Iraq - Bring soldiers back ... ?

Marajade said:
Sneaky, not the FB, you CAN edit that all into one post, instead of posting like six times in a row.
Click to expand...

I'm quite aware that I CAN do that. Thank you.
I read a piece, quote it and post.
I'm not going through the effort of taking 10 different posts and cosolidating them all. EACH post has an option to quote and replt to it. I use the functions of the board and respond to several posts. Others make several posts as you can see. I just happened to make mine all succeeding each other.
Don't like it? Sucks for you. You're right. This is not the FB.
 
Last edited:
Rones said:
How many times must I repeat this. Go reread my posts. I am refering to his ideas and views. Scroll up and you'll see I even said I don't consider Mokk childish, however I am tempted to call you noobish for posting 8 times in a row instead of just making one long post.

I don't usually try to make humor, and this is exactly why. I was trying to bring a funny end to a discussion no one appeared to want. I am use to having at least three people disagree with me (DD, trippy, and mokk), so that doesn't mean much. I criticize an idea as childish, provide proof and a source as to how I came to that conclusion. Then I post one funny picture in an attempt to end a discussion the other side says they don't want...and that makes me an immature hypocrit? Thank goodness you don't get in on most of our debates. This thread doesn't have enough trippy... that must be the problem :nyam:
Click to expand...


You're right. You have no sense of humor. You shouldn't try to be something you're not. The picture you posted is funny when you just look at it. But you are using the picture to say what you really feel. That is, "I'm right. You're not. Your viewpoints are childish and I'll be here in my tower if you need me. Get my robe and slippers."


If those are the three people on your list, you can add at least a couple more to it.

You came out from your tower to call some people/people's points childish, and have taken every effort to prove that, side-stepping the actual discussion in the process. You brought the childish shit here, not Mokk, yet you insist on continuing to prove that people have childish viewpoints.
 
Sneakypants said:
You came out from your tower to call some people/people's points childish, and have taken every effort to prove that, side-stepping the actual discussion in the process. You brought the childish shit here, not Mokk, yet you insist on continuing to prove that people have childish viewpoints.
Click to expand...
No, that was merely one point I made. It is you and everyone else that keyed in on that, became hyper defensive saying I was calling him personally childish, and derailed any attempts at a discussion. And Mokk says there was no discussion to begin with, yet you say I'm side stepping it.

1. OP discussion: Should we take the troops out.
2. People post opinions (self included).
3. We discuss war casualties for a bit.
4. I question opinions (and later Mokk's) as to the source of their logic and reasoning.
5. You among others become hyper defensive over me calling Mokk's logic childish (which I then proved given my source). No one questioned the source until the post just before this one.

So explain to me how I am out of line in this whole thread? I tried to discuss the philosophy and psychology behind peoples system of values (especiliy Mokk because he was the only one that went into adequate detail), and you tell me not to discuss that either. Just what are you wanting to discuss? Or could it be you don't want a discussion at all as you don't like people disagreeing with you?
Sneakypants said:
I'm not going through the effort of taking 10 different posts and cosolidating them all.
Click to expand...
Then why should we go through the effort of sifting through your post spread over several pages. It is extremely easy to scroll down while in the post window, highlight, copy, and paste in your text window. Then just highly the pasted text and click the quote button. To find that too much work is lazy.
 
Rones said:
5. You among others become hyper defensive over me calling Mokk's logic childish (which I then proved given my source). No one questioned the source until the post just before this one.
Click to expand...

Do what now?

One criticism of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values. As a consequence of this, it may not adequately address the arguments of people who value other moral aspects of actions.

Other psychologists have challenged the assumption that moral action is primarily reached by formal reasoning. For example, social intuitionists assume that people often make moral judgments without weighing concerns such as fairness, law, human rights and abstract ethical values. If this is true, the arguments that Kohlberg and other rationalist psychologists have analyzed are often no more than post hoc rationalizations of intuitive decisions. This would mean that moral reasoning is less relevant to moral action than it seems.
Click to expand...

Just because you didn't notice the edit because you bantered on with DD into another page doesn't mean it didn't happen, nor do i expect you to be psychic however i would've figured you'dve at least looked lower than the first parts of the page down to the criticisms to not see your whole point driven under.

It's called a theory for a reason.
 
Last edited:
Mokk said:
Just because you didn't notice the edit because you bantered on with DD into another page doesn't mean it didn't happen, nor do i expect you to be psychic however i would've figured you'dve at least looked lower than the first parts of the page down to the criticisms to not see your whole point driven under.

It's called a theory for a reason.
Click to expand...
That last edit was after my post as you note and on a previous page. You also stated you did not want to discuss, so I did not imagine you would go back and add material encouraging discussion on previous pages.

As for the criticism: All things in psychology are theories due to the nature of the material. Heck, many physics theories are nearly taken as fact, not because they don't work but rather because no one can check the infinite number of conditions it might fail.

The criticisms I find on the page are fairly weak, first it says it over emphasis justice...is that a fault? And where exactly does that happen. From my understanding of it, focus on justice is just an attribute of level 2.

The other criticism from social intuitionists throws out loads of commonly accepted psychological rationalist theories and basically says we are not rational beings as much as preprogrammed robots that rationalize our actions as an afterthought. It further assumes morality is some innate attribute people have that isn't developed through rational though, which if were true would mean morales would be universal, which they aren't. That's quite possible in the heat of the moment, but we are discussing morality about before it happens. By that given fact, social intuition does not apply.

Yes, it is a theory. Is it possible for it to be wrong? Yes. Is it possible it is correct? Yes. Does it matter either way at this point? Not really, because I am just citing how I came to the conclusion of calling your system of values is childish, which really isn't as important as the actual discussion of your system. If you want to discuss it, we can. However, you said several times you didn't want to, so I'm getting mixed messages.
 
Rones said:
That last edit was after my post as you note and on a previous page. You also stated you did not want to discuss, so I did not imagine you would go back and add material encouraging discussion on previous pages.

As for the criticism: All things in psychology are theories due to the nature of the material. Heck, many physics theories are nearly taken as fact, not because they don't work but rather because no one can check the infinite number of conditions it might fail.

The criticisms I find on the page are fairly weak, first it says it over emphasis justice...is that a fault? And where exactly does that happen. From my understanding of it, focus on justice is just an attribute of level 2.

The other criticism from social intuitionists throws out loads of commonly accepted psychological rationalist theories and basically says we are not rational beings as much as preprogrammed robots that rationalize our actions as an afterthought. It further assumes morality is some innate attribute people have that isn't developed through rational though, which if were true would mean morales would be universal, which they aren't. That's quite possible in the heat of the moment, but we are discussing morality about before it happens. By that given fact, social intuition does not apply.

Yes, it is a theory. Is it possible for it to be wrong? Yes. Is it possible it is correct? Yes. Does it matter either way at this point? Not really, because I am just citing how I came to the conclusion of calling your system of values is childish, which really isn't as important as the actual discussion of your system. If you want to discuss it, we can. However, you said several times you didn't want to, so I'm getting mixed messages.
Click to expand...

Okay, look, i'm tired of being polite about this. I'm not encouraging discussion, you won't shut the fuck up and leave me the hell alone. I stated my opinion and you feel compelled to disect it, i appreciate the attention but when it comes to psychologically fingering why i think the way i do i seriously doubt you've got anywhere near the required skills to do it over a message board based on my feelings on this one issue. Just stop, for the love of all things holy, give it a goddamn rest ... you're fucking intelligent, we know that .. you have sources, congratugodamnlations. It matters not. If you'd leave me the fuck out of it and discuss something that RELATED TO THE GODDAMN ISSUE aside from what my feelings about it are and how you believe them to be wrong maybe you wouldn't look like such an ass and invite the criticism you've been getting here.

Good day, sir.
 
I'm not encouraging discussion, you won't shut the fuck up and leave me the hell alone.
Click to expand...
...all you had to do was stop posting. However, many of your posts did indeed encourage discussion, such as your rebuttle of the theory. When you counter what someone says, you are encouraging discussion. If you truly did not care, you could have just said "I don't care" and never posted in the thread again. I tried to politely end it a couple times, but it was you who persisted.
, i appreciate the attention but when it comes to psychologically fingering why i think the way i do i seriously doubt you've got anywhere near the required skills to do it over a message board based on my feelings on this one issue.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not qualified to analyze you. Luckily, I wasn't either. I am attempting to apply a theory that would allow us to compare to different systems of morality. That is within the range of our abiltiies.
 
Last edited:
You know damn good and well my question posed to your picutre was rhetorical.

I said good day, sir.
 
Rones, you are being a prick. People called you out on it. Instead of making concessions (which would have actually burried the hatchet), the best you can offer is a sarcastic picture, a ripped-off comedy act, failed attempt to end what you started. This only made things worse and proved you to be an arrogant jerk.

Grats! You're live by the logic, die by the logic attitude has spoken volumes this time.
 
cause... you know.. you haven't posted a picture as a sarcastic joke before in any other thread
icon_rolleyes.gif
hypocrisy sure is amusing
 
Elemmire said:
cause... you know.. you haven't posted a picture as a sarcastic joke before in any other thread
icon_rolleyes.gif
hypocrisy sure is amusing
Click to expand...

Bitch you wouldn't recognize apples versus oranges if they came in your asshole.
 
Sneakypants said:
Rones, you are being a prick. People called you out on it. Instead of making concessions (which would have actually burried the hatchet), the best you can offer is a sarcastic picture, a ripped-off comedy act, failed attempt to end what you started. This only made things worse and proved you to be an arrogant jerk.

Grats! You're live by the logic, die by the logic attitude has spoken volumes this time.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are talking about. Where was I called out on being a prick? When was I prick? I thought we were trying to have a discussion of pulling troops out of Iraq. Mokk and I had a disagreement, he wanted to stop and I tried to end it with a joke picture which was very tame for this boards standards. Then you started attacking me like I just ran over your dog. If anyone is acting like a prick, I think it is you Sneaky. At least I don't call people a 'bitch' just because they disagree with me and prove their own hypocrisy.
 
Rones said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. Where was I called out on being a prick? When was I prick? I thought we were trying to have a discussion of pulling troops out of Iraq. Mokk and I had a disagreement, he wanted to stop and I tried to end it with a joke picture which was very tame for this boards standards. Then you started attacking me like I just ran over your dog. If anyone is acting like a prick, I think it is you Sneaky. At least I don't call people a 'bitch' just because they disagree with me and prove their own hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

You've proven yourself enough Rones. I need not explain myself to you or play games with people that shout hypocrite because they have nothing at all. Keep being sore.
 
Sneakypants said:
Bitch you wouldn't recognize apples versus oranges if they came in your asshole.
Click to expand...

aren't we on our PMSing mode :\
 
Elemmire said:
aren't we on our PMSing mode :\
Click to expand...

What's this "we" business?
If you kept your mouth shut in the first place, I wouldn't have to even bust out the pimp hand.

Still, how can I keep you from your true calling of putting your nose where it doesn't belong? :tup:
 
hmm... I was just pointing out obvious hypocrisy on your part. I don't care what business you have between yourself and Rones but bashing a picture he posted when he was just trying to be clever and amusing when you have done so several times in the past... ya.. smells like hypocrisy.

Edit: also, I have nothing against you. I'm just calling it how I see it. No need to get vulgar and immature about it. :\
 
Elemmire said:
hmm... I was just pointing out obvious hypocrisy on your part. I don't care what business you have between yourself and Rones but bashing a picture he posted when he was just trying to be clever and amusing when you have done so several times in the past... ya.. smells like hypocrisy.

Edit: also, I have nothing against you. I'm just calling it how I see it. No need to get vulgar and immature about it. :\
Click to expand...

Don't start shit then. I don't really care about problems with people or not. Don't want issues with me? Get off my nuts.
You're talking shit that's off-base and taking things further away from the topic.
 
Sneakypants said:
You've proven yourself enough Rones. I need not explain myself to you or play games with people that shout hypocrite because they have nothing at all. Keep being sore.
Click to expand...
Now who is the one being arrogant again? I still can't believe you are freaking out over a picture that was in attempt to be funny and then turn around say something like this:
Sneakpants said:
Bitch you wouldn't recognize apples versus oranges if they came in your asshole.
Click to expand...
That might meet the minimum quota in the FB, but it fails elsewhere. Go get your pc+1 somewhere else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top