Church of Scientology or <place literally any number of millions of churches and traditional organisations here> how much they enjoy humour at their expense.

Who taught you this completely off-the-wall, autocratic version of public speech and thought control?

3.14159 · Post by **3.14159** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:57 am

Wokko makes a valid point!
This pathetic piece of dribble is what the LNP considers enlightened debate.
I call it the last refuge of the scoundrel!

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-ag ... k62vx.html

Post by **think positive** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:59 am

PTID, if your target audience is not laughing, it is not a joke, not even an attempt at humor, its just a thinly veiled insult, designed to either offend, insult, or hurt.

your "jokes" are aimed solely at a single person, designed to hurt, offend, insult or instigate others to do so, ON THIS FORUM, maybe you have misjudged your target audience.

have you noticed? no one is laughing.

i dont care about your "out in the real world" i care about this forum, and it being a place where i can safely voice my opinion or an opinion thats slightly off the wall, without a shit load of vitriol, or a direct insinuation that im a blubbering idiot that doesnt deserve to be heard.

i try to do no harm, i expect the same in return. is that too much to ask?

pietillidie · Post by **pietillidie** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:11 am

^But I consider your more extreme views, often based on LQ information, very harmful. You don't have to agree; that's just my take.

The harsh reality of our culture is that no one has to care if you personally think something think is funny or not. Are you the Jesus of humour? Are your like-minded mates the Church of Humour? Is Nick's the Ministry of Humour?

I don't find half the stuff you go on about vaguely interesting, and a portion of it sounds like screams from an asylum to me. Even so, I can engage you if I feel like it, but I can't stop you; too bad for me!

Don't take that wrong, I really like the other half of your stuff! That's just life, isn't it? Of course I know much of my stuff bores people to tears, and some on certain topics causes certain personality types to become irate. But that's because I focus on political threads mostly on Nick's as a personal preference, so you're seeing very filtered content from me.

No need to take the politics aspect too personally IMO. Thrash it out in its own space. It's called compartmentalisation.

I can't be bothered writing about the Great British Bake Off, even though the Beloved One forced me to watch it

But I certainly do other stuff, you know!

Post by **think positive** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:44 am

pietillidie wrote:^But I consider your more extreme views, often based on LQ information, very harmful.

Harmful to who? Who is reading Nicks that is somehow going to have an "ahaaaa" moment by something I, or anyone else writes?

In any case this thread is not about how intelligent you think I, or anyone else is, or wether our beliefs are right or wrong.

It's about the smug arrogant, derogatory, callous put downs, the unecesary name calling, to anyone who disagrees with your views, that you somehow Think are humorous, and yet most of us here, are sick to death of.

(And yes, I got the message," I'm a silly hysterical woman, get back in the kitchen and let the big boys fix the world" huh! maybe that's what's wrong with it)

But as Luvdids says so well in the WTF thread, it's time to walk away.

Deflect away, I'm done.

pietillidie · Post by **pietillidie** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:07 am

think positive wrote:
pietillidie wrote:^But I consider your more extreme views, often based on LQ information, very harmful.
Harmful to who? Who is reading Nicks that is somehow going to have an "ahaaaa" moment by something I, or anyone else writes?

In any case this thread is not about how intelligent you think I, or anyone else is, or wether our beliefs are right or wrong.

It's about the smug arrogant, derogatory, callous put downs, the unecesary name calling, to anyone who disagrees with your views, that you somehow Think are humorous, and yet most of us here, are sick to death of.

No, it's really about you projecting rage onto me because I take exception to you projecting it unfairly on others in their remote absence, and by doing so rousing mob fear and anxiety, and damaging the prospects of the planet.

I've always said I'm happy to negotiate; you improve the factual basis and care with which you target distant others in their absence, and I won't defend them as vigorously.

But you rule the world, right? So, instead of either (a) compartmentalising and keeping politics over there in its own box, or (b) satisfying me to some degree in an act of negotiation, you would rather head back to the 1600s to take my free speech away by inciting the Talibanic mob to stone me to death.

Wokko · Post by **Wokko** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:29 am

pietillidie wrote: No, it's really about you projecting rage onto me because I take exception to you projecting it unfairly on others

No, it really isn't.

pietillidie · Post by **pietillidie** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:30 am

Wokko wrote:
pietillidie wrote:
think positive wrote: Harmful to who? Who is reading Nicks that is somehow going to have an "ahaaaa" moment by something I, or anyone else writes?

In any case this thread is not about how intelligent you think I, or anyone else is, or wether our beliefs are right or wrong.

It's about the smug arrogant, derogatory, callous put downs, the unecesary name calling, to anyone who disagrees with your views, that you somehow Think are humorous, and yet most of us here, are sick to death of.
No, it's really about you projecting rage onto me because I take exception to you projecting it unfairly on others in their remote absence, and by doing so rousing mob fear and anxiety, and damaging the prospects of the planet.

I've always said I'm happy to negotiate; you improve the factual basis and care with which you target distant others in their absence, and I won't defend them as vigorously.

But you rule the world, right? So, instead of either (a) compartmentalising and keeping politics over there in its own box, or (b) satisfying me to some degree in an act of negotiation, you would rather head back to the 1600s to take my free speech away by inciting the Talibanic mob to stone me to death.
No, it really isn't.

Yes, it really is

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

Discussion about acceptable styles of argument in VPT