THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT HERE . . .

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Obviously the word "troll" is being used here to mean, "Someone who dares to mention anything other than what we want mentioned."

I would define it as Winston Churchill defines "fanatic":

Churchill wrote:

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

And it still works as a description of some of the people you get here.

2 Replies

@Kolyo,

Hear hear . . .

0 Replies

@Kolyo,

Kolyo wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Obviously the word "troll" is being used here to mean, "Someone who dares to mention anything other than what we want mentioned."

I would define it as Winston Churchill defines "fanatic":

I appreciate that you might.

However...here...in this thread...it is being used to mean, "Someone who dares to mention anything other than what we want mentioned."

It is my opinion, Kolyo, that this thread is not actually about the so-called "controversial subject" of evolution.

It is primarily a vehicle for Setanta to call people who disagree with him...trolls.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

It's fascinating, the lengths these trolls will go to. I tire of them much faster than many members, apparently, because I put them on ignore after a fairly short time, while others post hundreds of rebuttals.

I think I should get a quicker Ignore finger, too. They have nothing constructive to add and just revel in all the negativity they incite.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Plus, a big plus, people feed them while trying to change their views. This goes on forevermore.

One of these days I'll lose it and down thumb all the feeders for a month. A lot of those I like and agree with, but they are inveterate feeders.

To explain, I'm fine with and like and learn from disagreements - why I like a2k, I've learned so much, oh, and the people.

Trolls are a special category.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

I'm inspired now. I'm off to put them on Ignore. Wink

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

That is an interesting question. Is there anyone who agrees with you about evolution (or whatever contentious topic) who you would consider a troll?

1 Reply

The discussions about religion get so ridiculous, I try to thumb them down (not the individuals, just to prevent the threads to stop popping up when I log in). Frankly, it's too depressing, folks that I like become complete assholes and others display such an incredible lack of understanding of their religion as well as others, I lament the show of utter stupidity.

Engineer is correct, only rape gets more attention than belief/non-belief life styles. The religious threads attract so many rabidly intolerant people, but the rape threads attract the creepy faction. We all know who the main offenders are, several inadequate wannabe sex threats who can have anyone they want. So the question is, who is more delusional, the intolerant religious fanatics or the rape enthusiasts?

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

So the question is, who is more delusional, the intolerant religious fanatics or the rape enthusiasts?

There are extremists on all sides. If you only see one extreme on a contentious debate... it just may be because you are on the other extreme.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

-they are here whoring for attention, and they attempt to dominate the conversation

Is that why you posted 6 times on this thread? Blowhole.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Or my name is Max, I may just have my head stuck far up my rectum.

Idiot, it was a benign remark, if you thought I was referring to you, you are wrong. However, since you brought it up, I apologize for not lumping you in with hawk and bill, and the two young sex starved adolescents.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Obviously you have personal problem with Hawkeye and BillRM. Isn't this is bad thing for any rational discussion? If Hawkeye makes a good point, could you accept it.. or does personal animosity keep you from hearing anything from certain people even when they are right? I think each idea should be judged on its own merit, not on who it comes from.

I don't think that personal insults or name-calling is constructive.

1 Reply

Heh. The most contentious topics seem to be Rape, Religion and Race. Maybe we should have an R-rated subforum.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I have agreed with Hawkeye in the past. It's interesting that you think name calling is not constructive, I notice your fall back position is ridicule. Or you adopt that silly attitude only you believe, that allows you to crow that others are foolish and more dumb than you. I seldom read BillRM, he frankly creeps me out. Hawkeye is overly interested in non-consensual sex acts, which is either a persona or a perversion. You have recently claimed to be a single father of a daughter, that was brand new info. So, I think you are full of ****. I don't know why you care what I think or write, if I were you, I'd put me on ignore. I've had you on ignore in the past, like I have the two racists, Pamela Rose and Miller (KAK on SB) on ignore.

I've agreed with you, I'm sure you don't want to remember. But bottom line, it's not like it's an important thing, I see you on A2K when you aren't on ignore, it's not important to me, it really shouldn't be important to you.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

I don't know how you define the word "ridicule", as a personal rule I try to avoid personal attacks or insults, I don't mind a little sarcasm and I love irony... but I am targeting faulty logic or weak arguments, not the people who make them (to me this is an important distinction). Arguments can be attacked. People shouldn't be attacked..

I don't believe I have ever crowed that other people are more foolish or dumb then I am. I don't put anyone on ignore... and I certainly wouldn't announce it if I did (which I think is in poor taste).

But I stand by my point. There are extreme views on both sides of these controversial topics. I tend to have more difficulty accepting faulty logic from people who are closer to me ideologically then from people who are on the other side (but that is just me). I like to test my own belief and I don't like group think (especially not in my own group).

But in any case name calling doesn't lead toward interesting discussions or understanding.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

Engineer is correct, only rape gets more attention than belief/non-belief life styles. The religious threads attract so many rabidly intolerant people, but the rape threads attract the creepy faction. We all know who the main offenders are, several inadequate wannabe sex threats who can have anyone they want. So the question is, who is more delusional, the intolerant religious fanatics or the rape enthusiasts?

Of course to you anyone who objects to current approaches to policing sex is a " rape enthusiast", because your mind is closed and unwilling to consider if current policy and approaches are wrong. You also openly disrespect anyone who is willing to consider the matter.

There are better people than you here, people who can be swayed with facts/evidence/argument. Firefly plays much the same game as you , and she is losing , because bullying and demeaning people who dont agree with you works only on weak people. At some point people cant take being chumps anymore.

0 Replies

I think the sexual policing subject is rapidly overtaking evolution as the most controversial subject.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Only because you seem to be sticking to your guns regarding the drugging and raping of women being in some way respectable in your world.

What do you expect people to do, go away and seemingly let you get away with such an outrage?

I won't respond to any more bait on this thread, but will happily engage you back on the Cosby one.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

IM<HO the putatively most controversial subject here is an evolving suppositious conjecture.

1 Reply

@Miss L Toad,

I used to have one of those in the back garden for the laundry.

1 Reply

THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT HERE . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know