Locking posts because someone disagrees.
- Gichtenlord
- Howdah
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Nov 15, 2015
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
Ive seen callen criticise something several times tho
r]
- CelticCrusader
- Dragoon
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Dec 3, 2015
- ESO: CelticCrusader
- Location: Sheep Land
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
Gichtenlord wrote:CelticCrusader wrote:deleted_user wrote:I agree. ESOC sucks. They allow nazis to run rampant!
Nazi is the thing any stupid ass sjw calls when anyone disagrees with them. You never answered any of my questions and just continue to deflect with some bullshit statement. Try harder Callen . I am not a nazi for disliking religious practices.
and you are calinng ppl who disagree with you sjw. Oh the irony!
Yes because they never actually discuss any of your points, and they deflect and call names. Little buzzwords created by the lefist establishment like' Islamaphobic' or 'Nazi' . These are used for anyone who has any criticism of islam. Still not one of you who have replied have actually disputed any of the practices of islam. Still deflecting because you have fuck all to say. haha
- CelticCrusader
- Dragoon
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Dec 3, 2015
- ESO: CelticCrusader
- Location: Sheep Land
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
Gichtenlord wrote:Ive seen callen criticise something several times tho
Doesnt mean he will tolerate someone criticizing something he doesn't agree with though lol
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
Reader discretion is advised.EAGLEMUT wrote:What thread is being talked about here?
Pay more attention to detail.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
Gichtenlord wrote:Ive seen callen criticise something several times tho
I'm not some brainwashed leftist as people might believe. I can criticize Islam too but understand critical differences between extremists and the very peaceful very large majority. If Celtic is taking anything I have to say to heart today he must possess an already very skewed vision of the world to believe it somehow is the result, or is any evidence, of a growing trend (the tumblrest of all tumblr agenedas). It's not.
Quite frankly nothing Celtic has said has been worth a serious response. If every instance I face opposition and do not devout my every resource to its rebuttal I am incapable of genuine debate. This seems to be the absurd sentiment. It's very absurd indeed.
The reactionary posts on this site are all hyperbolic. I will respond in part or won't at all.
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
@deleted_user4 In all honesty, the issue with you in general is that you pull shit out of nowhere and present them as if they are facts, regardless of the topic of discussion. That by itself is normally fine, but you simply don't take in what the other part says and keep repeating yourself as if your points have not been addressed and consequently get frustrated because you think you're being ignored. This last discussion was just a shitfest on all accounts, but in general that is how you behave—even in non-controversial discussions.
Pay more attention to detail.
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
why is anyone taking someone seriously who posted this
Theres so many logical fallacies in that statement as well as just blatant and willful ignorance probably due to emotion its clear you cannot have a rational conversation with said person.
Seriously think about what you are saying. Imagine your a father of a young girl, so would you like some pervy old man preying on your innocent child ? This whole gender neutral bullshit needs to stop. There are 2 genders, male and female. We separate them in bathrooms for very good reasons. This gender neutral bullshit is just bending to the will of a tiny percentage of people who decided they were a different sex. Why should the large majority of people change just to suit a small percentage of people? In my opinion trans people are mentally ill, they need mental health treatment not their tackle chopping off.
Theres so many logical fallacies in that statement as well as just blatant and willful ignorance probably due to emotion its clear you cannot have a rational conversation with said person.
- CelticCrusader
- Dragoon
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Dec 3, 2015
- ESO: CelticCrusader
- Location: Sheep Land
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
deleted_user wrote:Gichtenlord wrote:Ive seen callen criticise something several times tho
I'm not some brainwashed leftist as people might believe. I can criticize Islam too but understand critical differences between extremists and the very peaceful very large majority. If Celtic is taking anything I have to say to heart today he must possess an already very skewed vision of the world to believe it somehow is the result, or is any evidence, of a growing trend. It's not.
Quite frankly nothing Celtic has said has been worth a serious response. If every instance I face opposition and do not devout my every resource to its rebuttal I am incapable of genuine debate. This seems to be the absurd sentiment. It's very absurd indeed.
The reactionary posts on this site are all hyperbolic. I will respond in part or won't at all.
You can criticize Islam ? But you never answered any of the points I made about why I dislike islam and why I would not allow my child go to a mosque. You just make deflective comments and try to change the conversation. I will have a discussion with you if you can actually answer correctly. But you have that tendency to use those stupid buzzwords like'Nazi' to describe people who criticize islam, which is a religion, not a race if you hadn't noticed.To put this in context, you are calling normal people who have concerns about religious practices Nazis, who murdered millions of people merciless. Nice logic
- CelticCrusader
- Dragoon
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Dec 3, 2015
- ESO: CelticCrusader
- Location: Sheep Land
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
gibson wrote:why is anyone taking someone seriously who posted thisSeriously think about what you are saying. Imagine your a father of a young girl, so would you like some pervy old man preying on your innocent child ? This whole gender neutral bullshit needs to stop. There are 2 genders, male and female. We separate them in bathrooms for very good reasons. This gender neutral bullshit is just bending to the will of a tiny percentage of people who decided they were a different sex. Why should the large majority of people change just to suit a small percentage of people? In my opinion trans people are mentally ill, they need mental health treatment not their tackle chopping off.
Theres so many logical fallacies in that statement as well as just blatant and willful ignorance probably due to emotion its clear you cannot have a rational conversation with said person.
Why do we need gender neutral bathrooms in public ? We don't at all. We have enough of an issue of paedophiles in the world already, we don't need to give them another option to prey on our children. Why should everyone accept mixed bathrooms when it serves to only cater the trans community which is very very small. No reason at all, all this gender shit is just confusing children even more. Maybe if you were not still a child and had children yourself you may understand. What is actually wrong with boys and girls bathrooms?
There are only 2 genders , Male or Female ! If you are born male your male, if you are born female your female, SIMPLE!!!!
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
gibson wrote:why is anyone taking someone seriously who posted thisSeriously think about what you are saying. Imagine your a father of a young girl, so would you like some pervy old man preying on your innocent child ? This whole gender neutral bullshit needs to stop. There are 2 genders, male and female. We separate them in bathrooms for very good reasons. This gender neutral bullshit is just bending to the will of a tiny percentage of people who decided they were a different sex. Why should the large majority of people change just to suit a small percentage of people? In my opinion trans people are mentally ill, they need mental health treatment not their tackle chopping off.
Theres so many logical fallacies in that statement as well as just blatant and willful ignorance probably due to emotion its clear you cannot have a rational conversation with said person.
Please @gibson run us through the formal fallacies here- give names and type of fallacy please, your post used the words "so many"- I would say this must add up to at least three- so - run us all through them please- I'm calling you out- off you go................
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
Yea I forgot a sign on a bathroom door is going to keep a sexual predator out. That's as stupid as saying that a sign that says gun free zone is gonna keep guns out. If stalls in bathrooms are properly sealed there is literally no reason in the world for bathrooms themselves to be for only a single biological sex.CelticCrusader wrote:gibson wrote:why is anyone taking someone seriously who posted thisSeriously think about what you are saying. Imagine your a father of a young girl, so would you like some pervy old man preying on your innocent child ? This whole gender neutral bullshit needs to stop. There are 2 genders, male and female. We separate them in bathrooms for very good reasons. This gender neutral bullshit is just bending to the will of a tiny percentage of people who decided they were a different sex. Why should the large majority of people change just to suit a small percentage of people? In my opinion trans people are mentally ill, they need mental health treatment not their tackle chopping off.
Theres so many logical fallacies in that statement as well as just blatant and willful ignorance probably due to emotion its clear you cannot have a rational conversation with said person.
Why do we need gender neutral bathrooms in public ? We don't at all.
- thomasgreen6
- Lancer
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Jun 24, 2015
- ESO: Thomasgreen6
- Location: UK
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
@CelticCrusader I work as a safety steward at the football (soccer) stadium where I go to university with two muslim coleagues. Should I be concerned and if so what should I do?
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
There aren't any formal logical fallacies in his statement. Since you're so smart you know that a formal fallacy is a fallacy based upon the form of an argument rather than the content. Since we weren't having a formal argument I obviously meant informal fallacies, which are fallacies based on content, but I'm sure you knew that too.oats13 wrote:gibson wrote:why is anyone taking someone seriously who posted thisSeriously think about what you are saying. Imagine your a father of a young girl, so would you like some pervy old man preying on your innocent child ? This whole gender neutral bullshit needs to stop. There are 2 genders, male and female. We separate them in bathrooms for very good reasons. This gender neutral bullshit is just bending to the will of a tiny percentage of people who decided they were a different sex. Why should the large majority of people change just to suit a small percentage of people? In my opinion trans people are mentally ill, they need mental health treatment not their tackle chopping off.
Theres so many logical fallacies in that statement as well as just blatant and willful ignorance probably due to emotion its clear you cannot have a rational conversation with said person.
Please @gibson run us through the formal fallacies here- give names and type of fallacy please, your post used the words "so many"- I would say this must add up to at least three- so - run us all through them please- I'm calling you out- off you go................
Imagine your a father of a young girl, so would you like some pervy old man preying on your innocent child ?
Here he's appealing to emotion, an informal logical fallacy.
This whole gender neutral bullshit needs to stop. There are 2 genders, male and female. We separate them in bathrooms for very good reasons.
Here he's appealing to the stone, an informal logical fallacy.
This gender neutral bullshit is just bending to the will of a tiny percentage of people who decided they were a different sex. Why should the large majority of people change just to suit a small percentage of people?
Here he's using argumentum ad populum, yet another informal logical fallacy.
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
Gendarme wrote:@deleted_user4 In all honesty, the issue with you in general is that you pull shit out of nowhere and present them as if they are facts, regardless of the topic of discussion. That by itself is normally fine, but you simply don't take in what the other part says and keep repeating yourself as if your points have not been addressed and consequently get frustrated because you think you're being ignored. This last discussion was just a shitfest on all accounts, but in general that is how you behave—even in non-controversial discussions.
Welp, in the past he quit the forum like two times, because his posts weren't getting enough attention or something like that. It seems like a pattern. I know what's that but if I call it, there's going to be even more bad blood, so I'd rather avoid that.
People are just very impatient, they want results fast. They don't have the patience to build an argument properly, they want the tl;dr of everything.
As opposed to fightingfrenchman, who avoids personal insults and doesn't get so upset if someone doesn't accept his point of view. It kinda shows how people are invested in their posts.
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
CelticCrusader wrote:Shame on you esoc mod, locking threads because someone disagrees with your pathetic PC views.
Maybe you should stop being so offended by different views and find your little safe space somewhere. Then no one can offend you there and your little ignorance bubble will feel like bliss. You guys honestly make me laugh. And now i am starting to understand why some people are anti esoc.
What happened ?
Edit: Nvm
- CelticCrusader
- Dragoon
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Dec 3, 2015
- ESO: CelticCrusader
- Location: Sheep Land
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
thomasgreen6 wrote:@CelticCrusader I work as a safety steward at the football (soccer) stadium where I go to university with two muslim coleagues. Should I be concerned and if so what should I do?
No , I know muslims that are sound too. Its just we continue importing from countries that still carry out brutal Islamic practices. Hence why there has been a huge increase in child marriage, forced marriage, fgm, terrorism, hate preaching, acid attacks, and many more crimes related to the islamic community. There was none of this in the nineties, but once Blair got in and opened the floodgates, this has happened . Remember the London bombings ? Then last year, Manchester, and London again.
Here is a question , if you had a pack of sweets, and someone told you some of them poisonous would you still eat them all ?
No you wouldn't. Thats why we shouldn't let mass immigrants in. Its just stupid and suicide for public services.
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
Correlation does not imply causation. @gibson I loved your comment on falacies
Correlation doesn't mean causation.
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
"mr.brookg go buy jeans and goto the club with somppuli" - Princeofkabul, July 2018
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
"mr.brookg go buy jeans and goto the club with somppuli" - Princeofkabul, July 2018
- CelticCrusader
- Dragoon
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Dec 3, 2015
- ESO: CelticCrusader
- Location: Sheep Land
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
@gibson Give me one reason for having gender neutral bathrooms ok. What benefit does it have? Weigh that against the consequences, and tell me its better.
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
I dont understand why its not okay? I have never understood why bathrooms were divided by biological sex. Why can't there be a single barrier (the stall) that protects a person who is either peeing or shitting from everyone else? There literally are 0 consequences for it lol. As long as stalls are properly sealed there is no reason that I can think of for bathrooms to be divided by biological sex.CelticCrusader wrote:@gibson Give me one reason for having gender neutral bathrooms ok. What benefit does it have? Weigh that against the consequences, and tell me its better.
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
A formal converation is nothing to do with formal fallacies and therefore it was NOT implicit that you meant informal fallacies however he hasn't used any informal fallacies either
Wrong he is not asserting that a majority back up his assertion he is merely stating the great majority of people aren't transexual- a true statement
Your error is in believing that informal fallacies do not accord to the law of logical flow. His arguments gave wide room for counter argument, yes, but do not constitute informal fallacies- I admire your bullshitting capabilities but today the game ends.
gibson wrote:There aren't any formal logical fallacies in his statement. Since you're so smart you know that a formal fallacy is a fallacy based upon the form of an argument rather than the content. Since we weren't having a formal argument I obviously meant informal fallacies, which are fallacies based on content, but I'm sure you knew that too.oats13 wrote:Show hidden quotes
Please @gibson run us through the formal fallacies here- give names and type of fallacy please, your post used the words "so many"- I would say this must add up to at least three- so - run us all through them please- I'm calling you out- off you go................Imagine your a father of a young girl, so would you like some pervy old man preying on your innocent child ?
Here he's appealing to emotion, an informal logical fallacy.
He is not using the emotion to underpin the logical strength of his position he is merely using an emotional framework to bolster its chances of appeal- a tactic not a fallacy.This whole gender neutral bullshit needs to stop. There are 2 genders, male and female. We separate them in bathrooms for very good reasons.
Here he's appealing to the stone, an informal logical fallacy.
Wrong
Argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity he is doing no such thing here as we already have evidence of good reasons to separate bathrooms.This gender neutral bullshit is just bending to the will of a tiny percentage of people who decided they were a different sex. Why should the large majority of people change just to suit a small percentage of people?
Here he's using argumentum ad populum, yet another informal logical fallacy.
Wrong he is not asserting that a majority back up his assertion he is merely stating the great majority of people aren't transexual- a true statement
Your error is in believing that informal fallacies do not accord to the law of logical flow. His arguments gave wide room for counter argument, yes, but do not constitute informal fallacies- I admire your bullshitting capabilities but today the game ends.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
No you're wrong his argument depends upon the fact that it's a large majority of people, who aren't transsexual and a small percentage of people who are. This is clearly seen by the fact that if you replace small percentage with large majority and vice versa his argument would hold 0 water, demonstrating that it's build about the fact that most people aren't trans. It also shows a lot about his character.
It's not in any way relevant that "informal fallacies do or do not accord to the law of logical flow." I dont give a shit about the "law of logical flow". That has 0 relevance to my initial statement, which is that his post contains multiple logical fallacies. If you want to make an argument that someones statement shouldn't be dismissed because it contains an informal logical fallacy than go for it, but don't expect me to respond because I don't respond to arguments that are so dumb that even a neanderthal could bat them down with ease.
Your entire basis for him not using logical fallacies is that he has already given evidence that having bathrooms welcoming to all biological sexes is bad, which he hasn't. If you can link me somewhere where he has provided such evidence I'll admit that his previous statement wasn't fallacious, but until than I see no reason to respond to you as nothing you say is going to chance the fact that he used multiple logical facilities unless, as I stated above, you can provide a post that I missed where he provided evidence to bathrooms being bad.
It's not in any way relevant that "informal fallacies do or do not accord to the law of logical flow." I dont give a shit about the "law of logical flow". That has 0 relevance to my initial statement, which is that his post contains multiple logical fallacies. If you want to make an argument that someones statement shouldn't be dismissed because it contains an informal logical fallacy than go for it, but don't expect me to respond because I don't respond to arguments that are so dumb that even a neanderthal could bat them down with ease.
Um yes he is. His entire argument is that one sentence which clearly only contains emotional appeal and absolutely nothing of substance.He is not using the emotion to underpin the logical strength of his position he is merely using an emotional framework to bolster its chances of appeal- a tactic not a fallacy.
He has not given evidence of good reason to have separate bathrooms. His only "evidence" is the emotional appeal a few sentences above. Good evidence would be something like, " a survey from XXXX showed that children who use gender neutral bathrooms are 15% more likely to be sexually assaulted." One sentence of made up bullshit emotional appeal is not good evidence.Argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity he is doing no such thing here as we already have evidence of good reasons to separate bathrooms.
Your entire basis for him not using logical fallacies is that he has already given evidence that having bathrooms welcoming to all biological sexes is bad, which he hasn't. If you can link me somewhere where he has provided such evidence I'll admit that his previous statement wasn't fallacious, but until than I see no reason to respond to you as nothing you say is going to chance the fact that he used multiple logical facilities unless, as I stated above, you can provide a post that I missed where he provided evidence to bathrooms being bad.
- thomasgreen6
- Lancer
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Jun 24, 2015
- ESO: Thomasgreen6
- Location: UK
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
CelticCrusader wrote:thomasgreen6 wrote:@CelticCrusader I work as a safety steward at the football (soccer) stadium where I go to university with two muslim coleagues. Should I be concerned and if so what should I do?
No , I know muslims that are sound too. Its just we continue importing from countries that still carry out brutal Islamic practices. Hence why there has been a huge increase in child marriage, forced marriage, fgm, terrorism, hate preaching, acid attacks, and many more crimes related to the islamic community. There was none of this in the nineties, but once Blair got in and opened the floodgates, this has happened . Remember the London bombings ? Then last year, Manchester, and London again.
Here is a question , if you had a pack of sweets, and someone told you some of them poisonous would you still eat them all ?
No you wouldn't. Thats why we shouldn't let mass immigrants in. Its just stupid and suicide for public services.
Would you therfore advocate keeping everyone locked up in thier homes and spied upon similar to George Orwell's 1984? Otherwise you're opening that bag of sweets everytime you leave the house.
I would advise to read this document provided by the government regarding all "Policy and legislative changes affecting migration to the UK"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... k-timeline
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
@gibson you are just not getting it- formal fallacies are ones of 'form' the form itself is wrong, informal ones are ones that may follow an apparently permisable form but contain within themselves other fallacies which are self evident- his assertions MAY be wrong but they are not self evidently wrong- we have evidence in the thread of good reasons to separate bathrooms- many women want separate bathrooms.
His appeal to emotion is perfectly reasonable- quite evidently letting in men to womens bathrooms will allow men to come into contact with young children- in what way is it self evident that these may may not possibly be perverts? they quite obviously could be perverts- his argument is not slam-dunk but it is not a fallacy either because he is not making these assertions as 'statements' merely asking the question which does not constitute any fallacy.
His appeal to emotion is perfectly reasonable- quite evidently letting in men to womens bathrooms will allow men to come into contact with young children- in what way is it self evident that these may may not possibly be perverts? they quite obviously could be perverts- his argument is not slam-dunk but it is not a fallacy either because he is not making these assertions as 'statements' merely asking the question which does not constitute any fallacy.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
- thomasgreen6
- Lancer
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Jun 24, 2015
- ESO: Thomasgreen6
- Location: UK
Re: Locking posts because someone disagrees.
gibson wrote:He has not given evidence of good reason to have separate bathrooms. His only "evidence" is the emotional appeal a few sentences above. Good evidence would be something like, " a survey from XXXX showed that children who use gender neutral bathrooms are 15% more likely to be sexually assaulted." One sentence of made up bullshit emotional appeal is not good evidence.
I agree with @gibson that his posts do not provide much direct evidence to back up his arguments. He seems to present his opinion as fact - rather then as his opinion without providing any statistics to back up his points.
@CelticCrusader @oats13
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests