Originally posted by Quincy
[1]You're an interesting guy. [2]It's strange, you seem to get needlessly flustered when someone says something to you or responds to you.
This amounts to 2 things and I numbered them to make it easier to call attention to those 2 things:
1. Patronizing. As though you hold an imaginary position higher than I do to find me interesting such as a scientist examining an animal or a parent watching their child do things.
2. Using different words for "U mad."
Both of those things do not progress a conversation. It seeks to create contention. I can understand why people get upset with me because I point out horribly formed logic or misunderstanding. But to respond with childish content like this loses focus on the topic and turns it into a pissing match. If you want that, we can skip the actual content and I'll straight to calling you a poopooface.
Here's the problem with your approach:
Just because someone's argument is strong does not mean that they are "mad, bro." If you always assume everyone is angry and furious on the internet, you're going to have a bad time.
Originally posted by Quincy
I mean, I explained my response, and my response is not an acceptable response to you.
You're most likely referring to multiple responses, here, not just a single response, which contributes to a confusing wording in what you're actually trying to state, here. But, I can catch the drift of it. The problem is not the original response and then your explanation of your original response. The problem is you responded with the same thing but then added some strawman stuff again. To put it more simply and to illustrate where you are confused, You said blue, I said "you misunderstood. This isn't about blue. This is about 24." So you responded, "I said blue because blue is blue. Oh, and you're a doodoo head for false reason watermelon."
Originally posted by Quincy
You seem pretty smart, and clearly you've utilized a thesaurus in your long lifetime and your vocabulary is impressive,
Another "using words to confuse me" comment. Red said something similar.
Originally posted by Quincy
but you don't seem able to recognize my point at the absurdity of your question.
Just the opposite. You don't seem to understand why your grouping and labeling does not really fit. In other words, you still have yet to grasp my original point with the rhetorical question you were not supposed to answer.
Originally posted by Quincy
I thought it was pretty clear, but if I can't get through to you without you getting a little defensive, I guess I'm not explaining it correctly.
Here is your problem: you assume I'm getting defensive when that isn't the case. In fact, I'd say that almost no content in my replies are defensive: they are offensive. I am deconstructing and showing the factual issues with your "response." That's not "defense": that's offense.
Originally posted by Quincy
I mean, were you just asking rhetorically how a celebrity would ever feel the need to drug and molest somebody? You get what my response is, right?
Yeah, it seems like the issue is I'm already on #10 and you're still stuck on #2 but you have confused the idea of me for being on #10 as me still being stuck on #1. The real issues are I'm thinking, "Dude, come up here. You're still stuck back there." And you're thinking, "Man, he does not understand #1. How can get get #2?"
Originally posted by The_Tempest
This is heading towards a private message entitled "The Calm," I can feel it...Anywho, the notion that Bill is a [former?] serial rapist perturbs me. I shall disregard such allegations until proof has been made available.
15 allegations have been made and he, apparently, settled privately in 2006 with one of the allegations.
Hey man, I'm sorry if I upset you. I didn't mean to patronize you. And find, we are agree - you are being offensive.
But to be fair, my question was "wait were you being rhetorical?" A simple "Oh yeah man, obviously I understand that even someone who can have sex on the regular is capable of raping someone."
But all of that extra stuff is fine too. I guess that's just the way you speak. It can be pretty hard to follow. You dont have to belittle me for it.
I'm genuinely impressed with your vocabulary man, I'm not trying to backhand compliment you or something. Its actually astounding.
But all this comes down to is you getting upset (and I know upset isn't the right word) that I said that rape isn't purely a sexual crime. And you didn't really "attack me" for it, but you kind of jumped on me and said that the point I was saying "doesn't matter" and "is irrelevant."
WTF, when the hell has Cosby ever been accused of doing anything harsher than eating a Pudding Pop? I went back and read over some of the people here believing these allegations, but what about his track record? Like WTF??? All this BS about scared to tell the truth, and all of that BS. Bigger people than the Cos have been tossed into the can for doing these kinds of things to people. If he comes out and says he did it, then that will be what happened, but as far as anyone knows, these females could actually be looking for a pay out. I understand that it could be true, but i also believe in Not guilty until proven otherwise. F@*k.
Originally posted by Quincy
Hey man, I'm sorry if I upset you. I didn't mean to patronize you. And find, we are agree - you are being offensive.But to be fair, my question was "wait were you being rhetorical?" A simple "Oh yeah man, obviously I understand that even someone who can have sex on the regular is capable of raping someone."
But all of that extra stuff is fine too. I guess that's just the way you speak. It can be pretty hard to follow. You dont have to belittle me for it.
I'm genuinely impressed with your vocabulary man, I'm not trying to backhand compliment you or something. Its actually astounding.
But all this comes down to is you getting upset (and I know upset isn't the right word) that I said that rape isn't purely a sexual crime. And you didn't really "attack me" for it, but you kind of jumped on me and said that the point I was saying "doesn't matter" and "is irrelevant."
Is this the part where we rip our clothes off and touch our wieners together?
I promise not to drug you, first. awesome
Seriously, I promise, I was not upset nor am I ever upset in these types of conversations. I enjoy discussions like these.
Originally posted by Stoic
..but as far as anyone knows, these females could actually be looking for a pay out. I understand that it could be true, but i also believe in Not guilty until proven otherwise. F@*k.
Bardock42, I would appreciate if you could comment on this line of reasoning. Is it not harmful to assume women are just looking for a payout from a celebrity? But, also, I think what Stoic says here has merit: a payout happened in 2006 and the details are not being released. Is it possible that others have jumped on the bandwagon to get a payout simply because Cosby was making a break-out again?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Bardock42, I would appreciate if you could comment on this line of reasoning. Is it not harmful to assume women are just looking for a payout from a celebrity? But, also, I think what Stoic says here has merit: a payout happened in 2006 and the details are not being released. Is it possible that others have jumped on the bandwagon to get a payout simply because Cosby was making a break-out again?
People can't just jump to conclusions, and believe everything that is told to them. If this is the level that we are on, we may as well bring back Witch hunts.
Originally posted by Bentley
Are you implying that people that get upset in discussions are inferior to you? biscuits
If you choose to apply gradients of goodness to states of upsetness, calmness, and enjoyment; with the qualities being bad, indifferent, and good (respectively); then, yes, my enjoyment would be a superior state of being compared to those that get upset. Something something Buddhism.
I always gave, Cosby the benefit of the doubt through out the years when it came to the rape accusations. However, considering that there are still people speaking out decades later and, Cosby refuses to speak candidly on the subject concerns me enough to no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. Although, It's not important to me one way or the other.