Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
    #4936801 - 11/15/05 11:26 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Veritas, the problem here is you perceived something to be a flame which the majority of the people involved in the thread in question AND in this one do not. It's not a question of (as you say in your opening post in the thread) whether flaming limits discussions or adds to them -- that question has been settled already: flaming is not allowed, whether or not it limits discussions or adds to them.

For some reason not apparent to me (nor to many others, it appears) you, Veritas, have decided that my expression of surprise at budsicle's barefaced admission of immorality "... the leech dared to say in public," followed immediately by my philosophical take on his enslavement of others to support his existence (which, by the way, is virtually identical to your own proposed substitution) somehow constitutes "flaming".

The consensus so far would indicate that this was not in fact flaming. It's not that we support flaming -- we don't -- it's just we find Veritas's personal interpretation of what constitutes a flame to be overly broad. As fireworks_god points out, we've been down that road enough times already with the Swami situation to want to go there again.

Further, you do your argument no favors by misrepresenting the nature of the communications to which you object. An objective review of the exchanges between budsicle and myself does not reveal an instance of my writing any such string as "OK, leech-boy, your sickening lifestyle is enslaving the superior working class citizens of this country & you need to get off your lazy ass and get a job!"

Instead you will see I stated my position re parasitism, and asked (in succeeding posts) a series of reasonable questions (to which budsicle has yet to respond) in an attempt to clarify just why budsicle feels he is owed a living by the rest of us.

While budsicle didn't see fit to answer any of these questions, he did manage to burn enough of his precious time to call me a "fuckshit". May I ask the readers of this thread if calling a debating opponent a fuckshit qualifies as flaming?

As budsicle's evasions continued, my tone in prompting to him answer at least one of my questions did grow more sarcastic, true. Since when is sarcasm flaming?

As for your "personalization" tangent, let's face it -- if the user "Shorteyes" admits in a thread he is a pedophile and receives a blizzard of responses to the effect that "pedophiles are scum" and "pedophilia is one of the worst crimes I can imagine", etc., no one can pretend these judgments aren't being made against Shorteyes even if his screen name is never used. The fact that as a linguistic quibble we justify ourselves by pointing out that the third person is being used doesn't alter the fact that the respondents are indulging in "negative personalism" against Shorteyes. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Yet unless I have misunderstood your argument, you feel such linguistic gymnastics somehow evade the no flaming rule.

As I and others have pointed out, once a member moves beyond the hypothetical -- "I see nothing wrong with collecting welfare rather than working" into the personal -- "I live off welfare because I deserve it", the rules change. That member has by his own admission personalized the discussion and must therefore bear the consequences -- i.e. being accurately identified for what he is. That's not to say it is okay to call him an asshole or a fuckwit -- clearly it is not okay, because that would be flaming him. But it is perfectly acceptable to point out that he is a parasite because he is by definition a self-admitted parasite (or "leech", in the vernacular).

If you choose to continue to buck the consensus, that is of course your right. But as fireworks_god pointed out so adroitly earlier, if we follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, we end up once again at the whole "but he intended to make me sad," mess that prompted the forum split in the first place.





Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: Flaming [Re: Phred]
    #4936850 - 11/15/05 11:42 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Da Rules said:
You can say pretty much anything you want as a spiritual or philosophical idea -- you can even espouse ideas most people would find ludicrous or repugnant.

What you can't do is attack the person making the ludicrous or repugnant statements.

You can bring to bear all your rhetorical skills and articulate arguments in an attempt to expose the idea under discussion as ludicrous, repugnant or whatever -- as a matter of fact you are encouraged to do so -- but the acceptable method is to direct all your weaponry at the idea being presented, not at the one presenting the idea.




Example of directing weaponry/comments at the one presenting the idea:

Quote:

Phred said:
News flash, leech-boy -- you're not superior to those who support themselves, you're decidedly inferior.





Examples of directing weaponry/comments at the ideas:

Quote:

Redstorm said:
I have absolutely no problem with people not working, or working in nonconventional ways. When one chooses a lifestyle like this, though, they must except the financial hardship that may come with it. Most people are rational, and realize that it will be hard to gain a good enough living expense by either being unemployed, or small-plot farming for subsistence. This can be combated by the farmer joining a co-op, or the unemployed person finding a source of income that is based on some sort of labor completed by the person.

I apologize for the harsh language I used earlier towards you, Budsicle.





Quote:

schapper said:
I'm with ya Redstorm, I too apologize for my comments, Budsicle.

I also definitely don't hold it against anyone for pulling off an alternative lifestyle. I don't think that anyone here actually would...in fact I'm jealous of the people that can.

I had been following this thread from the beginning and felt no need to respond because I don't hold it against anyone for doing this, but it just seemed that yesterday what I "perceived" to be arrogance got the better of me and I lashed out. I realized last night that it was whats inside of me and not the views Budsicle has that made this response in me happen. I guess, for me, it was a good thing to happen in the fact the we can always learn from our mistakes.

Thanks for being Human enough to apologize first Redstorm, thus making it easier for me to spit this sour taste out of my mouth and follow your lead.





P.S. I did not "quote" you as having said "OK, leech-boy, your sickening lifestyle is enslaving the superior working class citizens of this country & you need to get off your lazy ass and get a job!"

I prefaced this with "If I said..." and wrote it to include all of the personalisms which followed your original "leech" comment, not merely your comments.

IMO your use of personalisms gave others permission to begin a feeding frenzy, so I created an amalgam sentence of all the comments posters made to budsicle.


Edited by Veritas (11/15/05 12:39 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
    #4936930 - 11/15/05 12:17 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Veritas writes:

Quote:

Example of directing weaponry at the one presenting the idea:

Quote:

Phred said:
News flash, leech-boy -- you're not superior to those who support themselves, you're decidedly inferior.




Nice attempt at taking a fragment of an argument out of context. Here is the exchange in its entirety --

budsicle --" "good citizens" will feel satisfied by the system, they dont feel it so repressive and suffocatin... primitive and low intented attitudes imposed by the western culture has been and is such a pain in the ass that the least they can do is pay me welfare, its absurd idea that i should work to keep up this shithole instead of spending my time free exploring and searching for anything fun and perhaps changing peoples attitudes while at it."

Phred: "What are you saying? That you're so much more sensitive than the rest of us you should not be subject to the same laws of reality the rest of us are? Your "sensitivity" gives you a mortgage on the lives of the rest of us? With every post you illustrate more clearly your superiority complex. News flash, leech-boy -- you're not superior to those who support themselves, you're decidedly inferior."

When someone recklessly flings such unsubstantiated semi-coherent charges as "...primitive and low intented attitudes imposed by the western culture has been and is such a pain in the ass that the least they can do is pay me welfare,"

and

"its absurd idea that i should work to keep up this shithole,"

in an attempt to establish his superiority over those who make his continued existence possible, does this not invite a response disabusing him in no uncertain terms of his misperceived superiority? The fact is (and yes, Veritas, it is a fact) that he is not superior. Quite the reverse.

Or would it have been okay with Veritas if I had said something like

"News flash, welfare manipulator -- welfare cheats are not superior to those who support themselves, they're decidedly inferior,"

and we could all pretend to ourselves that I wasn't dissing budsicle specifically, I was just making some unconnected statement about generic welfare fraud artists? Because if that's the point you're trying to beat to death, I'd be perfectly happy to substitute the above for my original sentence. No one's being fooled but if it eases your sensitivities I'm willing to go back and edit the post in which the exchange occurred.

As for your two carefully selected examples of "directing weaponry at the ideas", I suppose it's nothing more than coincidence that they are not in fact directing weapons at all but agreeing it's okay to leech off others.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: Flaming [Re: Phred]
    #4936942 - 11/15/05 12:22 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

"does this not invite a response disabusing him in no uncertain terms of his misperceived superiority?"

Yes. Invites, asks for, RSVP.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: Flaming [Re: Phred]
    #4936981 - 11/15/05 12:36 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Sorry, but calling someone "leech-boy" is not an argument against his ideas.

I can see that you are very convinced of your righteousness in this matter, and disinterested in discussing the larger issue of whether we should be focusing on other posters AT ALL. (As opposed to addressing remarks towards their ideas.)

Your rewording efforts do not alter the fact that your remarks were addressed, not to the issue of whether welfare fraud is ethical/moral, but to the qualities/lifestyle of the person proposing the idea that welfare fraud is NOT unethical or immoral.

My request was that we debate ideas, not personal qualities. If that is not possible, unpopular, not supported by the administration/moderation of this site, etc...then so be it.

IMO mudslinging is not philosophical debate. Perhaps this is not popular opinion, but the forum rules do seem to direct us to avoid both outright "flaming" and personalisms. If this is not the case, perhaps a full revision of the forum rules is in order. My position is not based on hypersensitivity, but what I read in the rules.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
    #4937058 - 11/15/05 12:55 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

you know what...i haven't read shit on this thread...

but fuck the consensus bullshit phred...

horse shit.

THE LEECH....that is a derogative label placed onto that man...it's obviously derogatory because he said "dare say in public."

like how fucking dare you speak you shitty little leech.


see? but i guess he wasn't speaking to the poster...but just about leeches?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
    #4937060 - 11/15/05 12:56 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
I can see that you are very convinced of your righteousness in this matter, and disinterested in discussing the larger issue of whether we should be focusing on other posters AT ALL. (As opposed to addressing remarks towards their ideas.)




It is obvious that everyone's expressed ideas are associated with the poster themself. Above that, if they specificially refer to their own personal life and such a reference is intricately linked with the ideas they are presenting, then it automatically follows that such aspects of what they feel to be themselves have been presented for debate.

I cannot imagine this forum if we were to not focus on other posters AT ALL, especially on points that those very same posters present to everyone else to discuss. Why should we even distinguish ourselves from each other with various usernames if such were to be the case? This forum should just be random thoughts by unknown?

Quote:


Your rewording efforts do not alter the fact that your remarks were addressed, not to the issue of whether welfare fraud is ethical/moral, but to the qualities/lifestyle of the person proposing the idea that welfare fraud is NOT unethical or immoral.




The issue of whether or not welfare fraud is ethical/moral was never presented. The qualities/lifestyle of the person is exactly what was presented by the person himself. If this was not the case, then that twelve page post would have never been sparked, am I not mistaken? He specifically presented the virtues of his lifestyle in a thread about work and he presented it as being his lifestyle, thus proposing it for open debate.

Quote:


IMO mudslinging is not philosophical debate.




It might not be, but this specific example was not mudslinging. :grin:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
    #4937089 - 11/15/05 01:10 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sorry, but calling someone "leech-boy" is not an argument against his ideas.




What about calling him "welfare-manipulator"? Even though he is a self-admitted welfare cheat he is to be addressed as some neutral arguer presenting hypotheticals? Please!

Quote:

I can see that you are very convinced of your righteousness in this matter, and disinterested in discussing the larger issue of whether we should be focusing on other posters AT ALL. (As opposed to addressing remarks towards their ideas.)




And you appear to be very convinced of your righteousness in this matter, and disinterested in addressing the concept of (if I may coin a phrase) "flaming at one remove". Would you care to comment on my example a few posts above of the mythical pedophilic poster "Shorteyes"? If not, why not?

Do you not grasp that substituting the phrase "welfare cheats are not superior to those who support themselves, they're decidedly inferior," for the original "you're not superior to those who support themselves, you're decidedly inferior," when discussing the point with a self-professed welfare cheat isn't fooling anyone? It just involves hitting more keys.

Quote:

Your rewording efforts do not alter the fact that your remarks were addressed, not to the issue of whether welfare fraud is ethical/moral, but to the qualities/lifestyle of the person proposing the idea that welfare fraud is NOT unethical or immoral.




And where, pray tell, did budsicle propose what he was doing was not immoral? I've read through his comments several times and as best I can decipher his fractured syntax he seems to be professing he is above such petty concerns as morality -- or that the morality which applies to the producers does not apply to the parasites, I'm not sure which.

Did that one remark of mine you chose to highlight directly address the immorality of welfare fraud the act as opposed to welfare frauds the individuals? No, it did not. But virtually every other point I brought up in my many posts on the matter did. I treated the matter seriously, budsicle brushed my points off as irrelevant to him. He didn't debate the ideas I raised at all -- he personalized it from the very beginning. Budsicle is above all that, you see -- he deserves welfare as the least we can do.

Your proposed strictures are unreasonable and (in the case of "flaming at one remove") hypocritical.

Quote:

My position is not based on hypersensitivity, but what I read in the rules.




My point exactly. What you read into the rules.

If you feel the "no flaming" restriction should be broadened to the point where critical debate becomes impossible the moment someone drops the "I" bomb ("I am a pedophile so I resent you dissing pedophiles") into the debate to shut it down, you are of course free to make a suggestion in the sticky post at the top of the forum titled " New Rules for the Philosophy & Spirituality forum: your help needed!" Who knows? You may even get some support for your position.

Or we could just adopt the MR&P forum rules and save us all the effort.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
    #4937203 - 11/15/05 01:36 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

IMO mudslinging is not philosophical debate. Perhaps this is not popular opinion, but the forum rules do seem to direct us to avoid both outright "flaming" and personalisms. If this is not the case, perhaps a full revision of the forum rules is in order. My position is not based on hypersensitivity, but what I read in the rules.


Full revision of the forum rules is in order? Propose away...


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Flaming [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #4937226 - 11/15/05 01:42 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

What we need is not bureaucracy but effective leadership...and maybe better members.

fucking shroomerites.

fighting can be good though...it just depends on how you view it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: Flaming [Re: TameMe]
    #4937274 - 11/15/05 01:52 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

"What we need is not bureaucracy but effective leadership...and maybe better members.

fucking shroomerites.

fighting can be good though...it just depends on how you view it."

That is about as vague as can be. Care to elaborate on just what you think it would take to have more "effective leadership" and "better members" on the Shroomery?


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Flaming [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #4937290 - 11/15/05 01:57 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

no i don't care to.

-sorry

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: Flaming [Re: Phred]
    #4937490 - 11/15/05 02:53 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

You know, Phred, I think I have taken this whole situation way too seriously.

If budsicle has a problem, he can take it up with you or with the moderators of this forum.  Same goes for anyone else who resents personal remarks being made about what they choose to share in any thread here.

Obviously, I need a break from this scene.  Sometimes it is a relief to get caught up in the drama here, and forget about my "real life" dramas, but in this case I think I've been here too much.

See ya'll later...much later.

:heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
    #4937863 - 11/15/05 04:10 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

awww....

i will miss you.

peace.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirgilKane
Miner for truth and delusion
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/17/05
Posts: 1,131
Loc: lowdown
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
    #4937941 - 11/15/05 04:23 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

As for your two carefully selected examples of "directing weaponry at the ideas", I suppose it's nothing more than coincidence that they are not in fact directing weapons at all but agreeing it's okay to leech off others.




Uh, not to  :beatadeadhorse: or anything, BUT I do not agree that it's OK to leech off of others.  It's my fault that this is unclear in my second post.  I stated my true thoughts in my first post, but felt like shit for getting caught up in the drama that resulted from Budsicles attitude and unleashing on him.  I totally disagree with his philosophy, but his attitude is his problem and mine is mine and I shouldn't have let his get the better of me.  My reasoning for saying that I "had followed the thread from the start and not feeling the need to reply" was because my feelings were being stated by just about everyone else. Sorry for the confusion.

And I know that I shouldn't speak for Redstorm, but I didn't get an inkling from his post that he accepts Budsicle's actions either.  What I saw was not him agreeing with Budsicles actions, but offering alternitives to living an alternative lifestyle without being parasitic to others who do work and pay taxes.


--------------------
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense...

"Religion is a defense against a religious experience"
              Carl G. Jung

 
"So really, ordinary reality is a kind of chemical habit, sanctioned by culture, which says it's okay to use certain drugs, eat certain foods, and have certain sexual behaviors. However, when you transcend all this pre-conditioning by returning to the original wisdom of the animal body, then you discover this immense dimension of opportunity. For some people, it is a frightening risk. To me, that's the psychedelic experience."
Terence McKenna

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnom
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 9 months, 28 days
Re: Flaming [Re: Veritas]
    #4938014 - 11/15/05 04:40 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

If you've lost the fun in taking Shroomery things serious it is time to take a break. Same goes for all things in life you can take a break from.

Enjoy your break and don't make it too long! A few hours might be enough  :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Welfare
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Demon 8,586 114 02/26/03 04:43 AM
by z@z.com
* Debunkism as a Lifestyle
( 1 2 3 all )
ShroomismM 4,536 42 09/23/05 12:12 AM
by fireworks_god
* No one can make you feel inferior...
( 1 2 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 1,814 37 08/03/05 03:54 PM
by Icelander
* DNA and Inferior Humans
( 1 2 all )
EvilGir 2,860 24 12/19/03 11:13 PM
by chemkid
* lifestyle choices Anonymous 908 7 11/22/01 12:43 AM
by Kid
* Word up on flaming! WARNING Anonymous 845 5 01/02/03 09:11 PM
by Shroomism
* Spiritual prospects of a Hedonistic lifestyle Servator 1,037 5 10/03/02 03:04 PM
by In(di)go
* Mudvayne and IN FLAMES Concert (Energy)
( 1 2 all )
fireworks_godS 2,178 26 03/28/03 09:45 AM
by fireworks_god

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,546 topic views. 1 members, 12 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.