Insulting people in lieu of reason/logic is the liberal way.

I just think the Liberal camp has a lot fewer of these than the Conservatives do.

Foxfyre wrote:

I just think the Liberal camp has a lot fewer of these than the Conservatives do.

I'm not convinced. What say you do an informal study. How will you quantify it? Number of posters who tend to be insulting rather than arguing a point? Number of insulting posts by posters who do this? Number of explicit insults? Do generalities count or do they have to be specifically insulting -- you know, directed at the individual rather than a blanket insult. Choose one, then do a thorough examination of all of the threads in politics and tally these up and then lets run some numbers to see if it's true. And of course, if it is true then you will still need to qualify your statement to "the A2K liberal way".

I look forward to seeing your results.

Foxfyre wrote:

I just think the Liberal camp has a lot fewer of these than the Conservatives do.

I'm not convinced. What say you do an informal study. How will you quantify it? Number of posters who tend to be insulting rather than arguing a point? Number of insulting posts by posters who do this? Number of explicit insults? Do generalities count or do they have to be specifically insulting -- you know, directed at the individual rather than a blanket insult. Choose one, then do a thorough examination of all of the threads in politics and tally these up and then lets run some numbers to see if it's true. And of course, if it is true then you will still need to qualify your statement to "the A2K liberal way".

I look forward to seeing your results.

I generally make uncomplimentary observations in such a way that anybody can easily opt out if they choose to do so.

The distinction comes in the 'loophole' of allowing some Conservatives to opt out of some Conservative issues and some Liberals to opt out of some Liberal issues. As Wandel said, probably none of us are 100% anything. So to say that most Liberals are this or that would not necessarily be a criticism of you personally. To say that something is 'the Liberal way' is a generalization that allows for a lot of loopholes for those willing to allow them.

...in the context of the quote Kicky lifted from another thread, I did not apply the generalization to ALL liberals.

I hear "conservatives love war and death" and "conservatives hate people" all the time with no qualifications whatsoever. I think such comments to be completely stupid, inane, uncreative, and ignorant but not related to me personally in any way.

dlowan wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:

What about the rest of us that are neither liberal nor conservative? When I call someone a moron does that make me a liberal? Who knew.

a. There's only two types of folk...conservative, and wrong.

b. Yes.

Foxfyre wrote:

Foxfyre wrote

Quote:

If puerile crap is a disqualifier, however, half the members of
A2K would be disqualified at some point during every day.

dlowan wrote

Quote:

Fox denies Ccjhsa's modus operandi as being full of insult and
attempts at vicious attack.

Enough said.


One only needs to see this crushing example of partisan blindness on her
part to evaluate her comment accurately.

See?!

Nope.


YOU see what you want to, as do we all, I suppose...but you have chosen
to make an insulting sweeping statement about ALL your opponents.


Cjhsa consistently insults and denigrates his opponents.

If you do not see that, you have to be being wilfully blind.


The quality of your sweeping generalisation can be deduced from your
refusal to acknowledge the ongoing opposite behaviour from that which
you attribute to your side from a member of it...one amongst many.


The quality I attribute to your seeeping generalization is untruth.


How is noting the untruth of your claim, and its partisanship, as
evidenced by your refusal to acknowledge cjhsa's ongoing behaviour as
just one example, insulting?


You are the one attempting to denigrate all your opponents, and yet you
dare to call refutal of your claim insulting?

I take it, then, that your definition of insult is the failure to
acknowledge your claims to be true?


I agree with whoever said all sides do it.

The ridiculous partisanship comes in when someone like you claims that
only "they" "do it."


Doubtless, similarly blind folk from the progressive side would also
claim that only your lot "do it".


Folly always has company.

First, I generally make uncomplimentary observations in such a way that anybody can easily opt out if they choose to do so.

Second, all my opponents are not liberal.

Third, in the context of the quote Kicky lifted from another thread, I did not apply the generalization to ALL liberals, nor would I likely ever do that at least intentionally.

But, it has been my observation that it is generally those of liberal leanings who would make a quote such as you did, who would post for the intentional and specific purpose of denigrating another member, and who resort to direct personal insults and ad hominem inferences in lieu of making a rational argument.

Do all liberals do that even on A2K? Nope. And those that don't have my respect, admiration, and I actually read their posts knowing they have something significant to say whether or not I agree with them.

But your post here, Rabbit, is such a beautiful illustration of the point I was making when Kicky opted to use my post as the subject of this thread.

They dodge tough questions, whine about being insulted, and often seem incapable of forming a coherent argument, and supporting it. Why bother?

Agreed, having Roxxxanne is like getting two bangs for your buck.

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

There is a difference between hit and run quips and/or successful or unsuccessful attempts at humor and personally directed insults. If that quote was a personally directed insult it must have been an inside joke between you and CJ because I just don't see it.

If puerile crap is a disqualifier, however, half the members of A2K would be disqualified at some point during every day.

Well, like I said, I'm just curious what constitutes personal insults vs. personal attacks vs. peurile commentary.

But I'd agree with you that there's enough peurile crap on this forum to throw half the lot out. Although, something as peurile as what cjhsa said and using my name in directing it specifically to me seems akin to a juvenile comment, especially if one wishes to at least make a point one way or another.

Of course, like this and many other forums, it's all rather arbitrary.

its "puerile"[/i]....... I know people have told you this before.

I see the grammar Nazis have nothing better to contribute, as usual.

Peurile. There, happy?

Foxfyre wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

Dookie, had you gone to school with me at the Ozark Hillbilly Academy, you would have known that without being told. But now that you know, you will have 5 points deducted from your next post if you misspell that word again. Sorry, but that's the only way you will learn.

I looked up the word when Dookie first used it to avoid misspelling and he (she?) had spelled it correctly the first time. The second time s/he typoed it. I absolutely positively refuse to let the typo police get a foothold here, however, because I would then have to quit A2K (though that would no doubt make some very happy. )

Thanx, Fox. At least you get it.

Oh, and I'm a he (for future reference).

CoastalRat wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

Dookie, had you gone to school with me at the Ozark Hillbilly Academy, you would have known that without being told. But now that you know, you will have 5 points deducted from your next post if you misspell that word again. Sorry, but that's the only way you will learn.

And another grammar Nazi chimes in.

Boy, don't you guys have anything more substantive to talk about on Foxfyre's thread? I mean, seriously...

Sorry if my being a bit silly escaped you there Dook. I think it is silly to point out someone's spelling errors, which could indeed be a typo as Fox wrote. I was actually pointing out the silliness of the poster who brought it up.

Golly, we get a thread about insults and suddenly everyone gets sensitive. What is a clown to do?

My bad, then. Glad to see the Reverend HellH0und getting called out on this stupid tactic.

Well, I guess I missed most of the fun. I don't know if it's even worth it, seeing the responses so far, but I'll jump in just to point out a couple things I noticed here.

Foxfyre wrote:

I generally make uncomplimentary observations in such a way that anybody can easily opt out if they choose to do so.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. If you say something that is insulting to someone, how is the person who is insulted supposed to "opt out" of being insulted? You can't choose to not be insulted by something.

Foxfyre wrote:

The distinction comes in the 'loophole' of allowing some Conservatives to opt out of some Conservative issues and some Liberals to opt out of some Liberal issues. As Wandel said, probably none of us are 100% anything. So to say that most Liberals are this or that would not necessarily be a criticism of you personally. To say that something is 'the Liberal way' is a generalization that allows for a lot of loopholes for those willing to allow them.

Sounds to me like you're saying that if one makes an unflattering statement about a group it shouldn't be taken as a personal insult because nobody specific is targeted. By that logic, people who are insulted by the statement, "Most Mexicans smell funny," "Most women are weaker than men," and "Most people who live in the ghetto are criminals," are just missing the point.

My uncle used to say that black people are lazy and stupid. Using your logic, if he'd said that to a black person and that person got upset and called my uncle an insulting name, it would be the black person who would be in the wrong.

Foxfyre wrote:

...in the context of the quote Kicky lifted from another thread, I did not apply the generalization to ALL liberals.

Yes you did. The fact that you have backed away from that now that you've been called on it is encouraging. It shows me that you actually do see the folly in your statement. Good for you. You're learning.

Foxfyre wrote:

I hear "conservatives love war and death" and "conservatives hate people" all the time with no qualifications whatsoever. I think such comments to be completely stupid, inane, uncreative, and ignorant but not related to me personally in any way.

Another example of you agreeing with me that your original comment was silly. Or in your words, "stupid, inane, uncreative, and ignorant."

I'm so glad you've come around to see things the way they are.

Carry on.

I'll offer you the same suggestion that I made Freeduck. Just analyze the posts in this thread and see who actually argued whether the statement as you posted it is right or wrong versus those who were criticizing/insulting me for making the statement. Then assign an ideology to each one as best as you can.

Foxfyre wrote:

I'll offer you the same suggestion that I made Freeduck. Just analyze the posts in this thread and see who actually argued whether the statement as you posted it is right or wrong versus those who were criticizing/insulting me for making the statement. Then assign an ideology to each one as best as you can.

If this is your idea of unbiased, empirical research then I will have difficulty taking you seriously in the future.

Here's some advice, Fox: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

DrewDad wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I'll offer you the same suggestion that I made Freeduck. Just analyze the posts in this thread and see who actually argued whether the statement as you posted it is right or wrong versus those who were criticizing/insulting me for making the statement. Then assign an ideology to each one as best as you can.

If this is your idea of unbiased, empirical research then I will have difficulty taking you seriously in the future.

Here's some advice, Fox: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

As further illustration of my observations and point here, I think probably only a liberal would extrapolate my friendly suggestion to Kicky into "(my) idea of unbiased, empirical research". I think a conservative would be less likely to do that. What do you think?

LOL. Again, my comment was made to a specific individual within a specific context within a specific conversation. You lifted it and posted it as if it was a blanket statement and indictment of all liberals.

I generally make uncomplimentary observations in such a way that anybody can easily opt out if they choose to do so.

The distinction comes in the 'loophole' of allowing some Conservatives to opt out of some Conservative issues and some Liberals to opt out of some Liberal issues. As Wandel said, probably none of us are 100% anything. So to say that most Liberals are this or that would not necessarily be a criticism of you personally. To say that something is 'the Liberal way' is a generalization that allows for a lot of loopholes for those willing to allow them.

I hear "conservatives love war and death" and "conservatives hate people" all the time with no qualifications whatsoever. I think such comments to be completely stupid, inane, uncreative, and ignorant but not related to me personally in any way.