twooffour

CP3S said:

I mean, I have never seen you "respectfully disagree" with anything. Anytime you disagree, you call some forms of bullshit or another.

That's confirmation bias. Actually done that quite a few times.
My religious discussion with darth_ender on the Politics would be one example.
(Although that was in terms of tone.)

When I expressed my views on Islam, I initially had nothing backing them up and yet you commented on what a great post I had made and how well I had managed to back up my views for once... this left me scratching my head and bemused.

If you disagreed with it, you could have just as easily called bullshit on that post as any of my others.

Your mistake here is that political opinions about Islam are wide-spread points of views held by a lot of different people. It's not just an individual opinion of yours and yours only, that I yet have to see backed up - when I've already seen lots of other Islam criticis pointing to the instructions in the Quran, the crimes committed by many Muslims today, with piles of examples etc. etc.
In such a case, a first impression that someone else has given the issue some thought (and from the looks of it, much more than I have), is quite sufficient I think.

That was a very telling example of how right and wrong to you is stuck within the strict confines of your own views.

You aren't disagreeing with it because it is bullshit, it is bullshit simply because you disagree with it.

Ah, thanks, I'd almost forgotten how much ass I kicked in those ones

So thanks ;)

Assault on Precinct 13 was a good one, but I haven't seen the original...

I think this is the 4th thread with this title.


I like most of the sound/visuals, and some single aspects like certain lines, characters or moments. It's quite a long list of those, actually, but a bunch of single aspects and moments all the same.

All I can say is, I remember thinking and saying that I liked them just as much as the OT, in a time when I was a kid and hadn't yet used my brain on that one.

twister111 said:

 

twooffour said:

No.
I sometimes expect them to get upset or even "angry", but that is still within the boundaries of "discussion".

It only becomes trolling when the actual expressed position is dishonest and faked, rather than being genuine.

When you've learned to tell things apart from each other, you may come back.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Is-Part-4-of-anything-ever-good/post/515350/#TopicPost515350

twooffour said:

twister111 said:

I'll take that as admitting you just want to piss me off. Your defence is what I was referring to BTW. Also regardless of my yawn pics I did read that post and, the above quoted. As for the rest it's not worth debating because, you're just trying to piss me off.

Ah, well, when you put it like that... yea, yea, mhm, definitely ;)

 

Hi, I've already addressed this the last time you tried to bring it up.

Poorly played, sir. Poorly played.

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

As I said, I only attack bullshit opinions. You may think whatever nonsense you want.

Curious how bullshit opinions seem to be every opinion you disagree with...

Maybe because I don't see any sense in agreeing with a bullshit opinion?

Again, it's a bullshit opinion if I can back up that it is. That's the only qualified, not who disagrees with it.
I think I've said this same thing dozens of times already, and if you're too thick to get that (because accusing someone of megalomania is so much more fun than using your brain), then hey, fine.



@Twister, all your examples are unrelated and suck. I'm not even going to

darth_ender said:

twooffour said:

Nah, well, it was your turn so if you wanna post something, sure... I've said everything so far :)

And no, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this again, I DON'T attack "anyone who disagrees with me" - there are just SOME opinions, that are (apparently) fallacious, and THEN I might attack or try to debunk them. And try to "force-feed" what I consider as... reason.

And then obviously I quote multiple parts from their posts so I can make a nice point... based on their post.

It's not just "any opinion", because it's "my style". I'm just honest if I find something stupid, and any "respect your opinion" would be an empty pleasantry in that case.

Well, I'm afraid this is another brilliant topic started by an eloquent OP now derailed by what was intended as a minor venture off-track, in this case in your defense.

First, I never even said you attack anyone, so chill.  Second, you presume what every human presumes, that being that all your opinions are correct and everyone else's are faulty.  After all, why cling to an opinion if you don't think it's right.  The real problem is that if anyone slightly questions your point of view, then you pull your usual rhetoric with "quotation marks," ALL CAPS, and always finding supposed fallacies where none truly exists.  The belief that you are always right is the most fallacious of human reasoning.  You fall prey to it more than anyone else I've yet had the pleasure to meet on this forum.

What an insipid piece of BULLSHIT.

Do I even have to respond to this?
No, not every human presumes that all their opinions are correct - that's reserved for the idiots. Anyone with half a brain will realize that some of their opinions are uninformed or poorly thought-out (which you can, of course, only do after admitting that an opinion CAN be uninformed and poorly thought-out), and is probably able to tell it at at least SOME examples.

However, believing that you're right when you can back up your claims time and time again, and anyone objecting can't, is, I think, a pretty justified reasoning.
That doesn't mean you're right ABOUT EVERYTHING - just the STUFF YOU CAN BACK UP. Is that so hard to get?

And hey, if you wanna claim that when I point out a fallacy, "none true exists", how about you point that out next time? What you're doing here, is just empty accusation - and also built on fallacies and false conclusions (strawman is a fallacy, look it up).

Is that finally clear? Have I got it across? THANK you.

As I said, I only attack bullshit opinions. You may think whatever nonsense you want.

Nah, well, it was your turn so if you wanna post something, sure... I've said everything so far :)

And no, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this again, I DON'T attack "anyone who disagrees with me" - there are just SOME opinions, that are (apparently) fallacious, and THEN I might attack or try to debunk them. And try to "force-feed" what I consider as... reason.

And then obviously I quote multiple parts from their posts so I can make a nice point... based on their post.

It's not just "any opinion", because it's "my style". I'm just honest if I find something stupid, and any "respect your opinion" would be an empty pleasantry in that case.

It was a House reference, anyway :)
Although it should've been obvious to be some kind of reference anyway, eh?

No idea at all what I might've said that was "offensive" to you.
I so hope it wasn't challenging your "skepticism"... you know...

some punny joke about "passive" and "active" incoming, presumably involving Erica...

I flee, I flee.

but... that was passive... not active... that was interesting

Ah, I see. Victóry...

So anyway, looks like this is getting pretty lame... if something interested is posted, maybe I'll peak in or something. Whatever.

So now accurately summing up a post exchange (that paints you in a bad light) is trolling, too. Mhm.


As for the emoticon... what's the fucking matter with you? Do you have some sort of communication problems? First you don't get quotation marks used for distancing from a word, now you're baffled by a wink smiley meant to express... a wink?

Seriously, Frink? Really?

-"You're a Troll. Here's why" *lists reasons he thinks are valid*
-*the fallacious reasons given are debunked*
-*doesn't know what stands in the rebuttal* I'm still right, you're a Troll.


heh ;)

Mrebo said:

twooffour said:

xhonzi missed something obvious, and I caught on to something obvious.

Vice versa.

Nice try.

I was mocking your line of reasoning

No, just nudity. This picture is much worse than nudity, but it's allowed.




;)

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

[snip]

Nope. Still a troll.

*stabs self in eye*

That's probably as close as one can come to capitulation without actually having to pronounce "oops, I guess I fucked up".

No worries, though - you've got it across.

Or maybe I don't feel like wading through your usual bullshit?

*stabs out other eye*

I was wrong. This is even closer.

Mit, diesem Herz hab ich, die Macht,   eure Augenliderr, zu, erpressen...

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

[snip]

Nope. Still a troll.

*stabs self in eye*

That's probably as close as one can come to capitulation without actually having to pronounce "oops, I guess I fucked up".

No worries, though - you've got it across.

Oh, btw, Frink and CP3S came into this thread with personal attacks (=posts entirely comprised of personal attacks). Now we've got a fight. Heh.

TV's Frink said:

Since you always demand explanations for opinions, I will now give you one:

Yes, accusations require explanations.
Glad you've realized that finally, albeit grudgingly.

The reason you come here is to argue with people.  You call it "discussion," but a normal person doesn't use the language and name-calling you use unless they really want a fight, not a discussion.

In other words, you throw shit out (couched in pseudo-intellectual nonsense)

to make people angry and argue with you.

Mrebo said:

xhonzi was clearly being sardonic.

Ah, well, came off differently.

You're the one reading serious accusations of perversity into it (xhonzi merely raised the possibility that Ebert wants to see boobs).

No, not merely raised a possibility, but clearly acted as if this was the most sensible conclusion.
But doesn't matter since he was joking, right?

You don't have to agree, but wanting to see more sex in several family-friendly PG-13 movies is odd.

Right?

Was Ebert just being sardonic about the topic of sex in several family-friendly movies? It's certainly a possibility. But that doesn't make it "common sense." Nor a "high probability." That others have addressed this topic has nothing to do with Ebert in the context of several reviews of family-friendly movies. That you want to give Ebert the benefit of the doubt is nice of ya, but not common sense.

Actually it is, if you have common sense, and if you'd have read my previous post.
Jokes like this are made CONSTANTLY, by A LOT OF PEOPLE. Most of whom probably wouldn't mind boobs, but play up their hypersexuality for purpose. It's just a common trope.

So what's the more likely conclusion, that he employed that device, or that one of the most well-known critics read by a wide audience would accidentally slip his sexual fantasies about sex in children's movies in reviews read by a wide audience?

What you failed to consider in this thread is 'the high probability that xhonzi MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THAT SERIOUS.' He raised a possibility. You raised a competing possibility and called xhonzi names and dismissed his sardonic observation.

"I stopped reading Ebert years ago, but what's happened to the man?  He seems to be very upset that PG-13 ratings are standing between him and seeing famous boobs."

"I don't recall him being so fixated back when I used to read him more regularly.  It was something new- I found it odd.  I thought some people here might appreciate the oddity."

You know what, doesn't seem like sarcasm to me. It reads like someone's genuinely confused by Ebert's "recent oddity".
I think you're just saying he was being sardonic so you can have a point against me.

That's what it READS like, mind you - now compare
"they grow close, but only PG-13 close, because Marvel has apparently determined that fanboys find sex to be icky."
A jab at the ones responsible, plus pointing out a rather amusing irony.

"One alien element has become almost traditional. Ever since "Alien," we've had the phenomenon of aliens who unfold to reveal wicked inner parts. The aliens here have chest cavities that open to extrude three-fingered hands, slimy with mucus. One shudders to envision the use of these limbs during sex. On their home world, there must be fortunes to be made in opening manicure shops."

Now that was fucking serious. I now certainly respect the "possibility" that he may have issues. Alien chest cavities?
I mean, sure, he could've been joking there, but he could also have been serious! We have to consider all possibilities, and common sense is like, individual and stuff!

Gimme a break...

Ziggy Stardust said:

He thinks he's the best in the world, when actually he sucks at what he does.

Both statements are wrong. ;)