Zee 2021 Random Meme Thread

Oh, I have no illusions about what I am trying to communicate using that avatar.

My point to Lanz, et al, is that getting offended, or at least mentioning offense taken for one thing, but not another offensive thing is also disingenuous and I called him on it. I find it ludicrous that anyone on this board, after 15 years, would even comment on the offensiveness of the photo that prompted Lanz to fall into a dead faint.

I must have missed that...

Context matters.

That is why saying put the dam upstream is not the same as saying dammit.

And what does that have to do with "falling into a dead faint"?

Well, if not a dead faint, it certainly sent him into some sort of apoplectic fit. I mean ..., of all things posted on WF over the years - hell, things Lanz himself has posted is way worse than that pic.

Or, are you just arguing with me because you're being a dick again?

I'm not seeing the apoplectic fit either.

It seems to me that you are resorting to blatant, major, unjustified exaggeration in order to try to make some kind of point, because you didn't like someone calmly pointing out a fact. IOW, a rather emotional reaction to something that was not, in fact, emotional. (Lanz didn't even say he was against it, or that he disapproved. He merely pointed out that it was crude and was using sex as a selling point.)

Why do you feel the need to resort to that kind of exaggeration? Are you just trying to be mean to Lanz because you don't like him, and that's why you're misrepresenting him so wildly? Or do you think that that kind of mischaracterization of someone somehow adds something to the validity of your own point of view?

It seems to me that you choose to defend any singular statement by anyone (right leaning of course) that proclaims a sense of "decency" that you agree with. But, if someone opposes that proclamation of decency, you feel attacked and need to jump in and defend the decency of that post, but you never seem to jump in and remark when that same person says something offensive. You are all over me when I insult someone, but when it's one of those who share your "sense of decency", you say nothing. Why is that?

This has been your schtick for as long as I've posted here. Anytime I call out a poster for being hypocritical, you must jump in and defend that poster's honor.

Look, I don't care about your personal morals. I don't intend any disrespect of your morals. What I do intend is to call out posters on their hypocrisy. Something you choose not to do when their "moral" comments are in line with your morality.

Call me out on my hypocrisy when you see it. I may argue at the time, but I guarantee, I will think more on it than Lanz or anyone else you defend will evaluate their own hypocrisy.

Thank you for getting it.

And I'm not the only one who sees the hypocrisy of Lanz's statement.

Then it "seems to you" wrong. I'm not arguing at all about decency here. That was the farthest thing from my mind. It is entirely in your mind. Can you point out anywhere that I have defended Lanz or his ideas on "decency" in this thread?

I am only dealing with methods of debate, and rules of logic, and what actually makes a valid point and what doesn't. Right now, that's about all I'm interested in. I started off by pointing out the fallacy of claiming that the medium of a communication negates the idea that is communicated. That is all.

So by attempting to make it about "decency", you are changing the subject. Radically.

Why do you do that? Is communication theory not something that interests you? It certainly is something that interests me.

Q.v. Marshall McLuhan.

That "moving the goalposts" technique is a favorite among the Rightists or, really, anyone who can't sustain an argument. It isn't usually quite this transparent, though.

So, it's because I exaggerate that's got your dander up?

pfft.

No one ever on wordforge has ever exaggerated anything.

Well, there was that guy dayton, but he wasn't much of anything.

Actually, I have never noticed it to be associated particularly with one side or the other of the political spectrum.

And I certainly wouldn't classify Jenee as a "rightist".

Why do you assume it "got my dander up"? I pointed out that it is a logical error, a failure to communicate clearly.

If a teacher points out that a student made an error on a maths test, does that mean that the student "got the teacher's dander up"?

It seems to me that such an unjustified assumption is also a hinderance to correct communication. You cannot carry on a meaningful dialog with someone when you regularly impute motives to him or her without objective evidence of such motives.

I think the Cruella Deville movie is a terrible idea, but...

That skunk is an admittedly confused sex predator harassing a clearly uncomfortable cat. How do you think sexual assault is a fun topic for children's cartoons?

Oh yeah.

That was my point. She's adopting the worst habits of the Right. Or she simply has a tendency to flame out when her scrambled thought process is challenged.

And now you're doing the same thing of which you accuse me.

I put up an offensive avatar, knowing it's offensive, then get upset when people get offended.

Which ..., your accusation was false.

But, then you do the same.

You a big deal of a minor issue, knowing you're making a big deal of a minor issue, then get upset because I tell you you're making a big deal of a minor issue.

Lanz was being hypocritical. I called him on it. Anything further is just you really trying to be a dick.

Why do you say that? Do you get upset because people find it offensive? If so, why? Why get upset when people react the way you intended for them to react?

Which accusation was that?

Why do you assume I'm upset? I already asked you that, and you failed to answer. Merely repeating it does not answer why you think I am upset. (Especially as I am not. When I get into communication theory, that is one of the least emotional subjects to me.)

Why do you assume that? You claimed (or at least certainly appeared to claim) that the medium of a communication somehow negates the communication. Since I have seen that (erroneous) point made so many times, I decided to ask about it. I find that claim so ludicrous that I would love to hear someone defend it logically, but have never seen anyone do it.

It is also interesting to note that your two basic reactions to people disagreeing with you are to tell them not to post, and to insult them. The first is contrary to the whole nature of a discussion board, and the second is another logical fallacy.

And why do you think that male sex organs are primarily characterized by "sticking in where they are not wanted"? Have your sexual experiences been overwhelmingly unfavourable? If so, then I feel sorry for you.

I guess we could call it Before Jesus.

Oh, wait...

I don't get upset. You brought it up in a previous post. Which is why I'm referencing it here as a example. But, if you don't wish to use that example, fine. Let's not. I'm cool either way.

Uhmmm ... exactly what I said above which you seem to be confused by. So, as I said, let's just not use that example as it seems to make your head hurt.

Just based on your response. If you're not, you're not.

My apologies. I have now - in the response just above this one.

This is why I think you are upset. You seem fixated on the fact that I'm repeating something but not answering something - which I've already said, was just an oversight. Didn't think it was something that was necessary to the conversation.

I don't understand this statement. What is one of the least emotional subjects for you in communication theory?

What? when did I do this?

What point?

What claim?

Uhm... I think that may be a bit of an exaggeration. I don't disagree that I have said those things, but it's not always. And, it's not as if I'm constantly telling someone die in a fire. And, I'm not the only one on the board who does so. So, why single me out?

Cuz, that just would totally shut the whole board down - if I, singlehandedly, prevented anyone from ever posting again. And ..., not sure how insulting them is a logical fallacy as a general statement. It's possible a few of my insults have been, but without a specific example, your statement makes no sense.

I didn't say that. I said that was another aspect of using male genitalia as an insult as opposed to female genitalia.

Well, that's a bit personal, but, I've never been to shy away from personal. My middle name is TMI. So, to answer your question, no.

No need for all that.