I've got something for you to wax right here.
Rodney King revisited
- Thread starter Hopper
- Start date
I've got something for you to wax right here.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
You're getting closer little acorn. Very, very, very ticklishly close to the juicy center.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Why don't you have ME on ignore? Why do you respond to someone such as myself who has nothing to offer to all the "intelligent" discussions you have going around here everyone is so riveted by? Why do you presume to tell ME how to express MYself? Why do you say I have a 'game,' and you don't? Why do you think you're not cramming your own opinions down people's throats with all your glory hole threads about what Jerry ate for breakfast, or when Deron scratched his balls a certain way, or when Sophocles had a dream about Mark Twain that had something to do with a point you might be making? Why are you so deluded that you think people can't understand you? Why are you so afraid to just say what you think and see where the road goes rather than always having some magical riddle to protect yourself if it doesn't go well?
C l u t c H 385
Banned
JazzFanz said:
Commis.
TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
post removed by moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
The irony of Hoppy asking for intelligent discussion is incredibly overwhelming.
wait, who is Biley? Guess I must've missed something.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
I thought a banzai was a banzai. Not an oak.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Is this like, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
And a one, and a two, and a...
Biley = Aint talk for Billy as in billyshelby
Scorecard:
Standard English: check
Direct, simple request: check
Anticipation of future behavior based on past behavior, with no justment offered: check
This seems to be everything billyshelby wants in a Hopper post. How pleased was he with it?
Scorecard:
tu quoque fallacy: check
False claim (that Hopper requested billyshelby express himself in a certain way): check
False claim (that Hopper said Hopper did not have a game he played): check
Inability to differentiate deductive and inductive teaching methods: check
False claim (Hopper thinks people can't understand him): check
Even more embarrassing is that this is exactly the behavior Hopper described.
If you read a little more carefully, you'll see that Hopper was telling billyshelby that Hopper's posts are a bad place to find intelligence, at least of the sort that billyshelby is interested in.
Now, we all kno9w you aren't that foolish, moevillini. Even Hopper understands that, despite his hypothetical in the other thread.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
1) There is no tu quoque fallacy at play (very fancy, had to look that up): aint, in my opinion, is accusing me of the very same things he is guilty of. He could put me on ignore, he's just as guilty of 'sophistical ad hominem attacks, fallacious reasoning, bluster, and insult,' he crams half baked opinions down people's throat, he 'plays to the crowd' (badly), he employs 'simplistic and bogus tactics,' and I love intelligent discussion, I just haven't seen it evidenced in things aint says. That may be the literal definition of 'tu quoque fallacy,' but the only distinction to be made is he said it first. If I said it first, and aint rebutted that was me, he'd be 'guilty' of the same fallacious reasoning. Bottom line: I think I'm right, he thinks he is, the truth is whatever it is.
2) If you weren't such a robot, you would understand that aint isn't directly asking me to express myself in a certain way. He's "above" that. He simply belittles my way of expressing myself as being uninterested in "intelligent discussion." As usual, aint is careful to claim moral victories by way of semantics, but I assume most people see through the words to the meaning.
3) Don't see where aint claims to be playing his own game. Seems his game is the 'intelligent discussion crowd', whereas I'm catfishing the gutter. But as best as I can tell, he's not claiming to play a game. He's claiming I am. I dispute that, and my "claims" to be playing a game were meant rhetorically which is why there were quotes around it--as in, neither of us is playing a game. We're both posting on this board, but I'm not going to sit idly by while he claims I have a 'game' and he doesn't.
4) It's hilarious you actually think most people can't differentiate between inductive and deductive teaching methods. Everyone gets aint is inductive. What I expressed, which is not to claim opinions of others, is that aint is very bad at inductive teaching. He's really not interested in debate so much as the smoke and mirrors show to prove his own intellectual prowess. I realize you're going to disagree with me on this and that's OK with me.
5) aint doesn't make sense because he never tries to. Yeah, some people like his schtick. He likes being the guy with a million questions, no answers, but a common sense feeling. Answers are always relative and unreliable. He loves to fall back on the unknowability of the universe. He's very careful to take no opinions so long as it doesn't involve Jerry Sloan, Deron Williams, Mat Harpring, or the few other rocks in his stream which are unassailable, and of course totally corrupted by his emotion. They're heroes to him, and he won't see his heroes tarnished, at which point he disingenuously employs his reason to affirm those rocks. So in final answer, my guess is people understand aint perfectly. He just wouldn't like the conclusions.
Hopper
Banned
The difference is that Hopper merely said he wasn't going to interact with you, based on your posting style, while you are telling him to change his. Regardless of who thinks they are right, Hopper's declaration is a different character than your demands.
I didn't see a claim of moral victory there. Hopper and I have each claimed an occasional victory over the other, and he typically waits for an acknowledgement of error before claiming any sort of vicotry. No one expects that you will acknowledge an error, just as no one expects you to distinguish between commenting on a post or posting style and commenting on a person.
I don't recall Hopper saying he doesn't have a game (in the sense of playing specific roles in various social transactions on this board). I'm sure he's aware that games are often a part of intelligent discussion, and in fact are probably more common in intelligent discussion than other types. The Socratic method is a game. Inductive discussion of a point is a game. Putting out minimal information and seeing where people go with it is a game. Hopper plays all of those games, and sometimes quite adeptly. Making strong declarations and not backing them with evidence is also a game, but one he doesn't play.
Inductive discussion styles are not conducive to debates. If you really got that he was using an inductive style, you'd see that. They are conducive to discussions, which Hopper does participate in for pages on end, on occasion.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
In the context of this spam thread, and many others like it that you spew frequently, you play the part of the wise sage. But of course we're also treated to all your spam threads about Sloan, Deron, etc. which are designed to exalt your heroes which are all crammed down our throats with half baked opinions. That's when you go into Riefenstahl mode. I'll bet she was capable of highly intelligent conversation. Didn't make her honest though, did it? Always best when ya can have it both ways, know what I'm sayin'?
Hopper
Banned
Any two people who can both see Biley as playin the punk that he loves to play have to be the same person, because no two people could both be that wrong--that the idea, eh, Bum? Ya gotta crush on Biley, that it?
No, I'm pretty sure that's a joke at the expense of write4u and a cople of others who thought he was onto something.
When it's all said and done, I think we're all the victims of a very clever ruse.