Leaving The Forum: Details
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2016, 11:16 AM
RE: Leaving The Forum: Details
(25-04-2016 10:59 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  First off, there is no mob mentality. What I said were my words only and weren't influenced by anyone else other than Q, while they were a "colourful" and unnecessary (I recognize that.) they were not meant to be necessary, just to express my utter disgust for what he is and what he does. I have no love for child abusers and liars, the world has more than enough of both.

Secondly, as I hope I have made clear by now, my issues with Q are not because he "doesn't agree with me" but rather that he has engaged in a campaign of lying, dishonest conversation, evasive and shifty debate, and by his own admitting has done this to children thus making him in my eyes a child abuser.
I couldn't care less if he believes in Jesus, Vishnu, or the flying spaghetti monster. It's not his beliefs that earned my ire, but his total lack of morals and the fact he seems to revel in that lack so much while acting better than people who ARE honest and who are NOT lying, NOT evasive, and NOT child abusers.

WOW! You are very, very impressive preacher of morality. Yes
I am glad that you don't believe in hell. Otherwise you would send lots and lots of people in that hot place.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2016, 11:25 AM
RE: Leaving The Forum: Details
(25-04-2016 10:59 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(25-04-2016 09:54 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  More along the lines of "go suck the fun out of a mossberg," and comments of that nature. Maybe he deserves it, I don't really know, but I hate the whole mob mentality we have going on about a lot of people that disagree with us.
First off, there is no mob mentality.
We'll agree to disagree.

Quote:What I said were my words only and weren't influenced by anyone else other than Q, while they were a "colourful" and unnecessary (I recognize that.) they were not meant to be necessary, just to express my utter disgust for what he is and what he does. I have no love for child abusers and liars, the world has more than enough of both.
I wasn't talking about you being influenced, Whiskey. I was talking about the attitude of the people who lynch first, ask questions later that has been around for a long time. You are your own brand of asshole (and I mean that in the most endearing way possible.

I'm not the only one that thinks this way. If I recall, several of my interview subjects have expressed similar misgivings about the way we treat theists or those who have dissenting opinions. Most of these comments directed toward them are tersely funny, but they still have an edge that might otherwise not be neccesary, if you get me.

Quote:Secondly, as I hope I have made clear by now, my issues with Q are not because he "doesn't agree with me" but rather that he has engaged in a campaign of lying, dishonest conversation, evasive and shifty debate, and by his own admitting has done this to children thus making him in my eyes a child abuser.
You seem to think that my comment about dissenters was about you, please reconsider this position. Like I said, you have your own special brand of terse, and for different reasons. However, I will not lie, I have seen you more terse than not lately, and frankly I don't like it too much. Of course there is nothing I can and would do to stop it, you have your way of communicating, I have mine. I like the coexistence I've managed to foster, however, this is just one of those things I wouldn't have thought too much of (Q leaving, since I've had his ass mentally written off ages ago) and would have left him to his own devices rather than fuel what is, most likely, his attention-seeking fix.

Quote:I couldn't care less if he believes in Jesus, Vishnu, or the flying spaghetti monster. It's not his beliefs that earned my ire, but his total lack of morals and the fact he seems to revel in that lack so much while acting better than people who ARE honest and who are NOT lying, NOT evasive, and NOT child abusers.

I understand that, however, it is my opinion (and I realize that you don't, nor shouldn't cater to it) that your vitriolic responses seem tasteless and so overtly hostile that it's hard to take any of what you say seriously. That's probably just me though, and once again, that's fine, far be it from me to tell you how to communicate, I was just expressing my feelings and observations.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Atothetheist's post
25-04-2016, 11:37 AM
RE: Leaving The Forum: Details
AtotheTheist, you were born in Russia?!
I sent you PM. Please, check.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2016, 11:40 AM
RE: Leaving The Forum: Details
Undecided
(25-04-2016 10:43 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(25-04-2016 09:46 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  WhiskeyDebates, I gotta say, you are a pretty caustic motherfucker, hilarious, but still caustic.

I have a simple rule, if you repeatedly lie to me you have no honour and if you have no honour you get treated like the scum you are. You are welcome to go back and read my first communications with Q, CotW, Alla, Pops, Wicked Clown, or Shane where I am perfectly polite and well reasoned.

However once they start lying it stretches my patience, I'm more than willing to engage in polite gentlemanly conversation but it's impossible when the person is willing to lie to your face, get caught lying (as all of the above have), then lie about lying and continue to lie.

At that point a person earns the vitriol. Some of these guys, like Shane for example, have even been caught lying and I have given them the benefit of the doubt only to watch them repeat the original lie and some new lies as well.
I respect that, and can see your side. However I have a different view and I was expressing that.

Quote:Q for example, and this is something I have pointed out multiple times, ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY answers any posts I make if I am caustic towards him. This is also true for Shane. Almost every time I pull back the foul language and the insults my posts are ignored, especially when they refute something they say.
It's the game he plays, he ignores every single post that's not caustic so he can point out your being such and try to steal the moral high ground.


If that is the game he plays, then he clearly is looking for that attention rather than the refutations, in affect, aren't you giving him what he wants? And who cares that he doesn't respond to your logical refutations, it's there for other people to see as well as him. If he truly is the troll that is to be believed, then you can't honestly tell me you were hoping that he is going to change his mind.

I have my own theories on Q, hence why I haven't interacted with him. I think I know what game he is playing, and I don't want any part of it. Do you?

Quote:I'll also point out I've had Pops, Shane, and CotW threaten my personal safety outside the forum but they are all still here despite it being a bannable offense, but you don't see me boo-hooing about it. Next to no one came running to my defense cause I'm a big boy and I can handle people being mean over the Internets. I also don't need people getting offended for me.

I don't see how this is relevant at all. However, I will say that you have the fortitude I wished many have, and I commend you (for however much that means to you) for being able to handle shit. I am not offended FOR Q, I'm just merely stating what I am seeing to the best of my abilities. I have never said that Q was good, just that some of the comments seemed excessive or unnecessary (I.E yours, and you agreed to that effect that it was indeed unnecessary).

Quote:I've demonstrated my willingness to be reasonable and polite many times, however I'm not required to be so to a lying, dishonest, evasive, shifty, dishonourable abuser of children. But being mean to such a person over the internet is what gets your attention? Aight.

I never said you were. I was merely stating my thoughts on the matter and the comments I've seen.

That rhetorical question strikes me as a bit dishonest. It wasn't people being mean, it was about how mean they were. You had people who, admirably so, were courteous (which in your opinion, might be unwarranted), yet were still able to make it clear that they weren't friends. There were various ranges of displeasure shown in this thread, most I would probably say is warranted. However your comment stuck me as a little bit tasteless. Funny, but tasteless. And so I made my opinions known, as have you, and as we both have the right to.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2016, 11:55 AM
RE: Leaving The Forum: Details
(25-04-2016 11:16 AM)Alla Wrote:  WOW! You are very, very impressive preacher of morality. Yes
Given that you are a lying, dishonest, evasive, dishonourable, person that likes to act like she is better than people who swear while ACTIVELY lying to them I'm not surprised that you find my stance that such a person is worse than someone who is mean to the people lying to him on the internet.

I am a better preacher of morality than you ever will be, because I'm not a dishonest liar who supports a system of systematic child abuse.

(25-04-2016 11:16 AM)Alla Wrote:  I am glad that you don't believe in hell. Otherwise you would send lots and lots of people in that hot place.
No I wouldn't actually because I recognize the inherent injustice of the concept, and it's a vile corrupt concept from primitive minds.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
25-04-2016, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2016 02:11 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Leaving The Forum: Details
Q is a "stereotypical Fundamentalist".

No one expected that he would ever change his mind about anything ... BUT his ignorant views, particularly on prophecy in the OT, and the (widely accepted, but entirely WRONG) notion that the role of a prophet was to predict the far off future, was worth a response, as many GUESTS, no doubt at least have a slight doubt planted, and a few may have actually learned, (what most mainline university Bible 101 students are taught), that the role of a prophet in Hebrew society was NOT to predict the future.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-04-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: Leaving The Forum: Details
(25-04-2016 11:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Q is a "stereotypical Fundamentalist".

No one expected that he would ever change his mind about anything ... BUT his ignorant views, particularly on prophecy in the OT, and the (widely accepted, but entirely WRONG) notion that the role of a prophet was to predict the far off future, was worth a response, as many GUESTS, no doubt at least has a slight doubt planted, and a few may have actually learned, (what most mainline university Bible 101 students are taught), that the role of a prophet in Hebrew society was NOT to predict the future.

Did you read my section concerning that in my response to Whiskey. You can refute him without being a dick. However, Whiskey states that Q only responds when Whiskey is being a dick. If the guests were the intended target, straight refutations and not vitriol would be the adequate solution. However, because there was vitriol, it can be assumed that Whiskey wants Q to discuss and dialogue, which implies that Whiskey is more focused on Q than anybody else. Q is his intended target.

If a guest were to see Whiskey's Posts towards some of the trolls, they might just consider him an asshat and moved on, never to take some of his stuff seriously. That's what I partly did. That would be counter intuitive and counter productive to benefitting guests.

As the the others, I don't see how insulting Q will help the guests be more enriched with information other than ways to insult Q.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2016, 12:23 PM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2016 12:28 PM by Alla.)
RE: Leaving The Forum: Details
(25-04-2016 11:55 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Given that you are a lying, dishonest, evasive, dishonourable, person that likes to act like she is better than people who swear while ACTIVELY lying to them I'm not surprised that you find my stance that such a person is worse than someone who is mean to the people lying to him on the internet.
I am very happy you don't believe in hell like many street preachers do.
(25-04-2016 11:55 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I am a better preacher of morality than you ever will be, because I'm not a dishonest liar who supports a system of systematic child abuse.
Yes, you are sure a better preacher of morality than I am because I don't have your experience of preaching morality. Men, you are good. Very impressive.

(25-04-2016 11:55 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(25-04-2016 11:16 AM)Alla Wrote:  I am glad that you don't believe in hell. Otherwise you would send lots and lots of people in that hot place.
No I wouldn't
It is very hard to believe.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2016, 12:32 PM
RE: Leaving The Forum: Details
(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  We'll agree to disagree.
No actually we won't, provide some evidence. A bunch of people independently attacking a person of near universal negative reputation after months of lying and dishonesty, is not an example of "mob mentality".

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I wasn't talking about you being influenced, Whiskey. I was talking about the attitude of the people who lynch first, ask questions later that has been around for a long time.
By who? Almost everyone here has been dealing with that cunt for MONTHS. My own personal history started very amicably with Q until he started issuing and repeating proven demonstrated lies. I didn't "lynch first", I genuinely wanted to educate and converse with the man, and have frequently tried to do so again in an amicable way, but that's not possible to do with someone so willing to lie and enjoy doing so.
Q earned his "lynching" by lying and being dishonest, evasive, and cunt like. He had my respect until he lost it, it's not the other way around.

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  You are your own brand of asshole (and I mean that in the most endearing way possible.
I freely admit I'm an asshole, but I'm almost exclusively an asshole to those with a demonstrated history of lying or dishonesty like Alla, Q, Pops, and others. I dislike lying, and I have no problem being a pit bull to assholes like that.

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I'm not the only one that thinks this way. If I recall, several of my interview subjects have expressed similar misgivings about the way we treat theists or those who have dissenting opinions.
I already explained this. I'm not an asshole to Q cause he is a theist nor for his opinion. I'm an asshole to Q cause he actively engages in a campaign to justify that opinion with dishonesty, evasiveness, and systematic lying.
Shane claims to be a atheist and I'm an asshole to him...because he lies. he lies often and with great zeal and then lies about telling lies.
Kingschosen is a christian and I have nothing but love and respect for him because, while I disagree with his opinion, he's honest about why he holds it and he doesn't make up a bunch of bullshit to support it.

If your interview subjects think that just cause they are christian or have a different opinion that they deserve a free pass or kiddie gloves when they lie and act dishonestly then your subjects are mistaken. They get no free pass or kiddie gloves when they go about waving the banner of lying in my face. Their beliefs have nothing to do with it.

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Most of these comments directed toward them are tersely funny, but they still have an edge that might otherwise not be neccesary, if you get me.
I get you and I have no problem with you not being an asshole to people who are systemic liars, even though I believe such men are a cancer on the world. I believe such people are vile and deserving of whatever insults are thrown their way.

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  You seem to think that my comment about dissenters was about you, please reconsider this position.
I was unsure so I clarified my position, I'm the only one you mentioned by name so i thought it need. If it was not you can safely ignore it, with no hard feelings.

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  However, I will not lie, I have seen you more terse than not lately, and frankly I don't like it too much.
Name me a person I have been intentionally aggressive to who has not actively lied to me. If such a person exists I owe them an apology and they deserve to hear it from me. I don't ask that you like it, nor am I bothered if you don't like it (to be honest I totally understand your opinion and why you think it's unnecessary, that's not an unreasonable opinion to take) however we can't all sit in the back of the class and say nothing while people go about the forum engaged in campaigns of dishonesty.

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Of course there is nothing I can and would do to stop it, you have your way of communicating, I have mine.
Mine is to treat all people with respect until such a time as they have proven they don't deserve it. You are welcome to not appose or ridicule these people but I'm not comfortable letting liars engage unchecked in such behavior.

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I understand that, however, it is my opinion (and I realize that you don't, nor shouldn't cater to it) that your vitriolic responses seem tasteless and so overtly hostile that it's hard to take any of what you say seriously. That's probably just me though, and once again, that's fine, far be it from me to tell you how to communicate, I was just expressing my feelings and observations.
No offense taken, I have no problem with nor ill will towards the tiny minority of the forum that has expressed such sentiments. That said I will point out again that next to no one batted an eye when three separate members of this forum broke the rules to threaten my physical safety outside to forum during my time here. They are still here, and I'm being chastised for not being nice to them. Well not just them obviously but the point stands.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
25-04-2016, 12:45 PM
RE: Leaving The Forum: Details
(25-04-2016 11:40 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I respect that, and can see your side. However I have a different view and I was expressing that.
And I have no problem with it, I even welcome it. A man can't keep a ship a float by himself so i welcome and value the criticism and opinion.

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  If he truly is the troll that is to be believed, then you can't honestly tell me you were hoping that he is going to change his mind.
You would be correct, though I insult him and point out his lies, and hold his feet to the fire for persons other than him.

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I have my own theories on Q, hence why I haven't interacted with him. I think I know what game he is playing, and I don't want any part of it. Do you?
That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, however harmful ideas have never been defeated and expunged by sitting around and not confronting the problem. Some of us, not just myself obviously, would rather oppose the harmful ideas alive in our world and the men that spread such sickly viruses.

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  However, I will say that you have the fortitude I wished many have, and I commend you (for however much that means to you) for being able to handle shit.
It actually means a lot, as I have a great deal of respect for you.

(25-04-2016 11:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  That rhetorical question strikes me as a bit dishonest.
Not the intention at all, I was making my point known, perhaps clumsily, that while i respect your opinion and consider it levelheaded and reasonable but my own opinion is that your priorities are frighteningly misplaced all things considered. I'm sure you will disagree and that's fine, we all have different priorities and mine direct me to the opposition of those that lie and the people who spread them as a matter of enjoyment.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: