11-02-2022 20:43 | |
GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
Can you just see the smoke pouring from his head with the C-clamp on the verge of meltdown? |
11-02-2022 21:01 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
This might be it! I have just been warned for a consecutive 3rd and 4th time. I just finished bashing on one of the censors. We might be looking at being done with Debate Politics.IBDaMann wrote:Ikari said:IB daMann, Your actions in this message (Some Trump records taken to Mar-a-Lago clearly marked as classified, including documents at 'top secret' level) violate Rule 6a: . |
11-02-2022 21:11 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
One more thing about Debate Politics ... rarely do I find such rabid feverishness to simply disagree with me on matters of my expertise. It boggles my mind. I can't help anyone there without said individual completely doubling down on stupid. I will not miss that vapid absence of intellect once I'm banned. I just don't understand what's taking so long to ban me. I've been warned four times already. Three have been for the catch-all "Trolling/Flaming/Baiting" which they flag on any post demonstrating substantive intelligence. @tmiddles ... when you made it a point to mention that gfm7175 and Into the Night (and I) had been banned from Debate Politics, was it your intention to levy a compliment? Can I take a rain check on my compliment? I really expect to be banned soon. I really am working on it. |
11-02-2022 21:48 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
IBdaMann wrote:gfm7175 wrote:keepit wrote:gfm, if you agree 100% with the party line you aren't thinking for your self. That's a fair (and good) assessment, and yes, indeed he's trolling, but I don't mind putting a small bit of effort into a trolling post from time to time, especially if it's been a while since I've elaborated upon the subject matter. The effort is more-so for any other forum member perusing through the thread than it is for the troll himself. IBdaMann wrote: The additional posts are separate from keepit's trolling. They were meant to be in conjunction with your DebatePolitics forum interactions. IBdaMann wrote: I bet he had a good hardy laugh over it. And then I bet he stopped laughing after I gave him the RQAA. Even a patient person such as myself doesn't wish to indulge trolling posts for too long. IBdaMann wrote: I don't blame you. That was a sensible reaction to have. IBdaMann wrote: Of course they were good. I made them. |
11-02-2022 21:56 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
OK ... NOW it's got to happen. It has to. I just finished dumping on a censor. I pressed the banning subject so it really shouldn't be long now.IBDaMann wrote:Ikari said:Yeah, openly acknowledging that you broke the rules doesn't negate the fact that you broke the rules. |
11-02-2022 22:00 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
GasGuzzler wrote: Yes. |
11-02-2022 22:02 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
IBdaMann wrote: Damn... Yeah, that should seal the deal I'd think. |
11-02-2022 22:22 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
IBdaMann wrote: Yup, that's the norm there... Back when I wasn't banned, I did have some interactions with a few fairly intelligent individuals (and that was, in fact, where I first stumbled upon Into The Night), but those individuals were too few and far between. The "doubling down on stupid" after a bit of friendly advice towards people who one generally agrees with is indeed a common thing there. I remember a poster there by the name of Logicman. He generally holds conservative viewpoints, but he's one of the many people there who "doubles down on stupid" if he's saying something stupid and you try to correct him or even just offer ways to strengthen his argument. IBdaMann wrote: I don't understand it either... They were really quick with me. Sure, I had a warning or two for other non-related things before, but RedAkston completely lost his shit with me when I called him out on his BS and then he declared that a "sock" was present in the thread, purposely announced that he was waiting for a day before giving the boot to the "sock", and then the next day he booted me for "multiple accounts" (which I don't have and have never had anywhere). So yeah, idk why they're taking their sweet time with you. IBdaMann wrote: I take it as a compliment. I got under the mods' skins so much that they banned me in response, so I consider that to be a win for me. |
11-02-2022 22:46 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
IBdaMann wrote: Hahahaha that was too perfect... and I see that the general attitude of the censors there hasn't changed one bit from my DebatePolitics days. At least the moderators at PoliticalForum are much more patient and polite (and willing to discuss moderator actions and forum rules), even if those mods aren't any more intelligent than the censors at DebatePolitics. --- I never did look at whether or not they responded to my last critique of their stupid rule regarding "no misinformation", in which I explained to them in detail line by line precisely how stupid their rule is, as it is written. They have removed one post of mine under that guise so far (which triggered my critique of their rule to them), and I haven't had a post removed under that guise since. The enforcement of rules there is rather interesting though... They prefer to remove posts and then give you a notification blurb as to why they removed the offending post (and what rule it supposedly violated). After too many times of that, they then move into an official warning being placed on your account (I've had two of them issued to my account thus far), one for "Flamebaiting" [on May 12th 2021] and one for "Insulting or personally attacking other posters" [on May 10th 2019]. Maybe on May 14th of 2023 I'll manage to get my 3rd official warning??? I still haven't gotten any points issued to my account as of yet. I think it just depends on whether or not I interact with a "report-happy leftist", as sometimes I get away with actually violating the forum rules and other times I make one "pushing the line at best" sort of comment and the mods quickly remove it. Edited on 11-02-2022 22:48 |
11-02-2022 22:52 | |
keepit★★★★★ (3058) |
ibd, You asked for a definition of "ultra conservative movement". OK, i'll try and i'll be brief and you do the same. Since this discussion, according to you, relates to a state of mind rather than "positions on issues" i'll go along with that "state of mind" point of view in this brief definition. State of mind of ultra conservatives - Doesn't understand the meaning of the word argumentative. Doesn't understand figures of speech. Doesn't understand the difference between a significant semantic difference and an insignificant one. Doesn't understand that making false claims is wrong. I could go on and on. Please be brief in your response. |
11-02-2022 22:59 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
gfm7175 wrote: ... and now he gave a response, completely ignoring everything I said above, as provided here: WalterSobchak says: Let's test your critical thinking ability out real quick with a simple question. Was there massive voter fraud that allowed Biden to win the election? If so, do you have evidence? Seems simple, right? @IBD... Now, I remember you rightfully wincing in agony after you saw me "take the bait" and indulge keepit's trolling. Don't worry, I didn't take the bait here... I didn't get thrown off target and start discussing a new topic... I stuck to my guns. Here was my response to his 'bait and switch' attempt: gfm7175 says: Evasion. Answer the question put to you. |
11-02-2022 23:09 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
What a ****ing moron this guy is hahahahahahaha... This isn't even up to the level of child's play... holy crap this guy is stupid as ****... WalterSobchak said: ↑ I already answered your question. No, you didn't. I'll re-post the question here this one time and one time only: Welcome to Paradox City my friend... You now need to clear your paradox to return to being rational: [1] First of all, nobody gives a **** about the midterms other than rightists. [2] Leftists like myself also give a **** about the midterms. Which one is it? WalterSobchak said: ↑ Yes, I am voting in the midterms......maybe. Who knows? Now you're forming yet ANOTHER paradox, as follows: [1] Yeah, I'll vote in the midterms. [2] Yes, I'm voting... maybe... who knows. Which one is it? WalterSobchak said: ↑ LOL To act as if concepts are laughable means that you want to be irrational. WalterSobchak said: ↑ Your turn. Nope. Still waiting for you to clear your paradox (now paradoxes). I wonder what brilliance he will grace me with next. Edited on 11-02-2022 23:12 |
12-02-2022 02:01 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
keepit wrote: Example: You are being argumentative. keepit wrote: Cliches are not an argument. keepit wrote: Semantics fallacy. Void argument fallacy. keepit wrote: Denying your own posts isn't helping you. Anyone can go back and look for themselves. keepit wrote: You ARE going on and on. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
12-02-2022 03:01 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
keepit wrote:I could go on and on. Please be brief in your response. I am always exactly as brief as I need to be. Instead of focusing on trying to be brief, please start being honest. keepit wrote:You asked for a definition of "ultra conservative movement". I don't want you to be brief, I want you to be accurate. Please do so. keepit wrote:Since this discussion, according to you, relates to a state of mind rather than "positions on issues" i'll go along with that "state of mind" point of view in this brief definition. I never stated nor implied any of this. Give me a full and accurate definition of "ultra-conservative movement" and give me some specific examples. There are two parts to that requirement: 1. a full and accurate definition of "ultra-conservative movement" 2. give some specific examples Do not be brief. Be accurate. Do not define something having to do with "mindsets." Accurately define "ultra-conservative movement." Please get to it. Don't forget the specific examples. |
12-02-2022 21:07 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
keepit wrote:It doesn't matter which party you're talking about, someone who buys into every position/issue of the party isn't thinking for themself. Did you start a brand new thread just to deliberately break the continuity of the previous thread you totally screwed up? The correct word is "himself" not "themself." "Themself" cannot even be a word because "them" is a plural and requires "selves" instead of "self." I'll put this back in the appropriate thread. While we're on the subject, I hope you haven't forgotten about the definition and examples you were going to supply the board: IBdaMann wrote:keepit wrote:I could go on and on. Please be brief in your response. |
13-02-2022 21:03 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
I have not yet been banned from Debate Politics. I just popped over there to get a screenshot of my banning announcement and instead I was able to respond to posts so ... I don't know what more I can do. |
14-02-2022 17:19 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
IBdaMann wrote:keepit wrote:It doesn't matter which party you're talking about, someone who buys into every position/issue of the party isn't thinking for themself. keepit7175 says: IBD, I googled it and google says that themself is used instead of himself or herself to refer to a person of an unspecified sex. It can also be used in that manner if the person being referred to is genderqueer. So spare me from your trash talk. |
14-02-2022 17:29 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
IBdaMann wrote: You've already done much more in a few days than I ever did in my numerous years there to get banned, so idk either... Maybe you need to hold some correspondence with RedAkston and get under his skin a bit? He was more than happy to ban me for some fictitious "multiple accounts" because I got under his skin... Otherwise, I really don't know what more you could do. |
15-02-2022 05:07 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
Well, I bashed on Ikari again and I have been warned again (apparently, my next point only gets me a three-day suspension). I would just stop posting there altogether (out of sheer boredom) but I found the "Belief" thread where scientifically illiterate warmizombies who call themselves "atheists" bash on Christians for having religious beliefs. It really is too funny. I happen to be engaged in a discussion with one such warmizombie (devildave) who is in the first stages of denial at my explanation of his profound religious faith. Stay tuned. Below is my Debate Politics profile showing my nine accumulated points. Attached image: |
15-02-2022 17:27 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
Ahhhhhhhhhh, good ol' devildave... I remember him too. He might be one of the "smarter" ones on that forum IOW, he's a complete moron. |
15-02-2022 18:32 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
gfm7175 wrote:Ahhhhhhhhhh, good ol' devildave... I remember him too. He might be one of the "smarter" ones on that forum IOW, he's a complete moron. I hope you can see the drastic difference between an actual atheist (such as me) and a fundamentalist theist of a competing religion who simply calls himself an atheist so that you will fear and ultimately capitulate to his religion while blaming and hating me. I have no religion to forthwith proselytize or to need you to worship. I have no religion for your religion to threaten. I have no religion to refer to as "thettled thienth." I have no religion to compel me to mock you for worshiping "false gods" that are not my gods. I'm perfectly fine with your God and your Bible and your faith, and I am happy to discuss them all with you until the cows come home on their own. What pikks me off is someone pressuring me into not discussing said topics freely. In short, when you run into posters like devildave, or into threads like "Belief and Skepticism" on Debate Politics whereby Christians and their religious faith is simply being mocked, that's your clue that they aren't atheists, because otherwise they just wouldn't care. They are fully indoctrinated theists who are going for the throat of what they see as their top competitor(s) in the "religion" category. As a bonus, I offer you my previous post to devildave: IBDaMann wrote on Debate Politics, 15 February 2022, at 8:27 PM Wisconsin Timedevildavid said: Climate change has nothing to do with religion, except in the eyes of fanatics who try to claim it. It is science and requires no beliefs. |
15-02-2022 19:34 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
IBdaMann wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Ahhhhhhhhhh, good ol' devildave... I remember him too. He might be one of the "smarter" ones on that forum IOW, he's a complete moron. Yes sir, I see the difference. There was a time when I didn't understand it properly, but I have learned since then. That's why I do very much like using the "Church of No God" label whenever speaking about fundamentalist theists such as devildavid (since the word "atheist" is very commonly misused and abused by such folks). IBdaMann wrote: Bingo. I remember that particular sub-forum, and it sounds like it hasn't changed a single bit since I was there. It's essentially just a sub-forum for bashing Christians and Christianity. IBdaMann wrote: Good post. |
16-02-2022 04:48 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
So it has come to pass that I have a little bit of a problem with a particular Christian on Debate Politics. I'll let you figure out what it is.Elora said:IBDaMann wrote:Elora posted:IBDaMann wrote:Elora said: Salvation is not a possession but a process that is not obtained until the end of one's life or the end of this old world, whichever comes 1st... |
18-02-2022 06:48 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
Then there is LittleNipper:LittleNipper wrote: Do I really have to think for everyone here. And I thought atheists were free-thinkers. What they are is rather FREE of THINKING! All they know how to do is have gay sex and have the gall to call Christians stupid.... LittleNipper is like too many Christians who buy the Marxists' claim of atheism on face value and as a result they direct their hatred towards actual atheists like me, not at Marxists. |
18-02-2022 17:08 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
IBdaMann wrote: Yes, there are plenty of Christians like LittleNipper. I used to be one of them. He uses the word 'atheist' to mean Church of No God member and thus in his mind considers actual atheists and CNG members to be "one of the same". Here, he starts off by asking a question but uses a period rather than a question mark. Then, he speaks of himself having the ability to think, yet his fundamentalism is getting in the way of his doing so. Then, he expresses the bigoted view that all "atheists" have gay sex. A number of Christians definitely ARE stupid (at least when it comes to discussing religion), and he appears to be one of them. |
18-02-2022 20:15 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
gfm7175 wrote: Then, he expresses the bigoted view that all "atheists" have gay sex. There is a reason for this, and it all ties together. Marxist/Leftists achieve victory through "divide-and-conquer" tactics that ... 1. convince people they are VICTIMS ... and 2. to HATE their VICTIMIZERS. The Marxists/Leftists of the world used the above to full effect in winning over LGBTQRZXSTTSPEPSOEJFJGFFAF ... but there were so many Christians that were happy to push them into the open arms of the Marxists/Leftists that today we have what we have. Not all but most homosexuals and almost all other LGBTQRZXSTTSPEPSOEJFJGFFAF are rabidly vile HATERS of Christians who believe that their rabid hatred is totally justified. When someone like me tries to tell one of them that no, his HATRED is not justified at all and that he is NOT being victimized by Christians ... along comes some Christian up behind me that starts spewing hatred right back, making me look like a Bozo and reinforcing the idea that Christians are the hating victimizers. Meanwhile, the Marxist/Leftist who are simply lurking/onlooking just laugh and laugh and laugh. It turns out that gay sex is often the central sticking point. It appears to both Christians and the LGBTQRZXSTTSPEPSOEJFJGFFAF members that that is the ONLY issue, at least that they ever remember ... except that the Christians think they have been debating atheists, not specifically homosexuals. Often, some straight Marxist will mix it up with a Christian and focus on gay marriage prohibitions. The Christian will once again presume that atheists just want to have gay sex. My point is that it is not unlikely for a hard-line Christian to end up debating under certain such misconceptions and to ultimately draw erroneous conclusions ... and this particular type is common. If you and Into the Night weren't banned at Debate-Politics, I would notify the two of you that you need to go over there and have a word with a few of them. Since you can't, I will be ducking out of that for a while. I have neither the energy nor the desire to stand in the middle of that mud-fest. I'd gladly do it if I were on one particular side, but in this case I'm on both sides, and on neither side. Frankly, I think there are too many imbeciles on that forum on each side for anyone to be able to be helpful. Attached image: |
18-02-2022 22:56 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
You said it quite well, so I have nothing to add. Especially the final line. |
RE: Re: Progress at Debate Politics24-02-2022 05:17 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
Does this count as progress? I apparently have received a three-day suspension. Some censor picked really lame crap that was two notches down from the flaming I was getting ... and yet decided that my comments were somehow "way too personal." Why don't I feel sad in any way? Why do I feel like I will most certainly be more productive with time in the near future? |
RE: Re: Progress at Debate Politics24-02-2022 05:17 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
Does this count as progress? I apparently have received a three-day suspension. Some censor picked really lame crap that was two notches down from the flaming I was getting ... and yet decided that my comments were somehow "way too personal." Why don't I feel sad in any way? Why do I feel like I will most certainly be more productive with time in the near future? |
RE: Re: Progress at Debate Politics24-02-2022 05:17 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
Does this count as progress? I apparently have received a three-day suspension. Some censor picked really lame crap that was two notches down from the flaming I was getting ... and yet decided that my comments were somehow "way too personal." Why don't I feel sad in any way? Why do I feel like I will most certainly be more productive with time in the near future? Attached image: Edited on 24-02-2022 05:17 |
24-02-2022 16:26 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
That's something I guess... Not sure why they're pussy footing around with you... |