shoulda hadda gun?

[jonesthecurl]

Yes, but how do you tell him he's too phattscotty?

[BigBallinStalin]

[Long Post between Haggis and PS]

Spoiler

Sigh, FINE, I'll respond seriously.

For the record scotty, the only 100% serious debate I've ever had with you was the one about gay marriage, where I kept trying to get you to define exactly where the delimitation between fundamental rights and democratically decided upon laws is and you kept repeating "I support the voter's choice" like a mantra.

Frankly, I find debating with you on politics much like debating with jay on religion. Might be entertaining for a little while, but eventually you realize kicking the ball repeatedly against the wall is just a massive waste of time. Worse, not only are you completely unable to change your mind, but your debating "strategy" makes it look like you're sharpening your skills for political office. It is nigh impossible to get anything concrete out of you. People will debate you for pages destroying position A, at which point you'll come and say "haha position B was right all along, I told you so".

Anyway:

All I said was he got his money from the gov't. All you did was slander the facts, and you added nothing. Which makes your post a typical liberal response. That is to say you said nothing. You should at least try to match the caliber of the post that you are responding to. Of course, you prove over and over again that you can't, so you act like an immature baby. You aren't even in the same league as me. The reason you try to belittle me and what I say is because I absolutely destroy your false narratives, over and over and over again. That's why calling me names is all you can do.

I'm gonna ignore the name calling, cause I really don't give a shit what your oppinion of me is.

We've been through this before. You posted the fucking article without any hint that you're doing it sarcastically or whatever.
When people post an article like that, the general assumption is that they support the views presented in the article.
Do you really not understand this?

Further, Iliad immediately calls you out on posting that nonsense. If it's a joke or honest mistake or whatever, here's the point where you should say "Woah man, I don't support that article, just posted it for shits and giggles".
Instead you post.

I just shared a story. It's not like I am ruling things out, like you seem to be able to somehow do... How do you know it isn't political? Why do you seem to indicate that politics is off limits? Can't even talk about it huh?

I didn't turn to anything you stick in the mudd. Why don't you look at the rest of the posts in the thread, get some context.

Why don't you give us some answers then? How does an unemployed guy get thousands of dollars worth of top notch equipment????????????

This further indicates you actually support the article. You following me? You continue for several posts before, finally, slowly starting to distance yourself a bit from the article.
This is dishonest, terrible debating, and one of the main reasons why 90% of the people on this forum don't take you seriously.
When you get called on something FUCKIN STATE YOUR POSITION CLEARLY. Stop weaseling around.

Now, you come back. Quote the fuckin article again and state you won by talking about something completely different than the subject of the article you quoted.

Iliad was appaled that you were posting conspiracy theories when people had JUST DIED. What the f*ck does his reaction have to do with the goddamn government handouts. He was objecting to the ridiculous brainwashed stuff. I cannot believe you really don't understand this.
To then come back and celebrate your weaseling by declarin victory and calling him names ... it's just beyond belief.

What we have here is a 100% gov't handout funded mass shooting. I think I know why you are soooooo scared about what that means, because, with the way you think, you are fearing that our next step would be to act the way you do, and say "we need to take away all federal education grants, because it caused a mass shooting. If he didn't get thefederal money, there would not have been a mass shooting!

See, you're doing it again.
From most posters this would seem like a harmless joke-ish post. If pressed on it they would subsequently clarify their position and initiate a real debate. From you though, this is just the start of another round of weaseling.

"100% gov't handout funded mass shooting" - exactlyt the kind of term I'd expect your average scumbag politician to use.
Tell me, if it turned out that he had saved the money for the guns by working at Walmart, would it then be called a "100% Walmart funded mass shooting" ?
How the f*ck is it even relevant where he got the money from ? You really think 20k is the limiting factor stopping some nut from a shooting spree? You really think without the government handout it would have been impossible for him to get the guns even though he doesn't give a shit about the consequences?

This is why people like Haggis want to take our guns

Actually, I don't want to take your guns. Actually I believe gun ownership is an important liberty in the US, more for moral/mental/symbolic reasons than anything, and the government should not remove it.
I do, of course, think there should be some restrictions in place. I do not know exactly where these restrictions should be, much as I don't know at which exact point abortions should become illegal.

I'm annoyed that my position on this issue is made harder to defend because of pretend action heroes like yourself that think they could take down a guy with an automatic riffle and body armour in a dark smoke filled theater.
I'm sorry that I don't completely fit into your binary liberal/conservative view of the world.

Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+

Where did you say it shouldn't be taken seriously. Show me please.
I've already explained why you appeared to most people that you were taking it seriously.

In sum, there are 3 options that explain your behaviour in this thread and in general.
1. You are simply a troll. A pretty good one at that.

2. Your debating consists of the lowest, dirtiest most dishonest tricks and massive ammounts of weaseling around. You routinely lead people to think you belive things you don't actually believe, you then let them debate you for 5 pages before revealing it was a red herring, you move the goal posts on a constant basis and you seem to have 0 interest in actually getting your views challenged. This is roughly what a significant number of people here believe about you.

3. You are massively off in both understanding what other people are saying to you and in expressing your views to other people. This huge gap in communication causes us to wrongly perceive you as #2. If this is the case, well it really would be fucking sad.

---

Holy shit, haven't written a post this big in a while.

Btw, for future reference. THAT is how a serious reply from me looks like. Check my recent exchange with greece about atheism/agnosticism for more examples.
It seems to be relatively easy for most people to tell when I'm being serious or not, but who the hell knows with you, better make sure I guess.

Haggis. Take the article for what it is. I did not take it seriously. Cmon....Lee Harvey Oswald? It was a conspiratorial article. I don't know about you, but I find conspiracies highly entertaining and thought provoking. Do conspiracy theories piss you off or something? Do we always have to wait for the conspiracy to be proven or disproven before it can be talked about? If that is a case, then every single conspiracy will succeed, because the eichmans will immediately shut down any speech concerning the conspiracy. You wouldn't be familiar with Cass Sunsteins opinion on this subject would ya?

Honestly, for some reason, I like you. I know you don't like me but hey, whatever. I used to think you were a highly reasonable person to bounce things off and get your take on, but as you say in gay marriage I guess you are just mad that we disagree. I suppose I can handle that better or something? Who knows.

As for peoples general assumption, I cannot control that. Some people realize the interesting thing about the information is that it cannot be ruled out, as of yet, at that time. But as I have pointed out it also asked legitimate questions, such as where did he get all his money. Can you drop a line in a possible response if you agree that question is legitimate? I think it sounds like you don't care where he got the money? Would you mind clearing that up as well? Can you also agree that libs are more oft than not to jump to their generalizations of Conservatives? example "Obama is spending too much money" lib fastposts "racist!" Seen it right here, a million times.

Iliad is a basher, and his post seems to fit in what you accuse me of, while you defend his post at the same time. Not weird to me at all, but moving on. He comes and trashes the crap out of me, but he always misses the point. Always. I explain it, but he disappears for a couple weeks until he gets hungry and wants to bash me again.

And yes I am following you line by line. At this point I will wonder just how different your suggestion of what I should say is ""Woah man, I don't support that article, just posted it for shits and giggles"" and what I said was ""I just shared a story."" Does it piss you off I did not match your suggestion exactly by adding "shits and giggles"? You follow that? The truth is I do not support that article, and I also do not-not support that article. I reckon that it raises some questions.....

I then asked a bunch of questions. That is the way I get a conversation started about what was said in the article, so as to get into the substance, talk about the money, talk about his experiment. Support has nothing to do with it from my pov. I was just asking question. And to call it "terrible debating" wtf are you talking about? We had not even started to debate if you ask me. If my question would have been addressed, answered, considered, returned with another question, then the debate would have started. Reading your post, it's pretty clear you are just trying to paint a picture, put me in a box or label me because, since the debate did not even start, that is not the reason 90% don't take me seriously. But 90% of people who fly off the hinge before the debate can even start probably has a lot to do with the reason. You are just trying to make me look bad.

And you say "Iliad called me out?" PFFFFFFFF what a joke. here is what he said

I'm quoting this so Scotty can't edit his way out of shame.

Jesus fucking Christ man, is there anything you can't turn into political fodder? And when did you turn into outright conspiracy theory level of idiocy and delusion? People died Scotty, FFS have some decency.

How is that calling someone out? What is there for me to respond to? Its just a huge attack, has nothing to do with the post he was responding to. Not to mention, as you say that was "Terrible debating skills" well guess what, Iliad's nice little statement was supposedly the opening statement, according to you. To use Iliad's post as an example of implied "good debate skills" is PURE folly! You aren't making any sense, but I will finish reading your post anyways.

And you are defending Iliad and even speaking for him, but you make a few asinine claims yourself. How is it that you are able to know or be able to object that he was brainwashed or not? You suggest I am out of line to share an article that wonders if the shooter was on drugs, or brainwashed? I think the entire country was asking those kinds of questions....ya know..."WHY?" again, you are just trying to make me look bad.

And yes, I was 100% mocking the other sides argument. They say "if it wasn't for the guns, this would not have happened" It's fair game, going with their logic (as i stated ) to say "if it wasn't for the unemployment checks and federal grant money, this would have never happened" they are both equally ridiculous

But truth be told, you pissed me off, plain and simple. You had been making snide responses to my posts for weeks in different threads, and finally I responded in treating you the way you treat me. Seems you don't like it very much. I deal with all your shit. I guess if you really have to you can foe me

HAGGIS WINS!!!


--TL;DR VERSION--

Phatscotty: herpy derp, lurp lerp lerp! Da-duh derp?

Iliad: Stop being a dick, PS.

Haggis: Yeah, stop being a dick.

PS: lol guise, I'm not a dick.

Iliad: Yeah, you are.

Haggis: Agreed, for the following 20 valid reasons.

PS: lol, herpy derp, lurp lerp lerp!



______________________________________


Phatscotty, please stop being a dick. Just tone down your dickness by 50%, at least.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure which part of "I won't dignify the surreal absurdity you call a 'worldview' by engaging it" you don't understand. I will continue describing your perspectives as "non-reality based" and "childlike" because they are accurate descriptors. I would be offended that you think I'm resorting to name calling if I weren't so used to you distorting everything through your kafkaesque kaleidoscope of hatred and smug self righteousness. I reserve the name calling for people I actually like.

sooo....you're gonna troll me??? Great plan

whatever, freak

SO! WE RESORT TO NAME CALLING?!

You know, you're right, Scotty. I haven't mentioned your hypocrisy yet. Thanks for bringing it up.

Also, I'm not trolling you. I'm trying to convince others to stop gracing you with any leeway to present your malignant scare tactics and lies. You don't deserve it. Just because someone is saying things you don't like doesn't mean they are trolling you. I'm being 100% serious and accurate when I say you show a distinct lack of intellectual maturity and have a negative effect on this forum. However, instead of whining at the mods until you're banned, I prefer the more democratic process of encouraging everyone to treat you as you should be treated. That way you know that you are a societal reject, and not some sort of deranged martyr. God knows we have enough of those.

I support this.

Neoteny is an anarchic enforcer of a certain set of informal, social rules. Here we see anarcho-capitalism, or market anarchy, occurring.

Neoteny is making a good case for others to realize the actual value of the average PS post. Apparently, it's working, and PS is confirming Neo's and Haggi's claims unintentionally, thus significantly devaluing his own posts. The only thing that could save PS in the short-term would be a huge bailout of credibility and integrity, which have yet to be transferable, take too much time to develop, and require an excellent marketing campaign featuring positive statements by [your favorite person] in support of Phatscotty.

[Neoteny]

So, it has come to this. We have two options.

Cutting dick

The conservative/emo option involves a draconian cut in yearly Phatscotty dickishness. This is justified by the fact that forum dick has been at a surplus for years, and barring a huge influx in gay men, this surplus can only lead to dangerous inflation.

Huge dick

The liberal/Ron Jeremy option involves an increase in dickishness toward Phatscotty, incentivized by Saxibucks and social reinforcement. This would flood the market with swinging dicks in an attempt to crowd out the less effective phallus among us. Bonus: might also weird out Chick-Fil-A a little bit.

[john9blue]

i thought it was: first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

but the liberals here have a different method: first they fight you, then you win, then they realize that they've lost and pretend to laugh while running away, THEN they put you on ignore

You are seriously supporting ps's arguments and style of communication?

Ill happily call some of what Juan bottom posts retarded even though we're on the same side. You don't feel the same way when you see phatscotty off rolling his usual intellectual dishonesty?

i have criticized some of scotty's posts in the past, but you never hear about it for two reasons:

- he usually takes it to PM's or wall discussions, at least with me
- i respectfully disagree with scotty because he respectfully gives his opinions. i disrespectfully disagree with opinions that are given disrespectfully.

[Woodruff]

i thought it was: first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

but the liberals here have a different method: first they fight you, then you win, then they realize that they've lost and pretend to laugh while running away, THEN they put you on ignore

You are seriously supporting ps's arguments and style of communication?

Ill happily call some of what Juan bottom posts retarded even though we're on the same side. You don't feel the same way when you see phatscotty off rolling his usual intellectual dishonesty?

i have criticized some of scotty's posts in the past, but you never hear about it for two reasons:

- he usually takes it to PM's or wall discussions, at least with me
- i respectfully disagree with scotty because he respectfully gives his opinions. i disrespectfully disagree with opinions that are given disrespectfully.

Phatscotty is NOT respectful in these fora. You are using a highly unusual version of "respectful" that really means something other than that. Perhaps "polite" (though I don't consider his posts polite either) or something along those lines. Definitely not "respectful".

[john9blue]

i thought it was: first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

but the liberals here have a different method: first they fight you, then you win, then they realize that they've lost and pretend to laugh while running away, THEN they put you on ignore

You are seriously supporting ps's arguments and style of communication?

Ill happily call some of what Juan bottom posts retarded even though we're on the same side. You don't feel the same way when you see phatscotty off rolling his usual intellectual dishonesty?

i have criticized some of scotty's posts in the past, but you never hear about it for two reasons:

- he usually takes it to PM's or wall discussions, at least with me
- i respectfully disagree with scotty because he respectfully gives his opinions. i disrespectfully disagree with opinions that are given disrespectfully.

Phatscotty is NOT respectful in these fora. You are using a highly unusual version of "respectful" that really means something other than that. Perhaps "polite" (though I don't consider his posts polite either) or something along those lines. Definitely not "respectful".

every time you criticize my use of the english language, a kitten dies

[GreecePwns]

In all seriousness john, I do give Scotty a chance to give his opinions and at first I answer to his opinion specifically. I do that for every poster pretty much. And osmetimes we get some interesting discussions.

But a lot of the times it is his absolute inability to concede in an argument, his constant impression that he has one opinion then 5 pages later he'll say "oh this is what I really think," his use of obnoxious pictures and videos, and worst of all his use of the words "nazi" "fascist" etc. to describe anything he opposes make it hard to do that every time.

Just look at the recent Huma Abeddin thread. You know that is a ridiculous thread.

[libertasvelnex]

[BigBallinStalin]

She doesn't look 450 pounds.

[libertasvelnex]

She doesn't look 450 pounds.

It's all below the waist!

[Woodruff]

i thought it was: first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

but the liberals here have a different method: first they fight you, then you win, then they realize that they've lost and pretend to laugh while running away, THEN they put you on ignore

You are seriously supporting ps's arguments and style of communication?

Ill happily call some of what Juan bottom posts retarded even though we're on the same side. You don't feel the same way when you see phatscotty off rolling his usual intellectual dishonesty?

i have criticized some of scotty's posts in the past, but you never hear about it for two reasons:

- he usually takes it to PM's or wall discussions, at least with me
- i respectfully disagree with scotty because he respectfully gives his opinions. i disrespectfully disagree with opinions that are given disrespectfully.

Phatscotty is NOT respectful in these fora. You are using a highly unusual version of "respectful" that really means something other than that. Perhaps "polite" (though I don't consider his posts polite either) or something along those lines. Definitely not "respectful".

every time you criticize my use of the english language, a kitten dies

Well, at least you addressed the point of the post...