tl;dr: + Show Spoiler +
Malfeasance in Moderation: An Evaluation of Kwark - Page 9
Forum Index > Website Feedback |
tofucake
Hyrule18829 Posts
tl;dr: + Show Spoiler + | ||
Mandini
United States1717 Posts
On October 25 2012 09:09 neversummer wrote: Clarifies nothing. Literally have no clue wtf you're talking about. NS - "clarify this statement" everyone - "here's a clarification" NS - "I don't accept this clarification, therefore I am winning this argument." Stop doing this, I really don't know how you can twist your reality to think you are winning in any sense of the word. Just take the advice of everyone and quit before you dig yourself into Disneyland. | ||
marttorn
Norway5211 Posts
On October 25 2012 09:14 neversummer wrote: yea me being a logic minor is hilarious. Will really be a detriment to me when I take the LSAT this spring. Edit: Spring, and fuck off, Frenchie. I'm afraid I can't hear you from the bottom of your hole. It has grown considerably deeper in the last page or so. Might I suggest a form of speech-enhancement, a microphone, megaphone, something of the sort? | ||
Mandini
United States1717 Posts
Are you forela? | ||
SirJolt
the Dagon Knight3995 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:59 neversummer wrote: Homosexuals are fully capable. I'm really sorry if I've missed it buried in prior pages, but I'm very curious. If you believe, as you say, that homosexuals are fully capable, why is it that you think they shouldn't be allowed work with children? | ||
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On October 25 2012 09:28 SirJolt wrote: I'm really sorry if I've missed it buried in prior pages, but I'm very curious. If you believe, as you say, that homosexuals are fully capable, why is it that you think they shouldn't be allowed work with children? He seems to have homosexuals and pedophiles confused, and hasn't really stated why this is. | ||
monk
United States8476 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:59 neversummer wrote: I feel like my verbosity in the OP has led several, less capable minds astray. Allow me to answer your question in the simplest way I can: Kwark said it was okay that he insulted that individual, because he is fully capable. Kwark banned me for insulting homosexuals (even though I did not, but that's a separate matter). Homosexuals are fully capable. I like how you keep ignoring what I had originally said and attempt to throw a thinly veiled insult at my intelligence at the same time. ^^ Ok so Kwark compared you(neversummer) to a mentally handicapped person. In this example, only the mentally handicapped person isn't "fully capable." You seem to think that this is analogous to Kwark banning you(neversummer) for insulting a homosexual, which leads you to draw the conclusion that Kwark thinks homosexuals are not "fully capable". While in reality, the analogous comparison would be you comparing homosexuals to child molesters. So I guess you don't think child molesters are capable. Poor child molesters. | ||
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
Chomos are retarded homos. | ||
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On October 25 2012 09:37 Probe1 wrote: mentally handicapped person, homosexual and child molesters are all blue. Got it boss! Chomos are retarded homos. tofucake is blue.....O.o | ||
Impervious
Canada4123 Posts
That explains a lot. | ||
brian
United States9532 Posts
| ||
tofucake
Hyrule18829 Posts
On October 25 2012 09:40 Impervious wrote: O.O That explains a lot. :\ | ||
neversummer
United States156 Posts
You spoil me. Moving on, my point was not to suggest Kwark believes homosexuals are not fully capable and therefore unjust subjects of ridicule. My point was not to suggest anything (a recurring theme here). On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote: Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult. If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended. If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this. I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Kwark said his personal attack upon that individual (who is NOT me, this appears to have led to more confusion) was justified due to the fact that individual is, in his words, "entirely able." I think it's a natural progression to assume homosexuals are fully able. I think it's even more of a natural progression to assume homosexuals are individuals. Therefore, based upon Kwark's logic, ridicule of homosexuals is justified. Let's examine Kwark's logic: Premise 1: Personal attacks are acceptable when the receiving party is "fully able." Premise 2: Homosexuals are "fully able." Conclusion: Personal attacks upon homosexuals are acceptable. Now, we can debate whether my comment constituted a personal attack on homosexuals (which I vehemently deny), or I can share with you my true implication, as explained on the first page: Although it is not relevant to the purpose of this thread, I will answer your first question because it will probably come up again. I wouldn't want gay men leading boy scout troops because I believe it may affect, or even direct, a child's behavior. Normative social influence is a very real method of socialization, and no one is more susceptible to socialization or more impressionable than a child. That is not to say homosexuality is a choice; it is merely to say a young, impressionable child may draw homosexual tendencies or homosexual behavior from a homosexual leader. Furthermore, this is NOT to say that homosexuality is wrong. It is merely to say that homosexual leadership may have unintended (which CAN be adverse, but are not REQUIRED to be) consequences and behavior modification. Yes, you misunderstood my purpose. My purpose was not to exonerate (means to prove innocent) myself from homophobic allegations. My purpose was to evaluate the moderation of Kwark. I do not believe I know the extent of his responsibilities. I believe HE does not know the extent of his responsibilities, and I have accompanied that allegation with evidence. Edit: Kwark's quote | ||
KwarK
United States40871 Posts
| ||
neversummer
United States156 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:10 KwarK wrote: That individual was also not homosexuals. He was an individual. Why do you keep thinking people are homosexuals? At most they could be a single homosexual. Let me just say this response explains a lot. I honestly do not know how to explain my point any simpler than I already have. At this point I can only wish you good luck, sir. | ||
marttorn
Norway5211 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:12 neversummer wrote: Let me just say this response explains a lot. I honestly do not know how to explain my point any simpler than I already have. At this point I can only wish you good luck, sir. I've only but one question; Why are you not comfortable with homosexuals being around 8-10 year olds Please don't refer me to any of the rambling, nonsensical vagueties which you've dealt in so far, just answer right on this page, if it pleases the little lord. edit: I can see the euthanizer was dispensed before he could formulate a reply. Thank you. | ||
KwarK
United States40871 Posts
The answer is because the individual who I insulted wasn't a group of people and that my insult was specific to them and based upon something they had done. The reason the answer is so absurd is because you're asking a really, really stupid question over and over. You are not, and never will be, homosexuals. Any protection afforded to them as a group will never apply to you as an individual. | ||
monk
United States8476 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:08 neversummer wrote: Kwark said his personal attack upon that individual (who is NOT me, this appears to have led to more confusion) was justified due to the fact that individual is, in his words, "entirely able." I think it's a natural progression to assume homosexuals are fully able. I think it's even more of a natural progression to assume homosexuals are individuals. Therefore, based upon Kwark's logic, ridicule of homosexuals is justified. Let's examine Kwark's logic: Premise 1: Personal attacks are acceptable when the receiving party is "fully able." Premise 2: Homosexuals are "fully able." Conclusion: Personal attacks upon homosexuals are acceptable. Now, we can debate whether my comment constituted a personal attack on homosexuals (which I vehemently deny), or I can share with you my true implication, as explained on the first page: Premise 1 is not correct. Nowhere in the quote you linked does Kwark imply it. He's merely suggesting that if you called someone as dumb as a mentally handicapped person, as short as a midget, or as quiet as someone in a coma, it's not an insult to the mentally handicapped person, midget, or comatose individual. According to Kwark's logic, if you called someone who just happens to be a homosexual "as dumb as a mentally handicapped person", it's not an insult to the mentally handicapped person, but it is an insult to the homosexual. That's not even to touch upon the fact that there's a difference between insulting an individual and generally a whole group of people, in your case, homosexuals. | ||
Archas
United States6531 Posts
| ||
sour_eraser
Canada932 Posts
| ||
| ||