Born the wrong species

[Cerpin Taxt]

you're a sack of trump dump, and a blatant hypocrite on top of it. dodge and deflect and deflect and dodge, you're nothing more than a silly little troll.

Buckwheat's entire posting history on this forum (and likely elsewhere) can be summarized thus:

"I reject your reality and substitute my own."

He will basically retreat all the way to solipsism rather than admit an error in his worldview. He is a poster child for self-delusion.

 

[buckshot24]

And open the door to another pissing match? No thanks.

Don't you think it is ironic that you've made all sorts of comments about me, personally and I don't recall ever saying anything personal about you?

I didn't refer to you as a child, I didn't insinuate that you were a chimp (throwing feces), I didn't say you were a bad person in real life, I didn't say any of your beliefs were delusional, I didn't defend anybody calling you names as justified, I didn't make any remarks about your character.

You've done all of these things to me and I'm the jerk?

 

[buckshot24]

We can't SOLVE the issue whether Katelyn Jenner "is" a woman or not here, mainly because this is an emotional issue, so we can only trade emotions/opinion/beliefs..ad infinitum and without constructive result

If we leave emotion out of this I think the facts speak for themselves.

 

[buckshot24]

The reason I asked the little mini-poll is I have a theory that (generally speaking), liberals would largely say it is undeniably FALSE. While conservatives (generally speaking), will agree that they are the same.

It sure seems that would be the outcome based on my limited observations here.

You are wrong, again.

Bruce can change his name but he can't change him being a man.

 

[buckshot24]

"The person formerly known as Bruce Jenner is now Katelyn Jenner" = "Katelyn Jenner is a woman"

If you're going to go on about me calling Bruce by the wrong name maybe you should spell the name correctly?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Buckwheat's entire posting history on this forum (and likely elsewhere) can be summarized thus:

"I reject your reality and substitute my own."

He will basically retreat all the way to solipsism rather than admit an error in his worldview. He is a poster child for self-delusion.

Yea, well Adam owned that phrase and at least he was swayed by scientific findings. bucky is immune to common sense and reason.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't you think it is ironic that you've made all sorts of comments about me, personally and I don't recall ever saying anything personal about you?

I didn't refer to you as a child, I didn't insinuate that you were a chimp (throwing feces), I didn't say you were a bad person in real life, I didn't say any of your beliefs were delusional, I didn't defend anybody calling you names as justified, I didn't make any remarks about your character.

You've done all of these things to me and I'm the jerk?

There are plenty of ways to be an asshole that don't involve calling people names. You pretty consistently display a number of these.

 

[chipwitch]

Don't you think it is ironic that you've made all sorts of comments about me, personally and I don't recall ever saying anything personal about you?

I didn't refer to you as a child, I didn't insinuate that you were a chimp (throwing feces), I didn't say you were a bad person in real life, I didn't say any of your beliefs were delusional, I didn't defend anybody calling you names as justified, I didn't make any remarks about your character.

You've done all of these things to me and I'm the jerk?

Really? You can't tell the difference between "You are acting like a child" and "You ARE a child?"

The monkey thing was a metaphor. You fling out words you think will upset someone when those words aren't even the topic of conversation, while the rest of us are simply amused by it... just like monkeys in the monkey house. Metaphor.

I never said you were a bad person in real life. But now, I guess I can comment on your character as that statement is a lie.

I don't have beliefs like you do. If I did, I have no doubt you would have attacked them. I have facts. You can't call someone's beliefs delusional if those "beliefs" have undergone an extensive process of peer review.

Remarks about character aren't allowed? Really. If a person lies, I may or may not call them a liar. I guess that would be "commenting on their character." I have called you NO names.

Every statement you've made here is intellectually dishonest. The truth is, NONE of these things, EVEN if I had done them, or been malicious in absolutely ANY way towards you, it wouldn't bother you in the least. Admit it. So, save the crocodile tears for someone naive enough to fall for it. I'm not that person. You are intellectually dishonest at every turn and you act like a child. Those are observations and I stand by them.

 

[realibrad]

Don't you think it is ironic that you've made all sorts of comments about me, personally and I don't recall ever saying anything personal about you?

Maybe you have a bad memory.

 

[chipwitch]

You are wrong, again.

Bruce can change his name but he can't change him being a man.

Oh, so reading comprehension is challenging for you. Suddenly, our entire exchange makes sense.

Go back and read that post again. I made absolutely ZERO CLAIMS in that post. Unless you count where I say "Honest, no tricks."

 

[chipwitch]

Maybe you have a bad memory.

Poor memory is the least of his issues

 

[buckshot24]

Really? You can't tell the difference between "You are acting like a child" and "You ARE a child?"

The point is you've made this personal. You've made all sorts of comments about me, personally, instead of what I've been saying. Then you complain about not having a rational discussion. Very interesting.

The monkey thing was a metaphor. You fling out words you think will upset someone when those words aren't even the topic of conversation, while the rest of us are simply amused by it... just like monkeys in the monkey house. Metaphor.

That isn't why I say things. This is a belief that you have without supporting evidence.

I never said you were a bad person in real life. But now, I guess I can comment on your character as that statement is a lie.

No, you just "suspected" it, which has nothing to do with the conversation. More personal.

No, you'd rather call her "Bruce" and "HE and just be mean. I suspect you aren't a very nice person in real life and I am quite content in not knowing you.

The point is you're making this personal, not me.

I don't have beliefs like you do. If I did, I have no doubt you would have attacked them. I have facts. You can't call someone's beliefs delusional if those "beliefs" have undergone an extensive process of peer review.

Yes you do.

Remarks about character aren't allowed? Really. If a person lies, I may or may not call them a liar. I guess that would be "commenting on their character." I have called you NO names.

I didn't say they weren't allowed I'm pointing out that you're making this about me.

Every statement you've made here is intellectually dishonest. The truth is, NONE of these things, EVEN if I had done them, or been malicious in absolutely ANY way towards you, it wouldn't bother you in the least. Admit it. So, save the crocodile tears for someone naive enough to fall for it. I'm not that person. You are intellectually dishonest at every turn and you act like a child. Those are observations and I stand by them.

I stand by the fact that Bruce is a man. What I am hurt by is irrelevant, what is relevant is your hypocrisy.

And no, I'm not hurt. I didn't expect you to "fall for it" but I expect you to see your hypocrisy.

The bottom line is you've made all sorts of personal comments about me instead of having an adult discussion. Name calling is for children. And yes, insinuating that I am throwing feces like a monkey is name calling.

 

[buckshot24]

Oh, so reading comprehension is challenging for you. Suddenly, our entire exchange makes sense.

Go back and read that post again. I made absolutely ZERO CLAIMS in that post. Unless you count where I say "Honest, no tricks."

Maybe you should take a break. You seem to be far too emotional to think critically right now. You make even further personal comments.

You can be wrong without making explicit claims. My answer is FALSE to your poll and you've come to an incorrect inference based upon our interaction.

 

[brycejones]

Maybe you should take a break. You seem to be far too emotional to think critically right now. You make even further personal comments.

You can be wrong without making explicit claims. My answer is FALSE to your poll and you've come to an incorrect inference based upon our interaction.

oh bucky

 

[chipwitch]

LOL... Buckshot, all kidding aside now. No bullshit. I read you.

Don't bother trying to dupe me into thinking you actually want to discourse. I gave you every benefit of the doubt in the beginning. You goad people. I don't know what your motivation is. It doesn't matter, really. But, I do have a couple ideas about it. Maybe you didn't get much attention as a child, so you'd act out to get it? You were bullied by other children for being a christian? You aren't happy with your life? You have doubts about your faith and seeing atheists act in unbecoming behavior reaffirm your chosen path? There isn't enough interaction between us for me to know with any degree of certainty, but you clearly don't want to have adult, civil discussion.

So, with that understanding, I don't know for sure if you truly believe any of the things you say here. Maybe you do. If so, I can see how deferring to a higher power might benefit you. Having been raised in a very conservative church... think Amish without the fear of technology... I understand how disturbed brainwashing of religion can make a person. It took me decades to undo the damage caused by parents thinking they were doing a good thing by taking me to church 3 times a week. Hell, maybe that's the reason you like goading people... you're looking for the right argument to help you escape the oppression and break the cycle.

Bottom line, I don't know for certain what makes you behave the way you do. Sorry if you don't like it getting personal. You make it personal because everyone you want to argue with is trying to figure out what the fuck is wrong with you. When people are intellectually honest with one another, they can have some great discussions, be unchanged in their divergent views while still gaining one another's respect but still taking away something positive from the experience.

So, yeah... I've commented on your person. But I never attacked you.

Trying to recall where I said you were "bad" because that just doesn't sound like me. I don't say people are good or bad because I don't believe they can be either. I do recall saying you aren't nice. Is that what you mean? If so, that was my opinion based on your behavior. I suspect YOU put it in that little box labeled "bad." That's on you.

 

[chipwitch]

Maybe you should take a break. You seem to be far too emotional to think critically right now. You make even further personal comments.

You can be wrong without making explicit claims. My answer is FALSE to your poll and you've come to an incorrect inference based upon our interaction.

LOL... this IS taking a break. Kicking back, having a beer and enjoying two of my favorite pass-times... philosophy and psychoanalysis.

<edit> Oh, and great. I appreciate the answer false. See, what I did was made a hypothesis. One datum point does not a poll make, but should I get more conservative votes for FALSE, then :swoosh: the hypothesis is incorrect and I don't take it personally

 

[chipwitch]

Maybe you should take a break. You seem to be far too emotional to think critically right now.

I totally MISSED this comment! By what means do you perceive I'm emotional? Even the to the slightest degree? I'm as calm as Jesus on the Sea of Galilee (after the storm, of course).

See how far off our sensors can be? You put an awful lot of stock in your perception that there is a creator. If it's based on the same sensor by which you've determined I'm 'emotional', you might need to get it into the shop for a tune-up

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I stand by the fact that Bruce is a man.

I stand by the fact that you're a cockbiting fucktard.

Now, the exercise with which I leave you is to evaluate the extent to which the reality of your being is affected by someone standing by the fact that you are a cockbiting fucktard.

 

[buckshot24]

So, yeah... I've commented on your person. But I never attacked you.

Not the point.

Anyway, I concede and won't waste anymore of my time on this.

 

[chipwitch]

Not the point.

Anyway, I concede and won't waste anymore of my time on this.

I've never denied being personal. I've claimed to have not "attacked" you. I've not said things to you with malevolence aimed at hurting you. Maybe I hurt you? Maybe I didn't? It wasn't my intent, if I did. My intent was, however, to get you to see some of the things you do here, as it is a HUGE fucking motivator why I've done what I've done. It's not just that you have a dissenting opinion...

Many of your ideas just plain stink, giving you very little rational ground on which to stand for support. Deep down, you probably know it too. Putting those ideas forward to be critically examined by others is to risk having those ideas subject to abject failure. Having ones world view decimated before their eyes is temporarily devastating. I know, because it's happened to me a couple times. You get over it and your world view becomes bullet proof. Mine's not there yet, but it's gotten stronger with each new incarnation.

To avoid the risk of having your views fail in a public forum, you engage in intellectually dishonest behavior, you dissemble, deflect and engage in the very behaviors you accuse others of doing. In this way, it's easy to convince oneself that the argument against their views are nothing more than personal attacks. You are basically protecting your ideas with your own person rather than looking at them critically.

To close, I'll just finish with this. You cannot refer to someone using the word hypocrisy and not be "personal." By definition it is "you don't do what you tell me to do." Do a word count of the thread. You use the word more than anyone else in the thread. Further, you were the first to bring the word hypocrisy, hypocrite, hypocritical into play. Your admission to "mocking" me was just a bonus.

POST 142

I was mocking your hypocrisy...

So, if you want to get into the ring and throw punches, don't expect to not get your nose bloodied once in a while. So it's personal. I've been nothing but civil to you.

 

[chipwitch]

Engage people honestly and most people will treat you with respect most of the time.

 

[JD50]

I've never denied being personal. I've claimed to have not "attacked" you. I've not said things to you with malevolence aimed at hurting you. Maybe I hurt you? Maybe I didn't? It wasn't my intent, if I did. My intent was, however, to get you to see some of the things you do here, as it is a HUGE fucking motivator why I've done what I've done. It's not just that you have a dissenting opinion...

Many of your ideas just plain stink, giving you very little rational ground on which to stand for support. Deep down, you probably know it too. Putting those ideas forward to be critically examined by others is to risk having those ideas subject to abject failure. Having ones world view decimated before their eyes is temporarily devastating. I know, because it's happened to me a couple times. You get over it and your world view becomes bullet proof. Mine's not there yet, but it's gotten stronger with each new incarnation.

To avoid the risk of having your views fail in a public forum, you engage in intellectually dishonest behavior, you dissemble, deflect and engage in the very behaviors you accuse others of doing. In this way, it's easy to convince oneself that the argument against their views are nothing more than personal attacks. You are basically protecting your ideas with your own person rather than looking at them critically.

To close, I'll just finish with this. You cannot refer to someone using the word hypocrisy and not be "personal." By definition it is "you don't do what you tell me to do." Do a word count of the thread. You use the word more than anyone else in the thread. Further, you were the first to bring the word hypocrisy, hypocrite, hypocritical into play. Your admission to "mocking" me was just a bonus.

POST 142


So, if you want to get into the ring and throw punches, don't expect to not get your nose bloodied once in a while. So it's personal. I've been nothing but civil to you.

Nailed it

 

[zinfamous]

Yes I know what duplicity means and you're demonstrating it here. You complain that I call Bruce, Bruce while calling me an idiot. You are "acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter".

"Idiot" is not my name.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that you are not an idiot.

 

[MongGrel]

I'm still waiting for you to prove that you are not an idiot.

The sad part about buckshot is he probably has over half the people posting in here on "The List" and can not see what is being posted about him, and just blindly rants away.

 

[zinfamous]

The sad part about buckshot is he probably has over half the people posting in here on "The List" and can not see what is being posted about him, and just blindly rants away.

Oh, he reads all of them.