Split from Freedom in Houston

[Banned User 1]

I wonder how long the "beep beep boop I am a logical machine" phase of his attention-whoring is going to last?

Enki][ did it better.

hmm...give or take, 10-18 hours...

by that point, I will have become such a grating wretch that someone will call me out on it, I'll make some whiney self-reflective post in an attempt to evoke pity or discussion of unrelated topics. After this, someone will call me out on it again, I'll realise the tactic didn't work, scream racial slurs, poop all over the bed, shriek like an ape, mabey even just up and scream "NO U" and then do something stupid to get my account locked again.

After these things, I'll go back into logical beepbeep mode, and start the cycle over -- I'm giving a total estimated time scale from beepbeep1 to beepbeep2 being 24-72 hours, depending on board traffic and other uncontrollable aspects.

then, I'll get aids and die of a broken anus.

and to top off the rant

orkillme

For the record, nobody locked your account.  It auto-locked when you changed your email address.  I reactivated you...Strictly on principle.  If we didn't have rules about that shit, I'd have just left you as you were.

Oh no, I wasn't trying to imply you guys did it -- it was seriously a self-initiated failsafe. I WANTED to lock myself out -- I was looking for a "delete fucking everything" button, but nixing the account and locking it myself was as close as I could come. If anything, I know you guys wouldn't ban simply due to insult or disagreement -- that's just not a very upstanding thing to do...

speaking of rules -- what are they? I mean, what exactly is a bannable offense? Other than the signup TOS, which I haven't seen since 2009, I haven't come across a "dont do this shit" list anywhere...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I wonder how long the "beep beep boop I am a logical machine" phase of his attention-whoring is going to last?

Enki][ did it better.

hmm...give or take, 10-18 hours...

by that point, I will have become such a grating wretch that someone will call me out on it, I'll make some whiney self-reflective post in an attempt to evoke pity or discussion of unrelated topics. After this, someone will call me out on it again, I'll realise the tactic didn't work, scream racial slurs, poop all over the bed, shriek like an ape, mabey even just up and scream "NO U" and then do something stupid to get my account locked again.

After these things, I'll go back into logical beepbeep mode, and start the cycle over -- I'm giving a total estimated time scale from beepbeep1 to beepbeep2 being 24-72 hours, depending on board traffic and other uncontrollable aspects.

then, I'll get aids and die of a broken anus.

and to top off the rant

orkillme

For the record, nobody locked your account.  It auto-locked when you changed your email address.  I reactivated you...Strictly on principle.  If we didn't have rules about that shit, I'd have just left you as you were.

Oh no, I wasn't trying to imply you guys did it -- it was seriously a self-initiated failsafe. I WANTED to lock myself out -- I was looking for a "delete fucking everything" button, but nixing the account and locking it myself was as close as I could come. If anything, I know you guys wouldn't ban simply due to insult or disagreement -- that's just not a very upstanding thing to do...

speaking of rules -- what are they? I mean, what exactly is a bannable offense? Other than the signup TOS, which I haven't seen since 2009, I haven't come across a "dont do this shit" list anywhere...

Image bombs
Gore or porn that's posted as an image rather than a link (and that link has to be marked NSFW).
Anything outright illegal (kiddie porn, threats of physical harm, etc)
Snitching out a PD troll going on somewhere else.
Hacking the board or deliberately using an exploit to fuck up the board.
Stalking someone IRL or posting their PI, or otherwise taking the internet IRL.
Anything that all the admins can agree on as bannable (almost never happens).
Evading a prior ban (results in permanent banning, no exceptions).
Alt accounts will be banned unless we think it's funny, but the original account usually stays.

[Banned User 1]

I wonder how long the "beep beep boop I am a logical machine" phase of his attention-whoring is going to last?

Enki][ did it better.

hmm...give or take, 10-18 hours...

by that point, I will have become such a grating wretch that someone will call me out on it, I'll make some whiney self-reflective post in an attempt to evoke pity or discussion of unrelated topics. After this, someone will call me out on it again, I'll realise the tactic didn't work, scream racial slurs, poop all over the bed, shriek like an ape, mabey even just up and scream "NO U" and then do something stupid to get my account locked again.

After these things, I'll go back into logical beepbeep mode, and start the cycle over -- I'm giving a total estimated time scale from beepbeep1 to beepbeep2 being 24-72 hours, depending on board traffic and other uncontrollable aspects.

then, I'll get aids and die of a broken anus.

and to top off the rant

orkillme

For the record, nobody locked your account.  It auto-locked when you changed your email address.  I reactivated you...Strictly on principle.  If we didn't have rules about that shit, I'd have just left you as you were.

Oh no, I wasn't trying to imply you guys did it -- it was seriously a self-initiated failsafe. I WANTED to lock myself out -- I was looking for a "delete fucking everything" button, but nixing the account and locking it myself was as close as I could come. If anything, I know you guys wouldn't ban simply due to insult or disagreement -- that's just not a very upstanding thing to do...

speaking of rules -- what are they? I mean, what exactly is a bannable offense? Other than the signup TOS, which I haven't seen since 2009, I haven't come across a "dont do this shit" list anywhere...

Image bombs
Gore or porn that's posted as an image rather than a link (and that link has to be marked NSFW).
Anything outright illegal (kiddie porn, threats of physical harm, etc)
Snitching out a PD troll going on somewhere else.
Hacking the board or deliberately using an exploit to fuck up the board.
Stalking someone IRL or posting their PI, or otherwise taking the internet IRL.
Anything that all the admins can agree on as bannable (almost never happens).
Evading a prior ban (results in permanent banning, no exceptions).
Alt accounts will be banned unless we think it's funny, but the original account usually stays.

Huh...that's useful stuffs to know. Thanks...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

For everything else, there's the ignore button.

Doesn't work for or against admins/mods, though, for which I curse our cruel Irish overlord.  Pretty sure you lost a lot of your audience with the mulatto comment, though.

[Banned User 1]

For everything else, there's the ignore button.

Doesn't work for or against admins/mods, though, for which I curse our cruel Irish overlord.  Pretty sure you lost a lot of your audience with the mulatto comment, though.

I'm sure I did...

regardless, I can see why you're not allowed to ignore -- makes for bad policing. I mean, say I pissed the collective mods group off, they all decided to ignore me, and then I decided to shit on the board with a flooder or something...if all posts from my account are ignored, your response to my internets terrorism would be slowed to a degree (i.e. instead of seeing my posts as soon as you get on, you'd have to wait until someone goes "oh noes, von's flooding the board")

[AFK]

Even when you put someone ignore you still see that they are posting, you just can't read the actual post (unless you click the little "read post" thingy), so even if they could ignore you, they'd still see that you are posting something.

[Banned User 1]

Even when you put someone ignore you still see that they are posting, you just can't read the actual post (unless you click the little "read post" thingy), so even if they could ignore you, they'd still see that you are posting something.

huh -- well isn't that nifty...

This thread is moving into a direction that's really making me want to grab a copy of simple machines, play with its source code and make a monster out of it -- futallaby was fun, especially given that I audited it after I had reverse engineered it...seeing how the authors did things sooooo differently than me was amazing!

Hmm, this sounds like a good project for the weekend -- write a feature complete western-style forum... god this is gonna take a while -- totally out of my element, but still sounds fun.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Even when you put someone ignore you still see that they are posting, you just can't read the actual post (unless you click the little "read post" thingy), so even if they could ignore you, they'd still see that you are posting something.

huh -- well isn't that nifty...

This thread is moving into a direction that's really making me want to grab a copy of simple machines, play with its source code and make a monster out of it -- futallaby was fun, especially given that I audited it after I had reverse engineered it...seeing how the authors did things sooooo differently than me was amazing!

Hmm, this sounds like a good project for the weekend -- write a feature complete western-style forum... god this is gonna take a while -- totally out of my element, but still sounds fun.

Maybe you can get some of your Klan buddies to join.

[The Johnny]

I'm pretty sure you are just being sophistrous, but might as well adress it:

Possibly so, but dialogue and examination is a good spotlight for examining fallacy....thanks for making an address!

*Conveniently, you deleted in the quotes the initial parts of what I said about succesful "reform" coming only from personal initiative. That is important because, the only thing close to legitimate forced "rehabilitation" is the judicial system (in an ideal world anyhow, since it's mostly used for punishment, but whatever).

I deleted them because I don't disagree with the idea that personal insight is the best way to cause change -- What I do not agree with is the second position, which is why I addressed it specifically.

*Now in your hypothetical, there is a flawed and uninformed view on the parents on what is "destructive". Second, it's an attempt at reforming something that cannot be changed, independently of if the said kid is ideologized into thinking he wants to be hetero. This type of forced reform is just abuse of authority. Also, I'm not sure if you need to be reminded that homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it destructive.

We'll have disconnect here, but allow me to address that I'm very far from anti-homosexual; my hypothetical is drawn from the experiences of a close friend, so my hypothetical is not an endorsement of anti-queer behaviour in any case...anyway, on with my rebuttle then:

In the situation of the parents, who see their child's social capital as being important in a gay-hating world, homosexuality could very well be seen as being "destructive". I mean, if we have all of these arguments floating around about how gays have less privlege than straight folk, it could be very well reasoned that the hypothetical parents saw their kid's actions as leading to lowered privlege, which in turn translates to lowered economic status, social status, etc. So from the view of the parents, they are "correct" in that their child's behaviour is destructive in the fields which they consider relevant.

Naturally, the gay kid can rationalise his point of view too -- about how he's being opressed by society, and about his lack of privlege, and in the end, his arguments, I'm sure, would be equally as valid as his parents' -- just placing emphasis on something that isn't social capital relating to the status quo.

Likewise, the drug addict, or even the shitbag racist can make arguments equally as valid as his own "reformer" -- except focusing on a different end goal. This disconnect of end goals, this is discord -- and the fact that by changing the end goal one can argue anything into truth -- this is why I maintain a world view of moral relativism; everyone can spray bullshit, anyone can believe it, but in the end, none of it really holds much truth from the perspective of someone who holds an opposing view point....

Well, its something more than just "personal insight is the key to change"... maybe at first is a "personal motivation for change", because insight itself might or might not motivate change, although its an important part of it. There are a number of people that know what they are, but don't feel like they need to change.

My reference to the rehabilitation process and the avoidance of codependence was an advise to Gogira to not invest so much of herself while talking with you, because to you all of this is just a game of rhetoric, achieving reactions and all that goodness.

Now, regarding how anything can be argued into "truth"... I've lived thru that perspective, so I kind of know what you mean, but I dont agree with it:

*Actions =/= discourse

Following your friend's example (taking into account that it shifted to supposedly being a counter-example allegedly to the process of rehabilitation, into an example of how "end goals" give the cues for the word-twisting and rationalization)

The discourse of the parent's is that being homosexual damages their social standing and opportunities, therefore the implicit statement is that being thrown into "Anti-gay camp" is for their child's "own good".

Now, contrast this discourse with reality:

1. Homosexuality has been proven to be something that cannot be changed. Also, it has been established that it happens without clear reason at very early development stages, before the age of 6 or even earlier than that.

2. Instead of forcing someone to change what they are, they could very well try to support that person to overcome the social stigma and hardships that will indeed happen.

Their discourse is "for his own good", but the reality is that, their interest doesn't lie in his "own good", it lies in "not having a homosexual son", because forcing someone to not be what they are and cannot be changed is by a great margin more damaging to them than the social stigma that they will face eventually anyhow because they might break out of the closet one day, which would only add more internal conflict for said person... the alternative being that they are secretly gay their entire lives, living miserably... or the alternative being them coming out of the closet after marriage and having kids, thus bringing misery to not only one person, but to an entire family.

People will always rationalize or have their way with words for their own convenience, that does not mean that what they say has an ounce of veracity, that is why it has to be cross-referenced with their actions and consequences.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Johnny, you are attempting to reason with a bigot.

Just saying.  Carry on.

[Banned User 1]

I'm pretty sure you are just being sophistrous, but might as well adress it:

Possibly so, but dialogue and examination is a good spotlight for examining fallacy....thanks for making an address!

*Conveniently, you deleted in the quotes the initial parts of what I said about succesful "reform" coming only from personal initiative. That is important because, the only thing close to legitimate forced "rehabilitation" is the judicial system (in an ideal world anyhow, since it's mostly used for punishment, but whatever).

I deleted them because I don't disagree with the idea that personal insight is the best way to cause change -- What I do not agree with is the second position, which is why I addressed it specifically.

*Now in your hypothetical, there is a flawed and uninformed view on the parents on what is "destructive". Second, it's an attempt at reforming something that cannot be changed, independently of if the said kid is ideologized into thinking he wants to be hetero. This type of forced reform is just abuse of authority. Also, I'm not sure if you need to be reminded that homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it destructive.

We'll have disconnect here, but allow me to address that I'm very far from anti-homosexual; my hypothetical is drawn from the experiences of a close friend, so my hypothetical is not an endorsement of anti-queer behaviour in any case...anyway, on with my rebuttle then:

In the situation of the parents, who see their child's social capital as being important in a gay-hating world, homosexuality could very well be seen as being "destructive". I mean, if we have all of these arguments floating around about how gays have less privlege than straight folk, it could be very well reasoned that the hypothetical parents saw their kid's actions as leading to lowered privlege, which in turn translates to lowered economic status, social status, etc. So from the view of the parents, they are "correct" in that their child's behaviour is destructive in the fields which they consider relevant.

Naturally, the gay kid can rationalise his point of view too -- about how he's being opressed by society, and about his lack of privlege, and in the end, his arguments, I'm sure, would be equally as valid as his parents' -- just placing emphasis on something that isn't social capital relating to the status quo.

Likewise, the drug addict, or even the shitbag racist can make arguments equally as valid as his own "reformer" -- except focusing on a different end goal. This disconnect of end goals, this is discord -- and the fact that by changing the end goal one can argue anything into truth -- this is why I maintain a world view of moral relativism; everyone can spray bullshit, anyone can believe it, but in the end, none of it really holds much truth from the perspective of someone who holds an opposing view point....

Well, its something more than just "personal insight is the key to change"... maybe at first is a "personal motivation for change", because insight itself might or might not motivate change, although its an important part of it. There are a number of people that know what they are, but don't feel like they need to change.

My reference to the rehabilitation process and the avoidance of codependence was an advise to Gogira to not invest so much of herself while talking with you, because to you all of this is just a game of rhetoric, achieving reactions and all that goodness.

Now, regarding how anything can be argued into "truth"... I've lived thru that perspective, so I kind of know what you mean, but I dont agree with it:

*Actions =/= discourse

Following your friend's example (taking into account that it shifted to supposedly being a counter-example allegedly to the process of rehabilitation, into an example of how "end goals" give the cues for the word-twisting and rationalization)

The discourse of the parent's is that being homosexual damages their social standing and opportunities, therefore the implicit statement is that being thrown into "Anti-gay camp" is for their child's "own good".

Now, contrast this discourse with reality:

1. Homosexuality has been proven to be something that cannot be changed. Also, it has been established that it happens without clear reason at very early development stages, before the age of 6 or even earlier than that.

2. Instead of forcing someone to change what they are, they could very well try to support that person to overcome the social stigma and hardships that will indeed happen.

Their discourse is "for his own good", but the reality is that, their interest doesn't lie in his "own good", it lies in "not having a homosexual son", because forcing someone to not be what they are and cannot be changed is by a great margin more damaging to them than the social stigma that they will face eventually anyhow because they might break out of the closet one day, which would only add more internal conflict for said person... the alternative being that they are secretly gay their entire lives, living miserably... or the alternative being them coming out of the closet after marriage and having kids, thus bringing misery to not only one person, but to an entire family.

People will always rationalize or have their way with words for their own convenience, that does not mean that what they say has an ounce of veracity, that is why it has to be cross-referenced with their actions and consequences.

This will end up degrading into a debate concerning homosexuality if we continue.

I can only agree to disagree with your perspective at this time...

[The Johnny]

Johnny, you are attempting to reason with a bigot.

Just saying.  Carry on.

Better me than Gogira; also, jousting with trolls once in a while keeps the mind sharp.

[The Johnny]

I'm pretty sure you are just being sophistrous, but might as well adress it:

Possibly so, but dialogue and examination is a good spotlight for examining fallacy....thanks for making an address!

*Conveniently, you deleted in the quotes the initial parts of what I said about succesful "reform" coming only from personal initiative. That is important because, the only thing close to legitimate forced "rehabilitation" is the judicial system (in an ideal world anyhow, since it's mostly used for punishment, but whatever).

I deleted them because I don't disagree with the idea that personal insight is the best way to cause change -- What I do not agree with is the second position, which is why I addressed it specifically.

*Now in your hypothetical, there is a flawed and uninformed view on the parents on what is "destructive". Second, it's an attempt at reforming something that cannot be changed, independently of if the said kid is ideologized into thinking he wants to be hetero. This type of forced reform is just abuse of authority. Also, I'm not sure if you need to be reminded that homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it destructive.

We'll have disconnect here, but allow me to address that I'm very far from anti-homosexual; my hypothetical is drawn from the experiences of a close friend, so my hypothetical is not an endorsement of anti-queer behaviour in any case...anyway, on with my rebuttle then:

In the situation of the parents, who see their child's social capital as being important in a gay-hating world, homosexuality could very well be seen as being "destructive". I mean, if we have all of these arguments floating around about how gays have less privlege than straight folk, it could be very well reasoned that the hypothetical parents saw their kid's actions as leading to lowered privlege, which in turn translates to lowered economic status, social status, etc. So from the view of the parents, they are "correct" in that their child's behaviour is destructive in the fields which they consider relevant.

Naturally, the gay kid can rationalise his point of view too -- about how he's being opressed by society, and about his lack of privlege, and in the end, his arguments, I'm sure, would be equally as valid as his parents' -- just placing emphasis on something that isn't social capital relating to the status quo.

Likewise, the drug addict, or even the shitbag racist can make arguments equally as valid as his own "reformer" -- except focusing on a different end goal. This disconnect of end goals, this is discord -- and the fact that by changing the end goal one can argue anything into truth -- this is why I maintain a world view of moral relativism; everyone can spray bullshit, anyone can believe it, but in the end, none of it really holds much truth from the perspective of someone who holds an opposing view point....

Well, its something more than just "personal insight is the key to change"... maybe at first is a "personal motivation for change", because insight itself might or might not motivate change, although its an important part of it. There are a number of people that know what they are, but don't feel like they need to change.

My reference to the rehabilitation process and the avoidance of codependence was an advise to Gogira to not invest so much of herself while talking with you, because to you all of this is just a game of rhetoric, achieving reactions and all that goodness.

Now, regarding how anything can be argued into "truth"... I've lived thru that perspective, so I kind of know what you mean, but I dont agree with it:

*Actions =/= discourse

Following your friend's example (taking into account that it shifted to supposedly being a counter-example allegedly to the process of rehabilitation, into an example of how "end goals" give the cues for the word-twisting and rationalization)

The discourse of the parent's is that being homosexual damages their social standing and opportunities, therefore the implicit statement is that being thrown into "Anti-gay camp" is for their child's "own good".

Now, contrast this discourse with reality:

1. Homosexuality has been proven to be something that cannot be changed. Also, it has been established that it happens without clear reason at very early development stages, before the age of 6 or even earlier than that.

2. Instead of forcing someone to change what they are, they could very well try to support that person to overcome the social stigma and hardships that will indeed happen.

Their discourse is "for his own good", but the reality is that, their interest doesn't lie in his "own good", it lies in "not having a homosexual son", because forcing someone to not be what they are and cannot be changed is by a great margin more damaging to them than the social stigma that they will face eventually anyhow because they might break out of the closet one day, which would only add more internal conflict for said person... the alternative being that they are secretly gay their entire lives, living miserably... or the alternative being them coming out of the closet after marriage and having kids, thus bringing misery to not only one person, but to an entire family.

People will always rationalize or have their way with words for their own convenience, that does not mean that what they say has an ounce of veracity, that is why it has to be cross-referenced with their actions and consequences.

This will end up degrading into a debate concerning homosexuality if we continue.

I can only agree to disagree with your perspective at this time...

Just keep in mind that anything we say, everything we do, means more than what is apparent.

Saying a racial slur even if it's just "for the purpose of offending someone" and "not really meaning it", in fact, actually means that you are effectively participating in reinforcing racial discrimination, even if you think it does not. Maybe you don't consider yourself a "racist", but what is the difference between reinforcing racial discrimination and actually being a racist? Merely a difference in degrees.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just keep in mind that anything we say, everything we do, means more than what is apparent.

Saying a racial slur even if it's just "for the purpose of offending someone" and "not really meaning it", in fact, actually means that you are effectively participating in reinforcing racial discrimination, even if you think it does not. Maybe you don't consider yourself a "racist", but what is the difference between reinforcing racial discrimination and actually being a racist? Merely a difference in degrees.

Morally speaking:  No difference.
Pragmatically speaking:  No difference.

An evil person is one who does evil things.  Likewise, a racist person is one who does racist things.

QED.

[Cain]

No Johnny, it's all about what you really feel deep down inside and stuff!  The idea of a rich inner life which determines the meaning of our actions is totally not a means to rationalize ones actions, and those who claim otherwise are just psychobabble addled Freudians.

I can see why you like the italics for sarcasm now.