Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Of Wylted

Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:11:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've seen that name come up recently as a tu quoque fallacy [1], usually beside Stawperson fallacies [2].

Here's the deal, if his behavior is bad enough to warrant a ban, is a wholly separate issue than if anyone else does. In fact saying he deserves a ban for whatever he's done, is actually arguing anyone who has done worse or more frequent abuses are more deserving of a ban. Thus affirming that said worse abuser getting banned, is not proof that he would need to be banned.

This is all forgetting that actually getting banned takes serious dedicated effort, and even then a willful lack of improvement on problem areas pointed out by the admin. Wylted can't cause anyone other than Wylted to be banned.

If he acts up, just click report. He can of course click report any time someone else crosses the line, which I suppose if you snort enough bath salts would make him to blame. Blaming the people who click the report button instead of the people who actually commit countless abuses, is like blaming the person who dialed 911 for the pile of dead bodies, instead of the psychopath(s) who did the killing.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:14:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:11:24 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I've seen that name come up recently as a tu quoque fallacy [1], usually beside Stawperson fallacies [2].

Here's the deal, if his behavior is bad enough to warrant a ban, is a wholly separate issue than if anyone else does. In fact saying he deserves a ban for whatever he's done, is actually arguing anyone who has done worse or more frequent abuses are more deserving of a ban. Thus affirming that said worse abuser getting banned, is not proof that he would need to be banned.

This is all forgetting that actually getting banned takes serious dedicated effort, and even then a willful lack of improvement on problem areas pointed out by the admin. Wylted can't cause anyone other than Wylted to be banned.

If he acts up, just click report. He can of course click report any time someone else crosses the line, which I suppose if you snort enough bath salts would make him to blame. Blaming the people who click the report button instead of the people who actually commit countless abuses, is like blaming the person who dialed 911 for the pile of dead bodies, instead of the psychopath(s) who did the killing.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

+1
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:21:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The times I've seen him brought up (admittedly few), I read it as a commentary on the unequal application of attention from whatever ridiculous hierarchy this site (now?) has.* That's not a tu quoque fallacy, it's a legitimate gripe.

*I thought the president thing was a joke. Shows how much I pay attention to the meta around here.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:32:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:11:24 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I've seen that name come up recently as a tu quoque fallacy [1], usually beside Stawperson fallacies [2].

Here's the deal, if his behavior is bad enough to warrant a ban, is a wholly separate issue than if anyone else does. In fact saying he deserves a ban for whatever he's done, is actually arguing anyone who has done worse or more frequent abuses are more deserving of a ban. Thus affirming that said worse abuser getting banned, is not proof that he would need to be banned.

This is all forgetting that actually getting banned takes serious dedicated effort, and even then a willful lack of improvement on problem areas pointed out by the admin. Wylted can't cause anyone other than Wylted to be banned.

If he acts up, just click report. He can of course click report any time someone else crosses the line, which I suppose if you snort enough bath salts would make him to blame. Blaming the people who click the report button instead of the people who actually commit countless abuses, is like blaming the person who dialed 911 for the pile of dead bodies, instead of the psychopath(s) who did the killing.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

And to assure that no overly-sensitive, dramatically emotional or elitist member clicks "Report" in regard to something that you've posted, simply take care never to post anything. Because no one can be sure what might be found to be offensive by another person, yet this seems to be the standard set forth in the Terms of Service. If anyone takes offense, then they were insulted, and if they took offense to anything you wrote for any reason, then you violated the TOS.

Or we could apply a more reasonable standard as the moderators are attempting to do and continue to post, to the absolute dissatisfaction of those who believe that everyone in every society should be in charge of controlling everyone else... except that no one should ever control them, per the conduct of Wylted and Mikal.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:44:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:32:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:11:24 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I've seen that name come up recently as a tu quoque fallacy [1], usually beside Stawperson fallacies [2].

Here's the deal, if his behavior is bad enough to warrant a ban, is a wholly separate issue than if anyone else does. In fact saying he deserves a ban for whatever he's done, is actually arguing anyone who has done worse or more frequent abuses are more deserving of a ban. Thus affirming that said worse abuser getting banned, is not proof that he would need to be banned.

This is all forgetting that actually getting banned takes serious dedicated effort, and even then a willful lack of improvement on problem areas pointed out by the admin. Wylted can't cause anyone other than Wylted to be banned.

If he acts up, just click report. He can of course click report any time someone else crosses the line, which I suppose if you snort enough bath salts would make him to blame. Blaming the people who click the report button instead of the people who actually commit countless abuses, is like blaming the person who dialed 911 for the pile of dead bodies, instead of the psychopath(s) who did the killing.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

And to assure that no overly-sensitive, dramatically emotional or elitist member clicks "Report" in regard to something that you've posted, simply take care never to post anything. Because no one can be sure what might be found to be offensive by another person, yet this seems to be the standard set forth in the Terms of Service. If anyone takes offense, then they were insulted, and if they took offense to anything you wrote for any reason, then you violated the TOS.

Or we could apply a more reasonable standard as the moderators are attempting to do and continue to post, to the absolute dissatisfaction of those who believe that everyone in every society should be in charge of controlling everyone else... except that no one should ever control them, per the conduct of Wylted and Mikal

Actually this is just about people wanting a site that is conducive to dialogue and debate. Insulting people isn't conducive to that.

It's not me and Mikal that are the elitist. It is you guys. We think that if just about every post you make is an insult or ad him you're a detriment to the site. You guys seem to agree but think that in my case I should be banned for mild offenses, while in Bulprof's case he should get a free pass for the consistent, ceaseless and harsh insults and ad Homs.

If he was in literally any other sub forum he'd be banned by now but you guys have this elitest mentality where you want your king to be above these rules.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:50:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think we should pull Wylted's pants down and lock him in stocks in a prison of sexually deprived rapists.

After a suitable amount of time I would trade positions with him.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:53:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:50:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
I think we should pull Wylted's pants down and lock him in stocks in a prison of sexually deprived rapists.

After a suitable amount of time I would trade positions with him.

Please don't insult rapists by assuming they are bad people and will be opportunistic with me in my vulnerable state. Are these the type of people who seem opportunistic, some of them are heroes.

There is a such thing as vigilante rapists, you know.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:53:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:44:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:32:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:11:24 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I've seen that name come up recently as a tu quoque fallacy [1], usually beside Stawperson fallacies [2].

Here's the deal, if his behavior is bad enough to warrant a ban, is a wholly separate issue than if anyone else does. In fact saying he deserves a ban for whatever he's done, is actually arguing anyone who has done worse or more frequent abuses are more deserving of a ban. Thus affirming that said worse abuser getting banned, is not proof that he would need to be banned.

This is all forgetting that actually getting banned takes serious dedicated effort, and even then a willful lack of improvement on problem areas pointed out by the admin. Wylted can't cause anyone other than Wylted to be banned.

If he acts up, just click report. He can of course click report any time someone else crosses the line, which I suppose if you snort enough bath salts would make him to blame. Blaming the people who click the report button instead of the people who actually commit countless abuses, is like blaming the person who dialed 911 for the pile of dead bodies, instead of the psychopath(s) who did the killing.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

And to assure that no overly-sensitive, dramatically emotional or elitist member clicks "Report" in regard to something that you've posted, simply take care never to post anything. Because no one can be sure what might be found to be offensive by another person, yet this seems to be the standard set forth in the Terms of Service. If anyone takes offense, then they were insulted, and if they took offense to anything you wrote for any reason, then you violated the TOS.

Or we could apply a more reasonable standard as the moderators are attempting to do and continue to post, to the absolute dissatisfaction of those who believe that everyone in every society should be in charge of controlling everyone else... except that no one should ever control them, per the conduct of Wylted and Mikal

Actually this is just about people wanting a site that is conducive to dialogue and debate. Insulting people isn't conducive to that
Should I feel insulted that you're telling me that I'm wrong?

It's not me and Mikal that are the elitist. It is you guys. We think that if just about every post you make is an insult or ad him you're a detriment to the site. You guys seem to agree but think that in my case I should be banned for mild offenses, while in Bulprof's case he should get a free pass for the consistent, ceaseless and harsh insults and ad Homs.
You're applying a very heavy distortion so as to avoid facing the reality. The REALITY is this; if bulproof should be banned for doing the same things you've been doing, then you should be banned as well. And if you shouldn't be banned, then bulproof shouldn't be banned for doing what you have been doing. It's something we call "equality". I don't think either of you should be banned, but then I tend to lean away from heavy-handed fascist enforcement tactics.

The problem is that you tend to feel that bulproof should be banned and have campaigned openly in promotion of that suggestion, and at the same time, you've emulated the very behaviors you believe warrant a ban on his part, yet insist that you should not be banned. What's worse; Mikal, who does promote heavy-handed, blind adherence to rules with zero tolerance, insists that bulproof should be banned and that you should not receive any penalty whatsoever, for engaging in the very same activities. That's something called "inequality".

If he was in literally any other sub forum he'd be banned by now but you guys have this elitest mentality where you want your king to be above these rules.
No one that I know of thinks of bulproof as any kind of king. But it's clear in reading your profile that you believe Mikal is worthy of worship. And no one is suggesting that anyone is above the rules, but we do understand the necessity of applying rules with a focus on the spirit of those rules, rather than a means of blindly removing people who make valid points which you dislike.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:58:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:21:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
I read it as a commentary on the unequal application of attention from whatever ridiculous hierarchy this site (now?) has.* That's not a tu quoque fallacy, it's a legitimate gripe.
Actually that's the very definition of the fallacy. The above link [1] is mostly for quick reminders for those already familiar, for those not familiar with the base fallacy RationalWiki does a great job explaining it [3].

[3] http://rationalwiki.org...
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:59:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:53:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:44:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:32:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:11:24 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I've seen that name come up recently as a tu quoque fallacy [1], usually beside Stawperson fallacies [2].

Here's the deal, if his behavior is bad enough to warrant a ban, is a wholly separate issue than if anyone else does. In fact saying he deserves a ban for whatever he's done, is actually arguing anyone who has done worse or more frequent abuses are more deserving of a ban. Thus affirming that said worse abuser getting banned, is not proof that he would need to be banned.

This is all forgetting that actually getting banned takes serious dedicated effort, and even then a willful lack of improvement on problem areas pointed out by the admin. Wylted can't cause anyone other than Wylted to be banned.

If he acts up, just click report. He can of course click report any time someone else crosses the line, which I suppose if you snort enough bath salts would make him to blame. Blaming the people who click the report button instead of the people who actually commit countless abuses, is like blaming the person who dialed 911 for the pile of dead bodies, instead of the psychopath(s) who did the killing.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

And to assure that no overly-sensitive, dramatically emotional or elitist member clicks "Report" in regard to something that you've posted, simply take care never to post anything. Because no one can be sure what might be found to be offensive by another person, yet this seems to be the standard set forth in the Terms of Service. If anyone takes offense, then they were insulted, and if they took offense to anything you wrote for any reason, then you violated the TOS.

Or we could apply a more reasonable standard as the moderators are attempting to do and continue to post, to the absolute dissatisfaction of those who believe that everyone in every society should be in charge of controlling everyone else... except that no one should ever control them, per the conduct of Wylted and Mikal

Actually this is just about people wanting a site that is conducive to dialogue and debate. Insulting people isn't conducive to that
Should I feel insulted that you're telling me that I'm wrong?

It's not me and Mikal that are the elitist. It is you guys. We think that if just about every post you make is an insult or ad him you're a detriment to the site. You guys seem to agree but think that in my case I should be banned for mild offenses, while in Bulprof's case he should get a free pass for the consistent, ceaseless and harsh insults and ad Homs.
You're applying a very heavy distortion so as to avoid facing the reality. The REALITY is this; if bulproof should be banned for doing the same things you've been doing, then you should be banned as well. And if you shouldn't be banned, then bulproof shouldn't be banned for doing what you have been doing. It's something we call "equality". I don't think either of you should be banned, but then I tend to lean away from heavy-handed fascist enforcement tactics.

The problem is that you tend to feel that bulproof should be banned and have campaigned openly in promotion of that suggestion, and at the same time, you've emulated the very behaviors you believe warrant a ban on his part, yet insist that you should not be banned. What's worse; Mikal, who does promote heavy-handed, blind adherence to rules with zero tolerance, insists that bulproof should be banned and that you should not receive any penalty whatsoever, for engaging in the very same activities. That's something called "inequality".

If he was in literally any other sub forum he'd be banned by now but you guys have this elitest mentality where you want your king to be above these rules.
No one that I know of thinks of bulproof as any kind of king. But it's clear in reading your profile that you believe Mikal is worthy of worship. And no one is suggesting that anyone is above the rules, but we do understand the necessity of applying rules with a focus on the spirit of those rules, rather than a means of blindly removing people who make valid points which you dislike.

Don't compare my conduct to Bilulprof's I've been quite civil. Sure I've overstepped the bounds when provoked before but I haven't done it without being insulted first.

You're also trying to equate something that somebody finds insulting as an insult.

Anything can be found insulting but what we're talking about is when somebody is consistently taking such action. Have I insulted you this conversation?

The answer is no but if you were being critical of him in the same way he'd respond to you by calling you an idiot or like he did with me "pvssy fcker as".
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 2:01:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:58:49 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:21:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
I read it as a commentary on the unequal application of attention from whatever ridiculous hierarchy this site (now?) has.* That's not a tu quoque fallacy, it's a legitimate gripe.
Actually that's the very definition of the fallacy. The above link [1] is mostly for quick reminders for those already familiar, for those not familiar with the base fallacy RationalWiki does a great job explaining it [3].

[3] http://rationalwiki.org...

Pointing out unequal treatment as an example of unequal treatment is a fallacy? I've yet to see anyone justify one person's behavior by pointing out another's. They're complaining of potential banning for one but not the other.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 2:09:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 2:01:28 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:58:49 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:21:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
I read it as a commentary on the unequal application of attention from whatever ridiculous hierarchy this site (now?) has.* That's not a tu quoque fallacy, it's a legitimate gripe.
Actually that's the very definition of the fallacy. The above link [1] is mostly for quick reminders for those already familiar, for those not familiar with the base fallacy RationalWiki does a great job explaining it [3].

[3] http://rationalwiki.org...
Pointing out unequal treatment as an example of unequal treatment is a fallacy? I've yet to see anyone justify one person's behavior by pointing out another's. They're complaining of potential banning for one but not the other.
How are you not doing (or referencing) an obvious appeal to hypocrisy?

Basic form from RationalWiki [3].
1. Person A makes claim X about Person B.
2. Person B points out that claim X is also true of Person A.
3. Therefore, X is is irrelevant/false and A is a hypocrite.
This kind of reasoning is fallacious because criticism or objection to the person making the claim does not apply equally, if at all, to the argument itself. Certainly, if the premises are indeed true then source A is likely a hypocrite and should also be included in the guilty party, but this bears no relevance or relationship to the validity or factual-ness of the claim X. In essence, the claim X is being dismissed on grounds of a criticism of A, which is a non sequitur.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 2:16:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:59:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:53:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:44:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:32:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:11:24 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I've seen that name come up recently as a tu quoque fallacy [1], usually beside Stawperson fallacies [2].

Here's the deal, if his behavior is bad enough to warrant a ban, is a wholly separate issue than if anyone else does. In fact saying he deserves a ban for whatever he's done, is actually arguing anyone who has done worse or more frequent abuses are more deserving of a ban. Thus affirming that said worse abuser getting banned, is not proof that he would need to be banned.

This is all forgetting that actually getting banned takes serious dedicated effort, and even then a willful lack of improvement on problem areas pointed out by the admin. Wylted can't cause anyone other than Wylted to be banned.

If he acts up, just click report. He can of course click report any time someone else crosses the line, which I suppose if you snort enough bath salts would make him to blame. Blaming the people who click the report button instead of the people who actually commit countless abuses, is like blaming the person who dialed 911 for the pile of dead bodies, instead of the psychopath(s) who did the killing.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

And to assure that no overly-sensitive, dramatically emotional or elitist member clicks "Report" in regard to something that you've posted, simply take care never to post anything. Because no one can be sure what might be found to be offensive by another person, yet this seems to be the standard set forth in the Terms of Service. If anyone takes offense, then they were insulted, and if they took offense to anything you wrote for any reason, then you violated the TOS.

Or we could apply a more reasonable standard as the moderators are attempting to do and continue to post, to the absolute dissatisfaction of those who believe that everyone in every society should be in charge of controlling everyone else... except that no one should ever control them, per the conduct of Wylted and Mikal

Actually this is just about people wanting a site that is conducive to dialogue and debate. Insulting people isn't conducive to that
Should I feel insulted that you're telling me that I'm wrong?

It's not me and Mikal that are the elitist. It is you guys. We think that if just about every post you make is an insult or ad him you're a detriment to the site. You guys seem to agree but think that in my case I should be banned for mild offenses, while in Bulprof's case he should get a free pass for the consistent, ceaseless and harsh insults and ad Homs.
You're applying a very heavy distortion so as to avoid facing the reality. The REALITY is this; if bulproof should be banned for doing the same things you've been doing, then you should be banned as well. And if you shouldn't be banned, then bulproof shouldn't be banned for doing what you have been doing. It's something we call "equality". I don't think either of you should be banned, but then I tend to lean away from heavy-handed fascist enforcement tactics.

The problem is that you tend to feel that bulproof should be banned and have campaigned openly in promotion of that suggestion, and at the same time, you've emulated the very behaviors you believe warrant a ban on his part, yet insist that you should not be banned. What's worse; Mikal, who does promote heavy-handed, blind adherence to rules with zero tolerance, insists that bulproof should be banned and that you should not receive any penalty whatsoever, for engaging in the very same activities. That's something called "inequality".

If he was in literally any other sub forum he'd be banned by now but you guys have this elitest mentality where you want your king to be above these rules.
No one that I know of thinks of bulproof as any kind of king. But it's clear in reading your profile that you believe Mikal is worthy of worship. And no one is suggesting that anyone is above the rules, but we do understand the necessity of applying rules with a focus on the spirit of those rules, rather than a means of blindly removing people who make valid points which you dislike.

Don't compare my conduct to Bilulprof's I've been quite civil. Sure I've overstepped the bounds when provoked before but I haven't done it without being insulted first.
Yes, you're being so civil that you can't even be bothered to type bulproof's name without butchering it. And you weren't being provoked when you were calling for a trial, or when you switched direction and claimed that he shouldn't have a trial because it would give him an opportunity to answer the charges. You weren't being provoked when you decided to engage in profanity and gender slurs. Again, I find your pleas to ring quite hollow, as has nearly everything you've written for the past several days, as you waffle from one path of excuses, onto another in a continual zig-zag of disingenuousness.

You're also trying to equate something that somebody finds insulting as an insult.
And you're suggesting that you can read minds and know what is intended to be insulting, as well as what isn't.

Anything can be found insulting but what we're talking about is when somebody is consistently taking such action. Have I insulted you this conversation?
Boat-loads! You insult my intelligence every time you claim that you have the interests of the site in mind, following days of demonstrating that you have only your own interests at heart. You insult my intelligence when you claim you weren't intending to violate the profanity filter when you switched "u" for "v" in two different curse words, which you posted without the slightest hint of provocation.

The answer is no but if you were being critical of him in the same way he'd respond to you by calling you an idiot or like he did with me "pvssy fcker as".
The answer is a qualified, "YES".

Don't pretend to know what other people would do. You don't control them and if there is any justice to the outcome of this fiasco, you never will.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 2:33:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
.
Yes, you're being so civil that you can't even be bothered to type bulproof's name without butchering it. And you weren't being provoked when you were calling for a trial, or when you switched direction and claimed that he shouldn't have a trial because it would give him an opportunity to answer the charges. You weren't being provoked when you decided to engage in profanity and gender slurs. Again, I find your pleas to ring quite hollow, as has nearly everything you've written for the past several days, as you waffle from one path of excuses, onto another in a continual zig-zag of disingenuousness.

I said a trial isn't necessary because he has so blatantly and obviously participated in personal attacks, having a trial for him just to make sure that banning him isn't a mistake is a courtesy. I didn't say let's fore go a trial, I'm all for one. I just stated it wasn't necessary.

You're also trying to equate something that somebody finds insulting as an insult.
And you're suggesting that you can read minds and know what is intended to be insulting, as well as what isn't.

Anything can be found insulting but what we're talking about is when somebody is consistently taking such action. Have I insulted you this conversation?
Boat-loads! You insult my intelligence every time you claim that you have the interests of the site in mind,

That's a figure of speech meant to redefine the world insult. I'm talking of using the term insult or personal attack in the proper way, given the context. Stop trying to play games with semantics.

following days of demonstrating that you have only your own interests at heart. You insult my intelligence when you claim

Again that's not really an insult and certainly doesn't qualify as a personal attack. You're redefining the word to build a strawman and misrepresent my position.

you weren't intending to violate the profanity filter when you switched "u" for "v" in two different curse words, which you posted without the slightest hint of provocation.

The answer is no but if you were being critical of him in the same way he'd respond to you by calling you an idiot or like he did with me "pvssy fcker as".
The answer is a qualified, "YES".

Don't pretend to know what other people would do. You don't control them and if there is any justice to the outcome of this fiasco, you never will.

I know precisely what people will do as their history supports this assertion.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 4:05:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 2:09:44 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 12/30/2014 2:01:28 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:58:49 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:21:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
I read it as a commentary on the unequal application of attention from whatever ridiculous hierarchy this site (now?) has.* That's not a tu quoque fallacy, it's a legitimate gripe.
Actually that's the very definition of the fallacy. The above link [1] is mostly for quick reminders for those already familiar, for those not familiar with the base fallacy RationalWiki does a great job explaining it [3].

[3] http://rationalwiki.org...
Pointing out unequal treatment as an example of unequal treatment is a fallacy? I've yet to see anyone justify one person's behavior by pointing out another's. They're complaining of potential banning for one but not the other.
How are you not doing (or referencing) an obvious appeal to hypocrisy?

Basic form from RationalWiki [3].
1. Person A makes claim X about Person B.
2. Person B points out that claim X is also true of Person A.
3. Therefore, X is is irrelevant/false and A is a hypocrite.
This kind of reasoning is fallacious because criticism or objection to the person making the claim does not apply equally, if at all, to the argument itself. Certainly, if the premises are indeed true then source A is likely a hypocrite and should also be included in the guilty party, but this bears no relevance or relationship to the validity or factual-ness of the claim X. In essence, the claim X is being dismissed on grounds of a criticism of A, which is a non sequitur.

Because the claim is not simply "Person A does X." The claim is "Person A should be banned because of X." X is not the particular issue that I've seen being discussed. It's whether banning is warranted for Person A. And some folks are just pointing out that if Person A should be banned, the Person B should, also. That is a matter of equal application of consequences.

Just like the rampant and improper claims of ad hominem and strawman fallacies, this claim of tu quoque seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the subject. I haven't seen anyone claim that what Person A does is okay because Person B does it. There is no claim of hypocrisy, as far as I've seen. It's that both should be banned, or neither. The difference is pretty distinct. How are you not understanding that?
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 5:26:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 4:05:00 PM, Burzmali wrote:
some folks are just pointing out that if Person A should be banned, the Person B should, also. That is a matter of equal application of consequences.
Yes, the tu quoque fallacy. Trying to distract from person A's behavior, by talking about person B, and saying it'd be hypocritical to ban A but not B. If person B should be banned, is a different issue than if person A should be banned.

There is no claim of hypocrisy, as far as I've seen.
Really? "Some folks are just pointing out that if Person A should be banned, the Person B should, also. That is a matter of equal application of consequences."
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 5:41:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:11:24 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I've seen that name come up recently as a tu quoque fallacy [1], usually beside Stawperson fallacies [2].

Here's the deal, if his behavior is bad enough to warrant a ban, is a wholly separate issue than if anyone else does. In fact saying he deserves a ban for whatever he's done, is actually arguing anyone who has done worse or more frequent abuses are more deserving of a ban. Thus affirming that said worse abuser getting banned, is not proof that he would need to be banned.

This is all forgetting that actually getting banned takes serious dedicated effort, and even then a willful lack of improvement on problem areas pointed out by the admin. Wylted can't cause anyone other than Wylted to be banned.

If he acts up, just click report. He can of course click report any time someone else crosses the line, which I suppose if you snort enough bath salts would make him to blame. Blaming the people who click the report button instead of the people who actually commit countless abuses, is like blaming the person who dialed 911 for the pile of dead bodies, instead of the psychopath(s) who did the killing.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

In any civilized society if someone commits an atrocity it should be reported to the appropriate authorities for them to handle. If those authorities need more information they will ask for witness. Upon trial the person who commits the atrocity is punished or warned by probation. That is the system we have in place with our moderators. I will say this, every time I have contacted our moderator he has quickly taken wise action and/or given me great council.

It is not up to every member to execute justice in a public way. If member A tries to work differences out with member B but is still met with offensive attacks then member A should report it to the moderators. It is best for us to work out our differences like adults and if we can't, then no public displays should be made. Simply seek the help of the moderators. It's that simple.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 5:46:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:11:24 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I've seen that name come up recently as a tu quoque fallacy [1], usually beside Stawperson fallacies [2].

Here's the deal, if his behavior is bad enough to warrant a ban, is a wholly separate issue than if anyone else does. In fact saying he deserves a ban for whatever he's done, is actually arguing anyone who has done worse or more frequent abuses are more deserving of a ban. Thus affirming that said worse abuser getting banned, is not proof that he would need to be banned.

This is all forgetting that actually getting banned takes serious dedicated effort, and even then a willful lack of improvement on problem areas pointed out by the admin. Wylted can't cause anyone other than Wylted to be banned.

If he acts up, just click report. He can of course click report any time someone else crosses the line, which I suppose if you snort enough bath salts would make him to blame. Blaming the people who click the report button instead of the people who actually commit countless abuses, is like blaming the person who dialed 911 for the pile of dead bodies, instead of the psychopath(s) who did the killing.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Also, I think that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is the best way to put this. If one person is banned for offensive conduct then it automatically sets a precedence. And woe be to the rest of us. I say let's all just try to get along and be civil in our forums. People should be able to express their thoughts without fear of punishment. We all need to lighten up from that perspective.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 7:16:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:59:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:53:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:44:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:32:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:11:24 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I've seen that name come up recently as a tu quoque fallacy [1], usually beside Stawperson fallacies [2].

Here's the deal, if his behavior is bad enough to warrant a ban, is a wholly separate issue than if anyone else does. In fact saying he deserves a ban for whatever he's done, is actually arguing anyone who has done worse or more frequent abuses are more deserving of a ban. Thus affirming that said worse abuser getting banned, is not proof that he would need to be banned.

This is all forgetting that actually getting banned takes serious dedicated effort, and even then a willful lack of improvement on problem areas pointed out by the admin. Wylted can't cause anyone other than Wylted to be banned.

If he acts up, just click report. He can of course click report any time someone else crosses the line, which I suppose if you snort enough bath salts would make him to blame. Blaming the people who click the report button instead of the people who actually commit countless abuses, is like blaming the person who dialed 911 for the pile of dead bodies, instead of the psychopath(s) who did the killing.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

And to assure that no overly-sensitive, dramatically emotional or elitist member clicks "Report" in regard to something that you've posted, simply take care never to post anything. Because no one can be sure what might be found to be offensive by another person, yet this seems to be the standard set forth in the Terms of Service. If anyone takes offense, then they were insulted, and if they took offense to anything you wrote for any reason, then you violated the TOS.

Or we could apply a more reasonable standard as the moderators are attempting to do and continue to post, to the absolute dissatisfaction of those who believe that everyone in every society should be in charge of controlling everyone else... except that no one should ever control them, per the conduct of Wylted and Mikal

Actually this is just about people wanting a site that is conducive to dialogue and debate. Insulting people isn't conducive to that
Should I feel insulted that you're telling me that I'm wrong?

It's not me and Mikal that are the elitist. It is you guys. We think that if just about every post you make is an insult or ad him you're a detriment to the site. You guys seem to agree but think that in my case I should be banned for mild offenses, while in Bulprof's case he should get a free pass for the consistent, ceaseless and harsh insults and ad Homs.
You're applying a very heavy distortion so as to avoid facing the reality. The REALITY is this; if bulproof should be banned for doing the same things you've been doing, then you should be banned as well. And if you shouldn't be banned, then bulproof shouldn't be banned for doing what you have been doing. It's something we call "equality". I don't think either of you should be banned, but then I tend to lean away from heavy-handed fascist enforcement tactics.

The problem is that you tend to feel that bulproof should be banned and have campaigned openly in promotion of that suggestion, and at the same time, you've emulated the very behaviors you believe warrant a ban on his part, yet insist that you should not be banned. What's worse; Mikal, who does promote heavy-handed, blind adherence to rules with zero tolerance, insists that bulproof should be banned and that you should not receive any penalty whatsoever, for engaging in the very same activities. That's something called "inequality".

If he was in literally any other sub forum he'd be banned by now but you guys have this elitest mentality where you want your king to be above these rules.
No one that I know of thinks of bulproof as any kind of king. But it's clear in reading your profile that you believe Mikal is worthy of worship. And no one is suggesting that anyone is above the rules, but we do understand the necessity of applying rules with a focus on the spirit of those rules, rather than a means of blindly removing people who make valid points which you dislike.

Don't compare my conduct to Bilulprof's I've been quite civil. Sure I've overstepped the bounds when provoked before but I haven't done it without being insulted first.

You're also trying to equate something that somebody finds insulting as an insult.

Anything can be found insulting but what we're talking about is when somebody is consistently taking such action. Have I insulted you this conversation?

The answer is no but if you were being critical of him in the same way he'd respond to you by calling you an idiot or like he did with me "pvssy fcker as".

Citation needed, look no insult.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 9:05:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:32:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:11:24 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I've seen that name come up recently as a tu quoque fallacy [1], usually beside Stawperson fallacies [2].

Here's the deal, if his behavior is bad enough to warrant a ban, is a wholly separate issue than if anyone else does. In fact saying he deserves a ban for whatever he's done, is actually arguing anyone who has done worse or more frequent abuses are more deserving of a ban. Thus affirming that said worse abuser getting banned, is not proof that he would need to be banned.

This is all forgetting that actually getting banned takes serious dedicated effort, and even then a willful lack of improvement on problem areas pointed out by the admin. Wylted can't cause anyone other than Wylted to be banned.

If he acts up, just click report. He can of course click report any time someone else crosses the line, which I suppose if you snort enough bath salts would make him to blame. Blaming the people who click the report button instead of the people who actually commit countless abuses, is like blaming the person who dialed 911 for the pile of dead bodies, instead of the psychopath(s) who did the killing.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

And to assure that no overly-sensitive, dramatically emotional or elitist member clicks "Report" in regard to something that you've posted, simply take care never to post anything. Because no one can be sure what might be found to be offensive by another person, yet this seems to be the standard set forth in the Terms of Service. If anyone takes offense, then they were insulted, and if they took offense to anything you wrote for any reason, then you violated the TOS.

Or we could apply a more reasonable standard as the moderators are attempting to do and continue to post, to the absolute dissatisfaction of those who believe that everyone in every society should be in charge of controlling everyone else... except that no one should ever control them, per the conduct of Wylted and Mikal.

All it takes for a forum to go dead is a few members who hate freedom of speech with moderators who agree with them.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 11:50:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 1:53:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:50:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
I think we should pull Wylted's pants down and lock him in stocks in a prison of sexually deprived rapists.

After a suitable amount of time I would trade positions with him.

Please don't insult rapists by assuming they are bad people and will be opportunistic with me in my vulnerable state. Are these the type of people who seem opportunistic, some of them are heroes.

There is a such thing as vigilante rapists, you know.

Why didn't you find this offensive and report it? What if it had come from bulproof?
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:00:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:50:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:53:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:50:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
I think we should pull Wylted's pants down and lock him in stocks in a prison of sexually deprived rapists.

After a suitable amount of time I would trade positions with him.

Please don't insult rapists by assuming they are bad people and will be opportunistic with me in my vulnerable state. Are these the type of people who seem opportunistic, some of them are heroes.

There is a such thing as vigilante rapists, you know.

Why didn't you find this offensive and report it? What if it had come from bulproof?

It isn't directed at anyone. You can find it offensive but it isn't personal harassment and it hardly counts as a slur. Try reporting and see what happens, nothing will.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:00:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:50:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:53:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:50:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
I think we should pull Wylted's pants down and lock him in stocks in a prison of sexually deprived rapists.

After a suitable amount of time I would trade positions with him.

Please don't insult rapists by assuming they are bad people and will be opportunistic with me in my vulnerable state. Are these the type of people who seem opportunistic, some of them are heroes.

There is a such thing as vigilante rapists, you know.

Why didn't you find this offensive and report it? What if it had come from bulproof?

I've given my permission to Envisage to make personal attacks on me in the past. He can reproduce the PM for you with the timestamp if he feels like it.

Also I see nothing bad about what he said.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:22:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 12:00:32 AM, numberwang wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:50:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:53:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:50:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
I think we should pull Wylted's pants down and lock him in stocks in a prison of sexually deprived rapists.

After a suitable amount of time I would trade positions with him.

Please don't insult rapists by assuming they are bad people and will be opportunistic with me in my vulnerable state. Are these the type of people who seem opportunistic, some of them are heroes.

There is a such thing as vigilante rapists, you know.

Why didn't you find this offensive and report it? What if it had come from bulproof?

It isn't directed at anyone.

How can you say that? It was directed at Wylted.

You can find it offensive but it isn't personal harassment and it hardly counts as a slur. Try reporting and see what happens, nothing will.

That's not my point. I'm not interested in reporting anyone unless they are personally abusive to me and even then it would have to be pretty bad. The point is the selective enforcing of the TOU. I can tell that Envisage was teasing, but once literal minded people are encouraged to report, it will get out of hand. Leave well enough alone.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:27:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 12:00:45 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:50:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:53:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:50:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
I think we should pull Wylted's pants down and lock him in stocks in a prison of sexually deprived rapists.

After a suitable amount of time I would trade positions with him.

Please don't insult rapists by assuming they are bad people and will be opportunistic with me in my vulnerable state. Are these the type of people who seem opportunistic, some of them are heroes.

There is a such thing as vigilante rapists, you know.

Why didn't you find this offensive and report it? What if it had come from bulproof?

I've given my permission to Envisage to make personal attacks on me in the past. He can reproduce the PM for you with the timestamp if he feels like it.

Also I see nothing bad about what he said.

It violates the TOU. It's not a good look for the forum which you came into as a white knight to "improve". Do you see the problem with selective enforcement?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:31:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 12:27:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/31/2014 12:00:45 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:50:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:53:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:50:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
I think we should pull Wylted's pants down and lock him in stocks in a prison of sexually deprived rapists.

After a suitable amount of time I would trade positions with him.

Please don't insult rapists by assuming they are bad people and will be opportunistic with me in my vulnerable state. Are these the type of people who seem opportunistic, some of them are heroes.

There is a such thing as vigilante rapists, you know.

Why didn't you find this offensive and report it? What if it had come from bulproof?

I've given my permission to Envisage to make personal attacks on me in the past. He can reproduce the PM for you with the timestamp if he feels like it.

Also I see nothing bad about what he said.

It violates the TOU. It's not a good look for the forum which you came into as a white knight to "improve". Do you see the problem with selective enforcement?

Habitual personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated. End of story. That's my message and certain people have been ran off of this sub forum because of the mocking tone and attacks of certain users. Envisage didn't make a personal attack.

Why can't you get this through your skull. The message is simple.

Personal attacks are unacceptable. Envisage's actions don't fit that criteria.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:35:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 12:31:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/31/2014 12:27:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/31/2014 12:00:45 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:50:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:53:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:50:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
I think we should pull Wylted's pants down and lock him in stocks in a prison of sexually deprived rapists.

After a suitable amount of time I would trade positions with him.

Please don't insult rapists by assuming they are bad people and will be opportunistic with me in my vulnerable state. Are these the type of people who seem opportunistic, some of them are heroes.

There is a such thing as vigilante rapists, you know.

Why didn't you find this offensive and report it? What if it had come from bulproof?

I've given my permission to Envisage to make personal attacks on me in the past. He can reproduce the PM for you with the timestamp if he feels like it.

Also I see nothing bad about what he said.

It violates the TOU. It's not a good look for the forum which you came into as a white knight to "improve". Do you see the problem with selective enforcement?

Habitual personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated. End of story. That's my message and certain people have been ran off of this sub forum because of the mocking tone and attacks of certain users. Envisage didn't make a personal attack.

Why can't you get this through your skull. The message is simple.

Personal attacks are unacceptable. Envisage's actions don't fit that criteria.

Um, okay. Next time I tell someone I'd like to see him buggered by randy men, then that should not be considered a personal insult. Understood.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:40:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Guys, guys, you're all thinking of this way too much. The solution is simple, we kill the Batman.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:48:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 12:35:34 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/31/2014 12:31:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/31/2014 12:27:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/31/2014 12:00:45 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:50:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:53:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:50:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
I think we should pull Wylted's pants down and lock him in stocks in a prison of sexually deprived rapists.

After a suitable amount of time I would trade positions with him.

Please don't insult rapists by assuming they are bad people and will be opportunistic with me in my vulnerable state. Are these the type of people who seem opportunistic, some of them are heroes.

There is a such thing as vigilante rapists, you know.

Why didn't you find this offensive and report it? What if it had come from bulproof?

I've given my permission to Envisage to make personal attacks on me in the past. He can reproduce the PM for you with the timestamp if he feels like it.

Also I see nothing bad about what he said.

It violates the TOU. It's not a good look for the forum which you came into as a white knight to "improve". Do you see the problem with selective enforcement?

Habitual personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated. End of story. That's my message and certain people have been ran off of this sub forum because of the mocking tone and attacks of certain users. Envisage didn't make a personal attack.

Why can't you get this through your skull. The message is simple.

Personal attacks are unacceptable. Envisage's actions don't fit that criteria.

Um, okay. Next time I tell someone I'd like to see him buggered by randy men, then that should not be considered a personal insult. Understood.

If you know before hand they're not bothered by it like envisage knows about me, go for it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:57:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 12:48:00 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/31/2014 12:35:34 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/31/2014 12:31:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/31/2014 12:27:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/31/2014 12:00:45 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:50:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:53:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:50:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
I think we should pull Wylted's pants down and lock him in stocks in a prison of sexually deprived rapists.

After a suitable amount of time I would trade positions with him.

Please don't insult rapists by assuming they are bad people and will be opportunistic with me in my vulnerable state. Are these the type of people who seem opportunistic, some of them are heroes.

There is a such thing as vigilante rapists, you know.

Why didn't you find this offensive and report it? What if it had come from bulproof?

I've given my permission to Envisage to make personal attacks on me in the past. He can reproduce the PM for you with the timestamp if he feels like it.

Also I see nothing bad about what he said.

It violates the TOU. It's not a good look for the forum which you came into as a white knight to "improve". Do you see the problem with selective enforcement?

Habitual personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated. End of story. That's my message and certain people have been ran off of this sub forum because of the mocking tone and attacks of certain users. Envisage didn't make a personal attack.

Why can't you get this through your skull. The message is simple.

Personal attacks are unacceptable. Envisage's actions don't fit that criteria.

Um, okay. Next time I tell someone I'd like to see him buggered by randy men, then that should not be considered a personal insult. Understood.

If you know before hand they're not bothered by it like envisage knows about me, go for it.

This is ridiculous. How are the rest of us supposed to know about any private agreements you yahoos have come up with? Is this a sample of what we can expect in the raising of the level of intellectual discourse here in the Religion forum? You preach to others about improving things and yet we have this nonsense.