[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4165

File: 1557272601408.png (72.88 KB, 362x510, 181:255, youareallweirdos.png) ImgOps Google

I would like to formally request that the same stipulations of non-interaction that were placed on me and lost pony be placed on me and Noonim as well.

Will a member of the modstaff discuss this possibility with me?

 No.4166

>>>/pony/944813
>>I will try to use small words and simpler statements from now on, when dealing with you.

This goes beyond what is acceptable in terms of civility on this site.

 No.4168

File: 1557278627134.png (841.67 KB, 1651x923, 127:71, sengoku_nadeko.png) ImgOps Google

>>4165
I oppose this motion.  I think >>4164 is the better proposal.

 No.4169

>>4168
If he thinks the fights don't need to be happening, then he should just avoid me and my threads without the filter. He could already be doing that, and not insulting me in my own threads.

 No.4171

File: 1557280519894.jpg (65.85 KB, 878x718, 439:359, FB_IMG_1555436184506.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4166
You were dishing it out too, e.g.,:
>>>/pony/944786
>I honestly think he might have some kind of mood disorder, but I'm not a doctor.
>>>/pony/944793
>Stop trying to blame your lack of communication skills on that.

Pic unrelated.

 No.4172

>>4171
That wasn't an insult, it was my honest opinion about his behavior.

The second one is a commentary on how he was assuming malice because he did not communicate properly. That too, is not an insult.

it's also not what this thread is about. I almost never initiate interaction with Noonim. He came to my thread and started arguments first. Something he didn't need to do.

 No.4173

File: 1557293555941.png (26.72 KB, 344x311, 344:311, 12.png) ImgOps Google

>>4172
If that's just an "honest opinion", and such "honest opinions" are allowed, it's my "honest opinion" that you've got the mental functionality of a toddler, given your complete lack of ability to understand that "Principled people can be corrupted" doesn't mean "Principled people can never be corrupted".

I guess since these "honest opinions" are okay, I should've gone with that, rather than assuming malice. Personally, I find assuming people are mentally inept to be worse, but, if you'd prefer it, then, by all means. I'm more than happy to treat you like a toddler.

 No.4174

>>4173
See, that isn't your honest opinion. You know that I would not be able to operate a computer, drive a car, or do any of the things you know I do if I had "the mental functionality of a toddler". As such, that is simply you trying to insult me.

The goal of my post was not to insult you. I honestly do think you have some sort of mood disorder that causes you to react this way. Why else are you here trying to insult me further instead of letting this matter go and moving on? Are you incapable of doing that or unwilling?

 No.4175

File: 1557293855753.png (48.55 KB, 227x194, 227:194, 5 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4172
Also:
>He came to my thread and started arguments first
Flat out, demonstrably, false.
I'm sure you aren't actually lying, you genuinely believe that objectively false statements are true, but, nonetheless, you're wrong here.

I made the statement " I'd like to change my answer to "human stupidity" for the first one too.", to which Manley started with an argument >>>/pony/944719
>"Um, that's called "blaming the victim". They were watching a show. The alley is how you leave. In some stories, they left to show early for whatever reason. But blaming them for going down an alley makes about as much sense as blaming the alley."
Hell, I even left an out to the argument, with >>>/pony/944732
>"But fair enough. Out of touch rich people don't understand why going down a dark alley way is a bad idea."
To which Manley decided to push the issue.
>>>/pony/944733
>"Still feels kinda victim-blamey to me to say they shouldn't have walked down an alley. That's like one step away from saying Martha shouldn't have been dressed like she was."

To claim that I had started the argument, or that I came in to the thread and argued first, is just objectively untrue.
It does not follow the events in the thread. Anyone can take a look and see that.
Manley, unfortunately, does not seem to be capable of following this.

 No.4176

>>4175
I'm not going to converse with you any further if you choose to insult me like you just did in >>4173. Saying I have the "mental functionality of a toddler" is out and out bullying.

 No.4177

File: 1557294530142.png (134.39 KB, 387x276, 129:92, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4174
It's more to demonstrate hypocritical behavior.
You claim something that's obviously inaccurate, given that I don't have the issue with anyone else, and you'd be able to observe this. Especially when it's items of which you'd end up getting upset by, in the same regard.

But, to phrase it more accurately, without the hyperbole, I think you're severely autistic. Or at least, have some similar issue along the lines, that makes it difficult for you to empathize with others, follow linear chains of events, and hold basic reading comprehension.

To answer "why" I am here, it's because you're proposing a turn of events that'd directly effect me and how I am able to post. That, and you're continuing the issue, with a thread dedicated to the particular engagement. Mine, at least, did not make reference to what had occurred. I tried to maintain it as neutrally as possible.
> Are you incapable of doing that or unwilling?
Incapable.
I am very stubborn, and very bullheaded when it comes to this sort of thing. Rather spiteful, as well. I put a tad too much pride into that particular feature, to be honest. Kind of wonder if it comes from my particular idolization of dragons. Either way, I tend to dig my heels into things.
If someone decides to come up to me and start arguing, I'll argue with them. As I demonstrated here >>4175 , I did not start the argument. You did. I'm going to defend my particular positions when someone else decides to attack them. Especially when I'm faced with such nonsense as "victim blaming".
>>4176
Alright. I won't call you that. Like I said above, it was about pointing to hypocrisy.
Though I'd request you do the same.

Regardless, what was stated there stands. You've stated something that is objectively false. The evidence goes against your claim. If you do not believe it to be false, that's your business, but the facts are present for all to see in this regard.
I'll avoid accusing you of lying, here.

 No.4178

>>4177
Incidentally, archive link for posterity's sake.
I need to remember to do this more often. It seems like I need to start referencing these things as they come up, honestly.
https://archive.fo/tEI1h

 No.4180

>>4178
Go ahead and save evidence of you bullying me just so you can win an non-existent argument. Less work for me.

 No.4181

File: 1557297017824.png (121.54 KB, 316x290, 158:145, 6.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4180
It's more to demonstrate why I was upset, and the particular circumstances involved.
The problem is, sometimes this stuff takes far too long to ever get addressed, so the threads end up deleted, or the particular trouble is brought up later, and I've no ability to cite exactly what happened.
Which is very important, given that as you've demonstrated here, you will claim things that did not happen, happened.

Regardless, I do not believe you can claim I was "bullying" you. Especially when you were the first to insult me. Though, I grant, evidently due to your lack of empathy, you do not recognize it as an insult.

 No.4192

File: 1557412577534.png (30.99 KB, 323x292, 323:292, This is going to require a….png) ImgOps Google

>>4180
>>4181

Guys...

Don't come to /canterlot/ to make threads about how the two of you fighting is a problem and then start fighting in them.

Both of you are capable adults who could stop fighting at any point by...just not doing it.  Either of you could've walked away at any point in the whole debacle and boom, suddenly there's no problem.  The power is in your hands!

 No.4193

File: 1557424227796.png (268.43 KB, 437x494, 23:26, 5.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4192
The power'd be in my hands if there were a system in place to filter users.
As is, there isn't such a system.
It really should be added. If you're going to advocate the ignoring of users, what's the difference between that and flat out filtering them? It's the same set of principles, so there should be no reason to deny such a system.

As to the troubles here, in this thread, it's pretty hard to ignore someone insulting you and claiming stuff that didn't happen, did, in what seems to be an effort to make you look bad.
Especially in a thread advocating for extreme restrictions on posting, wherein the both of us could potentially be permanently banned. Though, let's be honest, given the track record of the site here, I think it's quite safe to say I'd be banned, he'd be warmed and let off again, anyway.

 No.4194

>>4192
This isn't about the argument, it's about noonim's repeated bullying and insulting of me. Comments like >>>/pony/944813
>>I will try to use small words and simpler statements from now on, when dealing with you.

are against the rules. So I want a formal ruling that he is not allowed to talk to me and I him. You put this stipulation on lp and myself, so this is no different.

>>4193
Why do you NEED a filter system? Why dont you just... stop talking to me? Like I said, I only ever respond to you when you initiate conversation. I never initiate. You could just stop talking to me, stop coming to my threads and this would all stop. Why do you need a filter? Especially if I can successfully make it a rule you and I are not allowed to interact, then there would be no need for a filter.

 No.4195

File: 1557451315583.gif (10.12 KB, 168x225, 56:75, 5b05edea873b365f41766f131d….gif) ImgOps Google

>>4194
You seem to conveniently forget that you insulted me first.
sure, I was annoyed at you first, but you are the one who started with personal attacks.

>Why do you NEED a filter system?
I am not that good with names, and I tend to just respond to things I find interesting to begin with. Frankly, I don't think I have the foresight are generally the self-control to avoid replying to something that I want to. That doesn't necessarily mean I start screaming angrily that's some random post you make to somebody else, but rather, as with your friend in this particular case, I might just simply desire to comment within it.
remember, as I directly sided with evidence, you initiated the argument with me. You are the one who escalated the encounter. You might believe otherwise, but, the facts are present for anybody to see.

As to the LP rule suggestion, I have a number of complaints about it from the very beginning, but, my primary one is that frankly I do not trust the staff here to be fair when it comes to you. At the end of the day, you've exhibited repeated Behavior over and over again, with absolutely no belief in your own wrongdoing when they've so cleanly laid it out before you. You seem to be given every single bit of Charity possible, while others are banned for far less.
I don't know if you have some kind of history with the staff that lets you get away with as much as you do, or if they are just sympathetic because of your apparent problems, but, it leaves me with the inability to believe that such a rule would actually result in the perma ban of us both.
Rather, it is mine perspective that they would end up punishing me, while you are left alone to get away scot-free once again.

And this is aside from that the ruling as a whole was something I didn't really agree with to begin with. not to mention something that would inevitably get me in trouble, for the above reason as I laid out prior. I respond to things that I am interested in responding to. I don't really make a note of who is posting it most of the time.
Assuming the rule is as was laid out for LP, we would both end up being inevitably permanently banned, assuming again the staff don't decide to be lenient on you again, Because of this particular issue. So it's not really pragmatic as far as I can see.

 No.4196

File: 1557452246383.png (256.15 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_normal_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4194
A better question to me is why would you want something with a potential to permanently result in your ban, over a simple filtering mechanism.
Wouldn't a means by which for people to filter you be better for you, than potentially getting permanently booted off the website?

Unless you know something I don't, it doesn't really strike me as logical to desire such a dangerous item, over a simple filtering mechanism.

 No.4198

>>4195
>>4195
>You seem to conveniently forget that you insulted me first.

Except I didn't. You said I had the >>4176
>"mental functionality of a toddler"

If that's your fear, you could avoid that by not engaging me at all. It would be clear that I was the one initiating if you literally said nothing back and didn't respond. Believe me, I'd rather you didn't talk to me without that ruling being official. You are constantly starting fights with me when I'm not even speaking to you.

In >>>/pony/943794 you started an argument over a conversation I was having with Ella, not you. Then later in  >>>/pony/944956 (You) you did it again because of a comment I made to Moony. Then in  >>>/pony/944980 you tried to start started a semantic argument over a comment I made to Dulset.
Then you came into my thread and started arguments with me repeatedly in >>>/pony/944614 All of these are examples of you going out of your way to be contradictory and argumentative to me when I'm talking to other people, which is something you do CONSTANTLY. You only ever reply to me if it's to disagree or try and correct me in some way. Then you try to play the victim and claim I insulted you when you could have not initiated or walked away at any time. But you've shown either and unwillingness or an inability to do that. This is really the only option to stop you from constantly trying to initiate argument with me. It's an assault on my comfort and state of mind which borders on bullying at best and is out and out bullying at worst.

 No.4199

>>4196
Because I don't like talking to you, and wouldn't if it were in the rules. I want it in the rules to keep YOU from trying to start arguments with me, as I just explained in the post above.

 No.4200

>>4197
In this thread, to demonstrate the hypocrisy, yes.
Because you were suggesting that is perfectly acceptable to say as you did
>>>/pony/944786
>I honestly think he might have some kind of mood disorder, but I'm not a doctor
So, yes, to prove a point about how supposed honesty doesn't change an insult, I did the same as you did.

> It would be clear that I was the one initiating if you literally said nothing back and didn't respond.
I had already explained that I do not believe I have that kind of capacity. Not only am I unobservant, but I do not believe I have the self-control to ignore somebody who is attempting to argue with me, or as is often the case, making up things about me.

>In >>>/pony/943794 you started an argument over a conversation I was having with Ella, not you
and near as I can tell that conversation went over rather well, without any major fights. We had a few disagreements, but that was about it.
But this thread is about what occurred in your thread, not that one. In your thread, you engaged with me first. Or rather, you argued with me first, even after I had given you a few outs.

>All of these are examples of you going out of your way to be contradictory and argumentative to me when I'm talking to other people,
Disagreeing with somebody is being argumentative and contradictory?

well I guess I better start reporting you every single time you disagree with me about anything, be at them in ISM or race or whatever. It's not like you have actual beliefs of your own or anything, you're just trying to be combative with me, right?

In the particular friend which we are discussing, not a thread that went to on perfectly fine without issue, you made the first argument, you insulted me first. That is a fact. If you want to call bullying, I would look in the mirror. But I understand you don't have the capacity for basic empathy, so I understand it's quite difficult for you to do that.

Fuck it, let's go ahead and do the LP deal. If it gives the chance of you getting finally permabanned after years of absolutely terrible behavior, should be great. Ironic you complain of bullying when near as I can tell you've been doing that shit to me for ages. so, screw it. Might as well risk it all for the slightest chance to finally get rid of the guy who's been hassling and attacking me, not to mention lying about me, for absolutely ages.

 No.4201

>>4199
And I want a filter system, because I know from experience at this point that the staff won't do anything when you break the rules.
I'd rather have the option to avoid you myself, rather than put myself at risk for no reason.

 No.4202

File: 1557454706434.jpg (462.59 KB, 850x585, 170:117, kitsune-with_muffins_dd2f9….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4200
Hey Noonim, do you have a Discord account?

 No.4203

>>4202
Yeah. Though I'm on the phone right now so it'd be a tad of a bother to fetch.

 No.4204

>>4200
"I honestly think he might have some kind of mood disorder, but I'm not a doctor." is not an insult. I'm not even sure how you can construe it as such. It's me stating my opinion on something.

> you've got the mental functionality of a toddler

However IS an insult. Because you know that can't possibly be true. My statement has the potential to be true, whereas yours does not. It was simply something you stated to try and hurt my feellings, i.e. an insult. Whereas my goal was not to hurt your feelings, but simply state my own opinion based on observations.

So you cannot use "I honestly think he might have some kind of mood disorder" as justification for insulting me just as you couldn't use "I think so and so might be a fan of Ducktales" as justification.

 No.4205

File: 1557459273504.jpg (100.06 KB, 713x672, 713:672, 1473682941457.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4204
Do you really not see how "I honestly think he might have some kind of mood disorder, but I'm not a doctor" isn't insulting?  If I said "I honestly think Manley has a mental disability that prevents him from empathizing with other people", would you feel insulted?

>Whereas my goal was not to hurt your feelings
It is possible to unintentionally insult people.

>>4204
> just as you couldn't use "I think so and so might be a fan of Ducktales" as justification.
Do you think "I think so-and-so might be a fan of loli hentai" can be an insult?

 No.4206

>>4204
I take it as insulting because it is an insulting insinuation of my character. No I understand you have trouble grasping this, as this is what you had said in the past when you've insulted me in the same way prior. Just because you believe it oh, and I'm not entirely sure you actually do, doesn't mean it isn't an insult.

>Because you know that can't possibly be true.
And you should know that the idea that I have a mood disorder is equally unlikely, given that you are the only one I have this trouble with. You should be able to observe the patterns involved, and moreover, I've told you specifically why every single time I've been upset why I have been. You just don't accept my answers.

But, like I said, I don't actually believe you when you claim that it wasn't intended to hurt my feelings, or that it's what you genuinely believe.

>"I think so and so might be a fan of Ducktales" as justification
That is because liking DuckTales is not a negative item.
It would be more like if I had said "I think Manley might be a pedophile".
Surely you can understand why that would be an insulting remark.

 No.4207

File: 1557461424587.png (197.46 KB, 540x303, 180:101, 1498867794342.png) ImgOps Google

>>4203
When you get your computer, please add me! I'm
ChainWall#7487
.

 No.4208

>>4206
It's only "an insulting insinuation of my character" if you believe those with mood disorders are somehow "less" than other people.

>That is because liking DuckTales is not a negative item.

Neither is having a mood disorder.

>>4205
I don't think it's insulting, especially given the way he acts in regards to me. It's something one would speculate on, given our interactions.

 No.4209

File: 1557462305224.png (53.51 KB, 392x336, 7:6, This has gone to a horribl….png) ImgOps Google

>>4199
>Because I don't like talking to you

Then don't talk to him!

 No.4210

File: 1557462935211.jpg (60.55 KB, 500x650, 10:13, 1499133795864.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4208
>>That is because liking DuckTales is not a negative item.
>Neither is having a mood disorder.
A disorder is a negative item, pretty much by definition.

>>4208
>I don't think it's insulting,
The mood disorder, the being of a fan of loli hentai, or both?

>>4206
Yay, I think I got and accepted your Discord invite!  (Unless it was someone else who sent one to me.)

 No.4211

>>4209
Look at >>4198. I almost never initiate conversation with him. But he is constantly trying to start arguments with me. That's why I want this ruling. So that he can't do that anymore. It's getting to be very stressful.

>>4210
Only if you think people with mood disorders are somehow lesser.

Also, who's talking about loli hentai?

 No.4212

>>4211
>Only if you think people with mood disorders are somehow lesser.
Lesser by what metric?  Having a mood disorder certainly impairs normal functioning, so they would be lesser by a metric that measures well-functioning.

>>4211
>Also, who's talking about loli hentai?
I posed that hypothetical to you in >>4205:
>Do you think "I think so-and-so might be a fan of loli hentai" can be an insult?

 No.4213

>>4210
Should be mine. Pretty sure I got the notification that you accepted.
>>4208
It's definitely a negative attribute. that doesn't mean they are less of a human being, or should be treated as such, though.
A person in a wheelchair can obviously not run, but that doesn't mean they aren't human, deserving of dignity and respect.

Why do you suggest I have a mood disorder, if it is not negative?
If you are not using it to excuse stop particular Behavior you find irrational?
That is the purpose of a claim, ultimately. To dismiss somebody as irrational, and generally belittle them as incapable to behave in a reasonable manner. That is definitely insulting, especially when it isn't true.

 No.4214

>>4211
It is getting very stressful for me to be constantly insulted and put down by you.
perhaps if you were able to engage with others with a modicum of empathy, rather than constantly trying to excuse your own behavior, and refusing to accept why people are hurt, define engagements with others a little bit easier.

but, this is anyway, a problem that would be solved with a filter system, far better than the threat of a permanent ban for the both of us. Especially since as already established, I do not believe myself capable of not engaging with others, as I am simply unobservant far too often, and I am liable to respond in kind when somebody responds to me.

 No.4215

>>4214
>says someone has the the mental functionality of a toddler
>plays the victim to say they are "insulting" them.

You really don't have a leg to stand on here, buddy. Even if I insulted you (which I didn't), you retaliated a thousand-fold. You can't really play the "I'm bullying you" card when you literally just called me retarded.

>>4212
Unless you see those with mood disorders as sub-human or less deserving of respect than other people, then there's no way speculating if someone has a mood disorder is an insult.

As for the loli hentai thing, I don't think that's applicable. Pedophilia is a negative trait. Accusing someone of having pedophillia is insulting in a way that speculating they have a mood disorder isn't. Because pedophilia is harmful.

 No.4216

File: 1557464501637.png (3.43 MB, 2500x1406, 1250:703, brycerom.png) ImgOps Google

>>4215
You insulted me. That's a simple fact.
I attempted to demonstrate your hypocrisy in this thread with that comment.
As usual, you can do no wrong, and the staff aren't going to do anything about it, so I want a filter system, so as to avoid you like the plague.

Of course none of this is an argument to anything I've said. You've got no counters at this point other than flailing around

>Unless you see those with mood disorders as sub-human or less deserving of respect than other people,
Does the fact that a crippled person cannot run make them subhuman? Does it make them less deserving of respect?
of course not. But that does not change the objective fact that they are disadvantaged with a negative trait.
A disability is a disability.it doesn't make you less of a human, it just means you disadvantaged.

Think of it like generating a character in something like, say, Project Zomboid.
you have traits that are negative. It doesn't mean that your character is lesser, it just means that you I have something about you that is it cost against your abilities. It is possible, like in that game, that means you have other strengths in other areas. It doesn't make you less of a person, it just means that you are disadvantaged in some capacities.

The world is not black and white. Just because somebody was born without an arm doesn't mean that they are subhuman, for instance.

 No.4217

>>4216
You took something that wasn't an insult as an insult and tried to use that as justification to bully me and insult my intelligence. That is all that happened here and I'm here to make sure the mods make it a rule that you cannot follow me around to try and start arguments with me and find flimsy justification to insult me anymore.

 No.4218

File: 1557464777672.png (62.65 KB, 343x326, 343:326, Now See Here.png) ImgOps Google

>>4216
>>4217

Okay, stop talking to each other, that's the new rule.  The punishment for talking to each other is you'll feel bad because you both hate it.  Which should really be enough.

 No.4219

>>4215
>sub-human
Do you think that people who suffer from pedophilia are sub-human?

>Accusing someone of having pedophillia is insulting in a way that speculating they have a mood disorder isn't. Because pedophilia is harmful.
A mood disorder is also harmful because it impairs one's normal functioning.

>Unless you see those with mood disorders as ... less deserving of respect than other people, then there's no way speculating if someone has a mood disorder is an insult.
Let's look up the definition of "respect":
"""
1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
2. due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.
"""
So yeah, in the first sense (but not the second), someone with a mood disorder would, ceteris paribus, be less deserving of respect.

 No.4220

>>4217
it is definitely an insult. Just because you completely lack any empathy of any kind, and can't ever look at how other people feel, doesn't mean it isn't an insult.
I absolutely took it as an insult. It was absolutely insulting to my character. I don't give a damn what you think about it, it was insulting and I took it as an insult any rational human being would do the same. We are literally sitting here right now discussing exactly why it is an insult, abd so far your argument is just complete utter garbage anyway
you're only rationality for it not being an insult is the idea that anybody with a negative trait is somehow subhuman.
frankly, this strikes me as a far more threatening a dangerous worldview than anything I've ever suggested here so far.
What kind of insane justifications can somebody who believes that disadvantaged people are literally less human than you. Seriously, dude, maybe look at your own thinking sometime.

 No.4221

>>4219
>Do you think that people who suffer from pedophilia are sub-human?

That's a question that's gonna require some thought and I shouldn't answer haphazardly.

>>4219
>A mood disorder is also harmful because it impairs one's normal functioning.

Having impaired functioning isn't really "harmful". Like someone in a wheelchair isn't harming anyone or themselves by being in a wheelchair. Likewise, someone with a mood disorder is not necessarily harming anyone else or themselves.

And that last part I really think is just you grasping at straws and/or taking the definition of words too literally as you have a habit of doing. Having a mood disorder is not an insult unless you take people with mood disorders as being sub-human.

 No.4222

File: 1557465339443.png (1.91 MB, 1920x1382, 960:691, cgadine2.png) ImgOps Google

>>4218
It is rather hard to avoid the talking to somebody who actively insults or otherwise puts you down, typically in a dishonest manner.

I do not believe I have the capacity to Simply ignore him like that.
That is why I want a filter system.
alternatively, of course, staff could actually do their job. But as I've seen multiple times, when it comes to Manley, it seems that any excuse is fine. manly can insult me all he wants, and it seems like nothing is ever done about it, and any reports I make are completely ignored.

it's honestly getting to the point where I don't even bother reporting things anymore. Nothing is ever done about it. last time, even when I made a fuss about it, bringing it back up, all I got was a "well it looks like it's fine now", because as it happened things just to calm down over time. It doesn't change the injury I took or the rule that was broken, and it puts me in a rather foul mood when it comes to these kinds of interactions. I know that nothing is going to be done if a fight does break out, so why should I care? Why shouldn't I respond in kind? I might as well resort to an eye for an eye, if I can find no justice any other way.

 No.4223

File: 1557465555940.png (349.92 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_annoyed_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4221
>Having a mood disorder is not an insult unless you take people with mood disorders as being sub-human.
that is not the restriction. That is only the restriction if you are the kind of insane nutjob who do you think that we should just execute anybody with low IQ, or Roundup people with genetic defects in to camps.

You do not have to believe that people are less than human in order to believe that a negative trait is a negative trait.
Such a suggestion is completely absurd, and follows no line of logic near as I can tell. Being crippled is an objectively negative trait, but crippled people are not less than human because of it. Crippled people are still human, despite their disadvantaged.

I shouldn't even have to say this. This should be apparent.

>That's a question that's gonna require some thought and I shouldn't answer haphazardly.
Got to say, the fact that you would even entertain the idea that a human is less than human rather exemplifies my particular worries.
I can only hope you never gain any kind of political power, as I have a bad feeling we'd end up seeing more than a few Mass Graves under your rule.

 No.4224

>>4221
>Having impaired functioning isn't really "harmful".
So if you got your legs crushed in an industrial accident, you would say that you weren't harmed? Really?

>Like someone in a wheelchair isn't harming anyone or themselves by being in a wheelchair. Likewise, someone with a mood disorder is not necessarily harming anyone else or themselves.
I didn't say that the PERSON was harmful.  I said that the DISORDER was harmful.  Not being able to walk is certainly harmful to one's enjoyment of life.

>X is not an insult unless you take people with X as being sub-human.
False.  Not all insults rise to level of implying that their target is sub-human.

 No.4225

>>4224
You're confusing "harmed" with "harmful". You were harmed by the crusher, but your existence post crushing is not harming anyone and it's not harming yourself.

I think we are getting too tied up in semantics for this to be a useful discussion.

"Sub-human" is just the best word I could come up with since you took "lesser" too literally. It's not insulting to speculate one whether someone has a mood disorder in the same way that calling someone black or hispanic isn't an insult unless you hold those groups in contempt.

 No.4226

>>4225
>but your existence post crushing is not harming anyone and it's not harming yourself.
I didn't say that the PERSON was harmful.  I said that the DISORDER was harmful.  Not being able to walk is certainly harmful to one's enjoyment of life.

 No.4227

>>4225
being Black or Hispanic is not a negative trait. Only a racist would believe that it is a negative trait. It does not offer any disadvantage to be Black or Hispanic. Outside of social treatment, but that depends on the entirely on the country or culture you are in.

Having a mood disorder is an objective disadvantage. Being crippled is an objective disadvantage. Being black, I do not believe is.

 No.4228

>>4226
But being compared to someone who isn't able to walk isn't an insult unless you hold non-walking people in contempt or think they are lesser human beings than you.

Likewise, speculating that someone might have a mood disorder because they spend vast amounts of time trying to rope you into unnecessary arguments getting increasingly hostile and then jumping at the first thing you say that could be taken as remotely insulting as justification to literally call you retarded isn't insulting because I don't hold people with mood disorders in contempt.

 No.4229

>>4228
Depends on the context. Being called a cripple when your legs are perfectly functional can indeed be an insult in the context of a sport or other physical activity.
The insinuation is that your ability is inferior because of this negative trait that you do not have. This suggestion is that you have the ability of somebody with a disadvantage, despite having no such disadvantage.
Much in the way of that I had suggested you had the mental functionality of a toddler, and that was an insult. Think about why that would be an insult. Think about what makes an insult insulting.

> as justification to literally call you retard
Ah, so you see retards as subhuman. Very interesting to find out. personally I don't think I would say such a thing about my fellow human, but, if you are so eager to call people who unfortunately been born with mental disabilities like that subhuman, I guess that's your business. I'd rather treat them with empathy, myself.

 No.4230

>>4228
Would you consider the following insulting?  "Did Manley run in the marathon?  Lol no, Manley is so out of shape that he couldn't even WALK the marathon without taking multiple rest breaks."

Do you hold mentally retarded people in contempt or think they are lesser human beings than you?

 No.4231

File: 1557466519904.png (31.89 KB, 363x468, 121:156, I don't know the answer to….png) ImgOps Google

>>4222
>Why shouldn't I respond in kind?

Because you don't like doing it.  Like it's super straightforward.  You did something that had really very expected outcomes, again, and you can totally just stop doing that.  It's actually incredibly easy.

>>4225
>>4226
>>4227
>>4228

This whole thing is semantics, and it's not really relevant.

Manley, don't suggest people have disorders, regardless of how totally super okay it is to have disorders.  People don't like it.  You should realize that people don't like it, and you really shouldn't do things people don't like.

 No.4232

File: 1557466567222.png (52 KB, 404x481, 404:481, Maybe he's born with it.png) ImgOps Google

>>4231

And you know what, as a follow up to that, when someone reacts to something you say with "Wow, that's super rude and I don't like it.", don't then try to justify why it wasn't rude.  Just apologize and stop doing it.

 No.4233

Also locking the thread because the answer is no, we're not considering the proposed request, that's silly.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]