[ 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.6772[View All]

File: 1596061744601.png (81.27 KB, 398x506, 199:253, A_wtf.png) ImgOps Google

Um... My other thread on Harry Potter wasn't a debate thread. Or alteast, not one worthy of /townhall/'s more stringent rules. What gives?
55 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6828

>>6827
Maybe, but I think you should only do that if a person seems to be having second thoughts about their beliefs. Not doubling down on being a dick to people for no reason.

 No.6829


 No.6831

File: 1596207012329.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, eyebrows90.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

It was heading that direction.

Mike made the proper decision.

 No.6832

>>6831
It only when that direction when it got moved to /townhall/ and one of Trump's flunkies brought him up. The topic wasn't political before that.

 No.6833

File: 1596256389193.png (141.59 KB, 900x787, 900:787, 1572061048114.png) ImgOps Google

>>6832
It was controversial even if not political; /townhall/ isn't just for politics.

 No.6834

File: 1596340479022.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, eyebrows90.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6832
Not all discussions are political.

 No.6835

>>6834
Only political discussions get quarantined to /townhall/.

>>6833
My point I keep coming back to is "Being a transphobe is bad" should not be "controversial", especially on this board in particular, since it's so openly pro-LGBT>

 No.6836

>>6781
Chain, arguing that AK47 rights are somehow equivalent to human rights makes your position deliberate bad-faith sophistry.

>>6772
I recommend elimination of /townhall entirely.  Rn theres a thread about whether 5.x mm rounds are adequate to kill personnel targets which is neither controversial or political, but simply inappropriate on this site under any circumstance.

Get rid of the festering pit that is /townhall.

 No.6837

File: 1596414276598.png (526.18 KB, 680x1279, 680:1279, 1425341887157.png) ImgOps Google

>>6836
>arguing that AK47 rights are somehow equivalent to human rights
Um, I never did that.  I disproved an (implicitly) universally quantified statement by instantiating it and showing that the instantiation was false.  Like, if you say "for all x, P(x)", but I can show that P(42) is false, then I disprove your universally quantified statement "for all x, P(x)" by instantiating x with 42.

>My point I keep coming back to is "Being a transphobe is bad" should not be "controversial",
Nobody in this thread has disagreed with you on that.  The controversial part was something else in your thread OP.

 No.6838

File: 1596418174446.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, eyebrows90.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6835
Wrong.

>>6836
>I recommend elimination of /townhall entirely
I actually agree with Lost for once. It was basically a board made for Noonim whose constant whining made the site a lot worse.

 No.6839

File: 1596424026500.png (401.21 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 141305120402.png) ImgOps Google

>>6836
>5.x mm rounds
You mean 5.56×45mm NATO?

>which is neither controversial or political,
Um, I've gotta disagree with that.  The Wikipedia page on the cartridge informs us that: "There has been much debate of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target in regard to stopping power, lethality, and range."  And a question that basically amounts to "Did the US government select a round that is inadequate for its purpose?" seems at least a little political.

 No.6840

On the subject of the purpose of /townhall/, see >>>/townhall/5870

 No.6841

>>6836
I don't think that's a good idea. Tensions are high right now, and there's too many right-wing people on the site to not have a place to push back on their rhetoric.

>>6838
Didn't he stop using the site some time ago after getting banned from all the boards but /pony/?

>>6839
>>6836
We really shouldn't be talking about bullets.

 No.6842

File: 1596457186411.png (60.3 KB, 463x436, 463:436, 1596066255264.png) ImgOps Google

>>6836
I don't think it was intended to be "bad faith". Though I'll agree it'd've been better to point to something pertaining to actual people, as opposed to an item.
Still, as he pointed out in that thread with the definition, relating to people is not required for bigotry.

What's so improper about talking on the efficacy of a given round type for its intended role?
I'm not against removing /townhall/ entirely. Seems to be a complete disaster.
But, I don't really see why that thread's bad.

 No.6843

>>6842
Applying an egregious false equivalency to an argument is the height of bad faith, disrespecting all parties involved and rationality itself.

Unconscionable for Chain to be doing all the damn time.  I love you Chain but, get some perspective on the importance of basic honesty in discussion.  Its dehumanizing to be subjected to flagrant logical fallacies that can only distract from truth or fraudulently prove lies or wrong concepts.

*edit:  also your own def of bigotry shows that it applies to people, not objects.  Shame on you, Soffist.

>dont see whats wrong with bullet lethality thread on happy pony website

I know im not supposed to use the word sociopathic here but, ANY rational normal person (even me) can see whats wrong with that.

>>6841
So basically Moons wont run me off cuz most of his friends are bigots.  Which is the honest way to say "right wing".  Maybe /townhall should stay and its human beings who dont think talking about how best to kill casually in their pony place, who should go.

Don't answer me; i concede.

*another edit:  hey Max, i'd preesh a reality check here.  Im prolly just projecting again.  Canterlot self-ban for now

 No.6844

File: 1596486723128.jpg (322.91 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, kyouko-opening.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6843
>*edit:  also your own def of bigotry shows that it applies to people, not objects.
The key word is "especially".  The word "bigot" can certainly be used to describe obstinate/intolerant opinions and prejudices about objects as well as about people.

>Applying an egregious false equivalency to an argument is the height of bad faith, disrespecting all parties involved and rationality itself.
Your understanding of my post greatly differs from my own understanding of my post.  I did not mean to argue for any equivalency (false or otherwise).  I guess some of the blame for this miscommunication falls on me for not being clearer.  But I hope you can try to see the argument that I actually intended to make.  I was using the word "bigoted" to apply to prejudices about objects as well as about people.  Manley was using it to apply only to people.  That was a source the confusion between Manley and me.

>>dont see whats wrong with bullet lethality thread on happy pony website
/townhall/ is decidedly not a happy pony website.  In fact, many of the recent posts have been about police officers murdering people!

 No.6847

>>6843
The trouble is I do not consider it to be a "false equivalency".
It is technically applicable, given the definition. The "especially" portion is not required for the primary definition, merely obstinate devotation to one's opinion or prejudice. Both of which can be on an item.

>I know im not supposed to use the word sociopathic here but, ANY rational normal person (even me) can see whats wrong with that.
I would completely disagree. There's a massive difference between talking about the efficacy of something that can kill, and saying you want to, or do not care if someone is killed.

Saying "This particular knife is much more effective at stabbing" doesn't mean "I want to stab someone with this knife".

 No.6848

>>6843
Right wing people are not necessarily bigoted. At least, in theory.

And I agree with you, we shouldn't have threads about how to effectively kill people, or guns in general. Unless it's to debate gun control. This isn't debating gun control, it's gun nuts having a laugh.

 No.6849

File: 1596570820386.gif (67.17 KB, 550x240, 55:24, cat-bullet.gif) ImgOps Google

>>6848
> it's gun nuts having a laugh.
Ahem.  Debating whether the US Government fucked up by selecting 5.56x45mm as the standard infantry cartridge is not "having a laugh".  And it's not like they've never fucked up on such things.  The original M16 was an unreliable piece of shit that jammed a lot and resulted in unnecessary deaths of our soldiers.

 No.6850

>>6849
That's not even how the question is framed. It's framed as "is this bullet sufficient at killing humans". Not if it's more reliable, or cheaper. At killing people.

 No.6851

File: 1596587799242.jpeg (30.23 KB, 253x571, 253:571, 5.56-vs-.22lr-c7161a8861d….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>6850
>"is this bullet ...".
It's more about the cartridge as a whole than just the bullet.  The standard 55-grain 5.56x45mm bullet is only 37.5% more massive than a standard 40-grain .22LR bullet.  It's the amount of powder/propellant behind the bullet that makes it even remotely acceptable for military use.

>It's framed as "is this bullet sufficient at killing humans".
Yes, that is what the controversy about 5.56x45mm centered about: whether it has sufficient stopping power.  Its detractors claimed that the bullet was insufficiently lethal, and that enemy soldiers would be hit by it yet continue shooting at our soldiers.

 No.6852

>>6851
Something else to point out, in regards to the 'sociopathy' argument early, we actually have laws against hunting with insufficient ammunition in many places for certain game. That is to say, I can't go out and hunt deer with a 22 or 9mm in a lot of places. This is because it's deemed cruel to hunt said animals with a cartridge that would cause undue suffering, as opposed to a clean kill;
This could be easily enough applied in regards to military ammunition applications. Especially if we tack in the common rumor that 5.56 was designed to wound intentionally. You could easily say 'This cartridge is bad because it causes undue suffering".

 No.6853

>>6851
>It's more about the cartridge as a whole than just the bullet.

I don't care.

> that is what the controversy about 5.56x45mm centered about: whether it has sufficient stopping power.

Which is not something we should be discussing here. The internet is full of dark corners where weirdos can discuss the best ways of killing people.

>This is because it's deemed cruel to hunt said animals with a cartridge that would cause undue suffering, as opposed to a clean kill;

The post in question specifically asks about killing humans. Discussing the ethics of hunting is a different topic, one I think should be allowed. but not when discussing the killing of people.

 No.6854

File: 1596602367015.jpg (93.24 KB, 608x1136, 38:71, floridian-swamp-cat.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6853
>Which is not something we should be discussing here. The internet is full of dark corners where weirdos can discuss the best ways of killing people.
Most people aren't pacifists.  The warfighter sometimes needs to kill enemy combatants to accomplish the mission.  I don't see any reason to refrain from questioning whether the government has adequately equipped our troops.

 No.6855

>>6853
>>This is because it's deemed cruel to hunt said animals with a cartridge that would cause undue suffering, as opposed to a clean kill;
>The post in question specifically asks about killing humans. Discussing the ethics of hunting is a different topic...
I think that was supposed to be reply to >>6852 ?

 No.6856

>>6854
Unless you're a soldier it's not your concern how good they are at killing people. War should be avoided unless there is absolutely no other choice, and if it is the only choice, we shouldn't be sitting here talking about the best ways to kill other human beings. We should be discussing ways to end that war with as little bloodshed as possible.

 No.6857

>>6853
>The post in question specifically asks about killing humans. Discussing the ethics of hunting is a different topic, one I think should be allowed. but not when discussing the killing of people.
You misunderstand the point. You can't hunt with a 22 LR in many places, because this causes undue suffering to the animal, as 22 LR is an insufficient cartridge for large game.

The same reason why we might ban 22 LR for hunting deer could be used in relation to cartridges meant for human targets in a military application.
5.56 could be said to be bad because it causes undue harm, being an insufficient cartridge for killing humans.
>>6856
Just because I am not a soldier doesn't mean I am not allowed to have an opinion on weapons used.
You could easily argue the indifference is what is cruel.
I would say that civilian interest in military conduct is important, as if ultimately left to the military, we probably'd still be using things like flamethrowers and chemical weapons.

 No.6858

File: 1596663369950.jpg (72.2 KB, 437x600, 437:600, 193704.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6856
>Unless you're a soldier it's not your concern how good they are at killing people.
In addition to the points made by >>6857, I'd like to point out sometimes people are just curious about things.  One doesn't need a practical reason to care about something to be intellectually curious about it, and people generally shouldn't be shamed for their curiosity.

 No.6859

>>6857
I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning here. We'd be better off discussing ways soldiers can avoid killing rather than how they can kill more efficiently.

>>6858
We aren't talking about model trains. It's a bad sign if someone is curious on how to kill people more efficiently

 No.6860

File: 1596668628290.jpg (779.77 KB, 860x1280, 43:64, akari-1362926628865.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6859
The military doesn't kill for the sake of killing, but as a means of stopping the enemy.  If you could coat bullets with magic fairy dust that would leave enemy soldiers alive (and with no permanent bodily injury) but also cause them permanently surrender, we'd be all over those.

>It's a bad sign if someone is curious on how to kill people more efficiently
Some people are curious about this for bad purposes, but not all.  In fact, I'd say that most of them are curious about it for innocent reasons.  

 No.6861

>>6860

>The military doesn't kill for the sake of killing

Debatable! But this isn't the debate page.

>In fact, I'd say that most of them are curious about it for innocent reasons.  

I don't think there's anyway to quantify that.

 No.6862

>>6861
>I don't think there's anyway to quantify that.
Then why would you disparage people (who are curious about the stopping power / lethality of 5.56x45mm) based on something that you admit you can't quantify?  Especially given that some of your fellow posters on /townhall/ have indicated some interest on this topic!

 No.6863

File: 1596872691551.png (163.09 KB, 428x372, 107:93, all ruined.png) ImgOps Google

>>6844
The key word is NOT "especially", it is absurdity.

There was no genuine miscommunication between you and Manley regarding the meaning of the word "bigotry".  There was a false equivalency which you deliberately imposed on the conversation by injecting a "object bigotry" concept that is neither valid nor misunderstood by either party, and you did so for the purpose of creating disagreement over minutia where you clearly lacked a valid position to defend.

Absurd.

 No.6864

>>6863
>There was no genuine miscommunication between you and Manley regarding the meaning of the word "bigotry".  
But there was!  See the following dialogue:

=================
>>>/townhall/6032
>You can still be bigoted and prejudiced against inanimate objects.
>>>/townhall/6033
>when I say "bigotry", I almost exclusively mean bigotry against people or groups of people and on very, very rare occassions, other living organisms besides people.
=================

I was using the word "bigoted" in a way that extended equally to living and non-living things, while Manley was using it in way that extended exclusively to living things.

>There was a false equivalency
I never asserted any equivalency.  I only asserted that being prejudiced against AR-15s satisfied the definition of "bigotry".

>Do you really believe this website is the appropriate place to discuss bullets, Chain?
I think it is appropriate in /townhall/ but not in /pony/.  After all, /townhall/ is the place for the 'heavy' topics of conversation.

 No.6865

>>6864
For the record, I agree that using the word bigotry to apply to inanimate objects is absurd. I was just humoring the rules of /townhall/ by clarifying what I meant and acknowledging how you were using the term. I've still never heard anyone use it in such a way before or since except in this instance.

 No.6866

>>6864
Yes, your deliberate misuse of the word to apply to objects was a false equivalency to the correct way Manley was using it.  And the flawed foundation of your "reasoning".  Garbage in, garbage out.

And don't pretend that is somehow not a really insulting thing to do to discussion partners.

 No.6867

>>6866
It's not a misuse, though. Which is why your presumption of intent is so flawed. You're just assuming his intention because he used a word as he understands it.

If you want to talk about "garbage", maybe jumping straight to wild theories about the true intent beyond what was posted, explained, or reasoned, in order to claim someone's being a dick, is itself rather 'garbage' behavior.
Especially considering how quickly Chain moved on from that particular aspect when Manley clarified his meaning;
>"but just for clarity's sake when I say "bigotry", I almost exclusively mean bigotry against people or groups of people and on very, very rare occassions, other living organisms besides people."

 No.6868

>>6867
You can't just use whatever words you want "as you understand them". Words have specific meaning and usages. And sure, those can change over time, but using a word to mean whatever you want is still being intellectually dishonest at best, and incorrect at worst.

And as I explained earlier. I only "clarified my meaning" because of the rules of /townhall/. I still think the way he used that word is completely absurd.

 No.6869

>>6867
This is a pretty dick ad hominem attack against me, so you have some nerve claiming im attacking anyone.

Chain's intent to disrupt Manley's reasoning with unfair fake reasoning was clear, and he takes great pleasure in cleverly working out all the possible escapes for a persons statements by rolling out every non-sequitor or other fallacy possible to derail logic into absurdity.

This is far from an isolated occasion.  Its constant.

Its not calling him a dick to tell my friend how that cleverness is not "cute" but actually damned unfriendly, and our friendship is worth working on it.

"Wild theories" yes, good use of adjectives to mischaracterize a simple and solidly-proven theory that Chain likes sophistry.  I challenge you to disprove it, smart guy.  You can't.  But try, maybe redefine some words or sonething.  Chain's that clever; you're not.

*edit:  garbage in/garbage out refers to reasoning, not behavior. You can't start with garbage and turn it into logic, even if it looks like logic the conclusion is still garbage.

 No.6870

File: 1597084878831.png (386.18 KB, 459x593, 459:593, 1473524759063.png) ImgOps Google

>>6868
>I still think the way he used that word is completely absurd.
Well, I still think the dictionary disagrees with you.
http://ponyville.us/canterlot/src/1596457186411.png

>>6869
>Chain's intent to disrupt Manley's reasoning with unfair fake reasoning was clear
Why do you insist on imputing bad intentions on me?  I was arguing a point in good faith.  If you think that my logic is flawed or that my definition of "bigotry" is contrary to common usage, that's fair to criticize my posts.  Or if you want to criticize me for focusing too much on technicalities instead of going after a steelmanned version of Manley's argument, I suppose you could do that as well.  But it sucks to be falsely accused of arguing in bad faith.  You don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that post.  And there's no way for me to prove to you that my intentions were good, so these sorts of accusations just produce a lot of bad feelings without actually shedding any light on the controversy.  Please try to stick to criticizing arguments instead of criticizing the intentions of your fellow posters who make the arguments.

 No.6871

File: 1597085124691.png (60.3 KB, 463x436, 463:436, 1596457186411.png) ImgOps Google

>>6868
So, you're saying it was "intellectually dishonest" of you to use "bigot" as though it was exclusive to people?
I think that's a little harsh, personally. Most words hold a variety of definitions that also consequently hold different meanings to different people based on the specific wording of those definitions.
It's why defining your terms is so important. Explaining what it means to you.
I'd hardly say it's reasonable to call you "dishonest" for applying "bigot" only in relation to views on people as a result.

>>6869
If it's ad hominem, then what you did to Chain was the same.
And you did go on the attacks first;
>>6836
>"Chain, arguing that AK47 rights are somehow equivalent to human rights makes your position deliberate bad-faith sophistry."
You literally said Chain was intentionally arguing in bad faith.
Do you not see how hypocritical you're being here?

>Chain's intent to disrupt Manley's reasoning with unfair fake reasoning was clear,
Clear to you.
Not clear to me.
His immediate switch to people when Manley made clear his definitions rather demonstrated that. Someone intentionally trying to "disrupt" would not have done that. They would've stuck to the definition, and argued from that point.

> and he takes great pleasure in cleverly working out all the possible escapes for a persons statements by rolling out every non-sequitor or other fallacy possible to derail logic into absurdity.
Again I call you a hypocrite; You're pulling the same "ad hominem" attack, while pretending as though you've never done so.

This aside; You've not based that in evidence. You've only claimed that.
I do not agree.
Maybe that's your perspective on him, but people's opinions are not always reality. There's a lot of people I think are dicks. I would hardly go out and claim that they're evil monsters who intentionally go out to fuck over others, though. I am not them, I cannot see into their head.

>"Wild theories" yes, good use of adjectives to mischaracterize a simple and solidly-proven theory that Chain likes sophistry.  
Then instead of CLAIMING it, PROVE it.
Until you do, it is nothing but a theory. A theory I certainly consider wild.

>  I challenge you to disprove it, smart guy.
Not how burden of proof works.
Or are you a rapist, now, because you can't prove you aren't?

The exact same unprovable accusation can be leveled against you: You are not here arguing from a position of "friendship" or to seek improvement in others, you're intentionally here to cause pain and misery to others.
Would you consider that a fair characterization?
Should we just accept it as fact, because you cannot prove your intention?

 No.6872

>>6871
No, I'm saying that applying "bigotry" to anything but living things is absurd, and so uncommon that it would be right to question someone's motives using it to apply to inanimate objects.

>>6870
This definition is for "bigot" not "bigotry". It does not tell us if the word "bigotry" can or should be applied to inanimate objects.

 No.6873

>>6872
"Words have specific meanings and usages".
Maybe you've got a different cultural exposure to the terminology based on where you grew up and hang out with.
I've certainly run in to it before. It's fairly common for, as the definition says, someone really bullheaded in their particular beliefs.

 No.6874

File: 1597088532277.png (70.88 KB, 600x600, 1:1, def-bigotry.png) ImgOps Google

>>6872
>This definition is for "bigot" not "bigotry".
OK, fair enough.  Here is a definition of "bigotry".

 No.6875

>>6871
>Then instead of CLAIMING it, PROVE it.

I did.  You failed to.

>>6870
I have checked your bad-faith arguments enuf that you should by now understand my position.  I'm through repeating unsolicited advice, if ypu wish to degenerate arguments into false semantics, i cant stop you.

>>6871
Thats a flawed definition and every rational person knows that bigotry applies to opinions about people not objects.

There can BE no factual challenge to my rock-solid proven position.  Y'all feel free to sputter without me; im done here.

 No.6876

File: 1597092494406.jpg (289.4 KB, 937x631, 937:631, 1494422085176.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6875
>I have checked your bad-faith arguments enuf that you should by now understand my position.
You keep disparaging my intentions without offering any proof of what I actually had in mind when I wrote my posts.  

>>6875
>every rational person knows that bigotry applies to opinions about people not objects.
Many rational people who don't speak English as their native language don't have any idea what the word "bigotry" means.  It's not a very common word.  And even many native speakers aren't aware of the precise meanings it has been used to denote.

>There can BE no factual challenge to my rock-solid proven position.
You haven't really even engaged with the dictionary definition that has been posted ITT or worked with any citations of the word from any linguistic corpora.  You're just repeating your own opinion without citing any objective evidence.

 No.6877

>>6876
If pointing out bad-faith argument is disparaging then i understand why you have not confronted this within yourself.

>English as second language
Seems a reason why as a person who does understand the meaning of tge word has a greater responsibility not to misdirect using false definitions.

I feel really shit on here for pointing out the obvious.  Fuck you all, im done with this site.

 No.6878

File: 1597095690477.jpg (2.24 MB, 2046x1447, 2046:1447, girl-in-fishbowl.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6877
>If pointing out bad-faith argument is disparaging
Of course it is disparaging to accuse someone of (making an argument in bad faith)!  If you want to say that someone's argument is flawed, that's fine.  But if you claim that someone deliberately made a flawed argument and tried to pass it off as a good argument, yeah, that's going to make the person mad.

 No.6879

>>6875
>I did.  You failed to.
You quite literally did not. All you've done is make accusations.

>Thats a flawed definition and every rational person knows that bigotry applies to opinions about people not objects.
You speak for everyone?
I do not agree that it does. Therefor not "everyone" agrees with you.
The definition doesn't seem to, so I presume whoever wrote it also doesn't. Again; Not "everyone".

>>6877
Literally saying someone is intentionally arguing in a dishonest manner is absolutely disparaging.
>>6836
>"Chain, arguing that AK47 rights are somehow equivalent to human rights makes your position deliberate bad-faith sophistry."

You said you were "done" already. If you have to announce you're leaving, you probably aren't.

 No.6880

File: 1597106364677.png (12.97 KB, 253x329, 253:329, lola30.png) ImgOps Google

Probably should have locked this before now. This kinda isn't the best place for this kind of discussion, I don't think.


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