PirateNews and Child Porn
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Thursday, December 7, 2006 16:42
VIEWED: 36438
PAGE 15 of 17
BDN- My dsl has been acting like dialup and this is a LOOOONG thread. Got time for only one point, I'll get to the rest later:
My comments on Hero's character. Not ad hominem, in fact it is directly related to the discussion at hand. WHY would Hero contact (or threaten to contact) the FBI over a picture that was clearly not child porn? My comments speak to motive, Your Honor... always an important part of a crime.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A warning to conspiracy theorists everywhere: just because someone is evil and acts out of evil intent, doesn't mean that their actions are coordinated or make sense even to themselves. Evil is nothing if not opportunistic.
Originally posted by SignyM:
WHY would Hero contact (or threaten to contact) the FBI over a picture that was clearly not child porn?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BDN: Point by point-
You claimed this was straw man:
Quote:Just to pick up a few examples of Hero's vigorous (and underhanded) defense of Foley, hereare two outright lies that he tossed in
So we have someone on-board (Hero) who will defend to the death the right of an adult to "groom" and harass the underaged but who will inform the FBI about posted pix.
Quote:
(1) And lets not forget a certain Democratic congressman who was given a standing ovation on the House floor by Pelosi and her Democrats after being censured for having sex with a 17 year-old page.
(2) Now the FBI is saying that the e-mails and IMs provided by the liberal interest group were edited for content.
YOu said these were ad hominem:
Quote:As I said, it speaks to motive.
I have NEVER trusted Hero. He horn-dogs after war widows, can barely smother the rage against his ex and her boyfriend, and likes to intimidate people. He's the perfectly noxious combination of fear and bullying. But altho Hero has been exposed as a Alliance mole, I don't intend to pay it any mind.
Hero- IMHO altho what PN posted was disturbing in my view it was not "obscene". The only emotions it aroused in me was horror and pity. But what you saw in the picture was what you brought to it: an inability to deal with sexual relations from anything other than a position of intimidation. I haven't forgotten about the time you "joked" (yeah, ha ha) about calling in Homeland Security on your ex's new boyfriend and having him rousted at 2 AM. You give breaks to Marines but throw the book at a mentally retarded kid. You use the law for your personal power. This is just another one of those little games that you like to play.
I don't know what planet you're living on. Hero, as far as I'm concerned you're on some kind of kinky personal power trip, and you abuse your job. I knew someone like you. The DOJ was very interested in him.
As far as the topic changes are concerned... If you re-read what I posted, I don't have a problem with topic changes per se, just with topic changes that people toss in to avoid conceding a point. You know, you get to the point of a conundrum and the next response is "Mmmm boy howdy! Lookit that weather!" If anyone was conceding anything it was Hero. In Turns out there may be another side after all www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24469 Hero stopped responding after he was called in his big fat obvious lies. In THIS thread you may have noticed that Hero simply refused to respond to the examples I provided of "child porn or not?" as well as to Rue's extensive - and more honest- quote of the law.
The crickets were chirping, the trees were sighing in the breeze, the stars were sparkling in the night sky... I was filling in the empty spots where Hero's replies should have been. I would have been extremely happy if Hero had actually addressed either point, but he kind of slunk away.
The only hand-grenade that I tossed in was about the GOP, which was uncalled for.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey asswipe (It's a good name, and it fits more than one person here)
Ironically, Zero STARTED with this ad hominem attack with these first words of the entire thread:
"In a recent thread PirateNews, well known for his crazy talk, driving while intoxicated, and tinfoil hats.."
As to what is the point of discussion, when two posters are discussing another poster (as in discussion ABOUT Zero between posters) any opinion is relevant to THAT discussion, and not an ad hominem attack.
IF they were attacking Zero as part of their discussion of HIS topic, then it would be.
You may not have noticed. but there were several legitimate discussions going on in this thread. Your attempt to somehow limit the discussion to YOUR preferred topics and invalidate any other freely entered discussion is revolting. And arrogant. And trollish. And says a whole lot about who you are.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ironically, Zero STARTED with this ad hominem attack with these first words of the entire thread:
"In a recent thread PirateNews, well known for his crazy talk, driving while intoxicated, and tinfoil hats.."
Why you keep bringing up Hero in this discussion is beyond me. Several posters on occasion engage in questionable debate tactics in this forum. OTOH, those same posters are not posting in another thread about their distaste for such practices. Kind of like the difference between a Reaver and an Operative. One consistantly attacks head-on (you know what your going to get) while the other sidles up sideways with a smile. Either way you still end up dead.
Quote:
As to what is the point of discussion, when two posters are discussing another poster (as in discussion ABOUT Zero between posters) any opinion is relevant to THAT discussion, and not an ad hominem attack.
IF they were attacking Zero as part of their discussion of HIS topic, then it would be.
So in your opinion it was not an ad hominem attack, it was flame baiting. SignyM made no such mention about distaste of flame baiting in her original post so in this case no hypocricy exists and I must apologize.
Quote:
You may not have noticed. but there were several legitimate discussions going on in this thread. Your attempt to somehow limit the discussion to YOUR preferred topics and invalidate any other freely entered discussion is revolting. And arrogant. And trollish. And says a whole lot about who you are.
Now it is YOU employing the straw man. It was SignyM and to a lesser extent YOU who wanted to limit the discussion in this thread to the present topic. I called SignyM on something and was more than willing to back up my claim of hypocricy when invited.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ironically, Zero STARTED with this ad hominem attack with these first words of the entire thread:
"In a recent thread PirateNews, well known for his crazy talk, driving while intoxicated, and tinfoil hats.."
Yeah, I said it. Oh yes I did (shakes finger at screen).
Do you all remember the 'PirateNews must go' thread or the long discussion he and I had about whether or not DUI laws conflict with the 'Gangsta Govment's' Constitution? And read PN's posts and tell me the descriptive term 'crazy talk' doesn't apply...its a legal term, I used it in court to describe similar rantings by a self-styled Freeman objecting to the State's oppressive requirement that people have licenses to drive.
I admit the tinfoil hat comment was unsupported by precedent or evidence. I apologize. Although I doubt he can hear my apology through the tinfoil pj's he wears to bed or the plastic wrap and duct tape he covers his computer with to block our tracking signals.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And I was more than happy to reply. However, you're ignoring both my original post AND my reply. What I originally said was
You may not have noticed. but there were several legitimate discussions going on in this thread. Your attempt to somehow limit the discussion to YOUR preferred topics and invalidate any other freely entered discussion is revolting. And arrogant. And trollish. And says a whole lot about who you are.- Rue
Now it is YOU employing the straw man. It was SignyM and to a lesser extent YOU who wanted to limit the discussion in this thread to the present topic. I called SignyM on something and was more than willing to back up my claim of hypocricy when invited.-BDN
Quote:. These threads follow a line of conversation like an ox pissing ... in other words, pretty much all over the map. Many topic changes are plain shift in interest. But many topic changes are introduced simply to avoid issues, conclusions, or concessions.
I DO, however, care HOW they debate. Misrepresenting what someone else has said, straw-man arguments, ad hominem... and the thing that drive me craziest: changing the topic to avoid conceding a point
I'm more than happy to pursue "what is child porn, did the posted picture meet that definition, should law enforcement be notified?" with Hero.. that WAS the point of his post... but he's not willing to discuss this with me. He'd MUCH rather talk about PN!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You may not have noticed. but there were several legitimate discussions going on in this thread. Your attempt to somehow limit the discussion to YOUR preferred topics and invalidate any other freely entered discussion is revolting. And arrogant. And trollish. And says a whole lot about who you are.
Golly gee whiz, what took ya so long ?
Again, you all are playing their game, going back and forth, tit for tat, letting them drag down and dismantle anything that looks like reasonable discussion instead of typical rightwing radio show shouted blather, intended on overcoming facts and logic with volume.
They ARE Trolls, and it's time to admit this fact instead of trying to reason with them and thus allowing them to bait you into this crap - they don't debate, they don't discuss, they PRETEND to do these things while working towards the destruction of the topic because they do not like the realities behind it.
As these 3-4 trolls and their myriad of sockpuppets have been allowed free run, less and less people come here and/or participate in the discussions, and thread after thread after thread winds up, well.... just like this.
And that pisses me off, it means they're winning, and have damned near totally crushed anything even remotely resembling reasonable discussion around here - your average thread here sees maybe, MAYBE 12 of us post to it, and often it's more like five or six because these goons and their tactics have done run off everybody else.
Fucking ignore them, don't play their game, and in extremis, if needs be, we'll have a little chat with Haken about it - or play their game, and watch this forum shrink until there's nothing left but you.... and them.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem -that's why I tend to hound posters with the same question over and over until I get a real answer.... or until they bail out of the thread. I think it's incumbent on folks who want to discuss issues to be aware that the best way to deal with trollishness is not to engage in the same behavior. Stick with clean rhetoric. Respond to the other person's point, and keep ON topic.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME