On the Pleasure of Hating.

[ding]

I like it, up to a point. There are times when we are living in the present that action is required. The key is to be able to discern when that is, right? Too much in either direction is not necessarily good. If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.

Takes too much thinking about.

Why do you say that?

Seemed a logical response.

OK, then why do you believe it takes too much thinking? What is there to think about?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Exactly, we respond real time. No thinking required per se. We make split decisions all the time in real time. But philosophies of all action or all inaction are equally bad. Let it be doesn't mean no action. Let it be doesn't mean all action. How is that for vague and ambiguous?

 

[ding]

I'm good without it. It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.

I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.

You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not. The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it. You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.

The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...

it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.

I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.

You later AGREED.

Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.

You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.

No. You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue" it degraded from there. My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves. It now seems you want to agree with that. Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.

So which is it? Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves? Or not?

That is the topic of the OP, right? Hate?

Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?

Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.

When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.

You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.

Get over yourself already.

I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that. You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.

I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification. It is not inherently an absolute statement. Not everyone hates others like you do, GT. Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different. You are one intolerant dude.

 

[ding]

How about changing the words around:

I love you, and I hate you.

How about you actually have an honest discussion?

Why do you hate others?

 

[G.T.]

I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.

You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not. The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it. You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.

The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...

it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.

I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.

You later AGREED.

Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.

You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.

No. You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue" it degraded from there. My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves. It now seems you want to agree with that. Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.

So which is it? Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves? Or not?

That is the topic of the OP, right? Hate?

Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?

Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.

When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.

You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.

Get over yourself already.

I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that. You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.

I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification. It is not inherently an absolute statement. Not everyone hate others like you do, GT. Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different. You are one intolerant dude.

You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?

The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats.

Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.

 

[ding]

You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not. The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it. You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.

The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...

it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.

I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.

You later AGREED.

Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.

You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.

No. You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue" it degraded from there. My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves. It now seems you want to agree with that. Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.

So which is it? Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves? Or not?

That is the topic of the OP, right? Hate?

Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?

Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.

When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.

You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.

Get over yourself already.

I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that. You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.

I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification. It is not inherently an absolute statement. Not everyone hate others like you do, GT. Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different. You are one intolerant dude.

You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?

The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats.

Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.

I'm not mad at all. How many times did I tell you that I wasn't trying to convince you and that I was happy for you believe whatever you wanted to believe?

This post of yours is full of non-sequiturs and tangents, GT. This post of yours is full of anger, GT. You are literally accusing me of what you are doing.

 

[G.T.]

The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...

it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.

I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.

You later AGREED.

Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.

You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.

No. You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue" it degraded from there. My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves. It now seems you want to agree with that. Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.

So which is it? Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves? Or not?

That is the topic of the OP, right? Hate?

Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?

Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.

When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.

You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.

Get over yourself already.

I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that. You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.

I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification. It is not inherently an absolute statement. Not everyone hate others like you do, GT. Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different. You are one intolerant dude.

You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?

The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats.

Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.

I'm not mad at all. How many times did I tell you that I wasn't trying to convince you and that I was happy for you believe whatever you wanted to believe?

This post of yours is full of non-sequiturs and tangents, GT. This post of yours is full of anger, GT. You are literally accusing me of what you are doing.

You're useless, man. Hopefully 1 of the 30 people slinging the same comments your way in the Religious forum will seep into your Autistic daftery - cuz it doesn't seem healthy iah.

 

[ding]

No. You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue" it degraded from there. My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves. It now seems you want to agree with that. Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.

So which is it? Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves? Or not?

That is the topic of the OP, right? Hate?

Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?

Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.

When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.

You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.

Get over yourself already.

I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that. You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.

I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification. It is not inherently an absolute statement. Not everyone hate others like you do, GT. Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different. You are one intolerant dude.

You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?

The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats.

Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.

I'm not mad at all. How many times did I tell you that I wasn't trying to convince you and that I was happy for you believe whatever you wanted to believe?

This post of yours is full of non-sequiturs and tangents, GT. This post of yours is full of anger, GT. You are literally accusing me of what you are doing.

You're useless, man. Hopefully 1 of the 30 people slinging the same comments your way in the Religious forum will seep into your Autistic daftery - cuz it doesn't seem healthy iah.

If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.

No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine. Nor do I care if you agree with mine.

Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.

i am more than happy for you to see it that way.

I couldn’t be happier for you.

See?

 

[G.T.]

Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?

Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.

When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.

You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.

Get over yourself already.

I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that. You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.

I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification. It is not inherently an absolute statement. Not everyone hate others like you do, GT. Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different. You are one intolerant dude.

You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?

The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats.

Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.

I'm not mad at all. How many times did I tell you that I wasn't trying to convince you and that I was happy for you believe whatever you wanted to believe?

This post of yours is full of non-sequiturs and tangents, GT. This post of yours is full of anger, GT. You are literally accusing me of what you are doing.

You're useless, man. Hopefully 1 of the 30 people slinging the same comments your way in the Religious forum will seep into your Autistic daftery - cuz it doesn't seem healthy iah.

If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.

No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine. Nor do I care if you agree with mine.

Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.

i am more than happy for you to see it that way.

I couldn’t be happier for you.

See?

You said you want to defend your beliefs in like 10 other posts, too, ding. Again, not sure why you play these teenaged girl games like this. Its gross sophistry, and doesnt have the effect of fooling anyone.

 

[ding]

cuz it doesn't seem healthy iah.

My turn. You are here seeking conflict and drama because your real life is in shambles. I know this because of your behaviors here. Turn the mirror on yourself.

 

[G.T.]

 

[ding]

Get over yourself already.

I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that. You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.

I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification. It is not inherently an absolute statement. Not everyone hate others like you do, GT. Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different. You are one intolerant dude.

You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?

The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats.

Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.

I'm not mad at all. How many times did I tell you that I wasn't trying to convince you and that I was happy for you believe whatever you wanted to believe?

This post of yours is full of non-sequiturs and tangents, GT. This post of yours is full of anger, GT. You are literally accusing me of what you are doing.

You're useless, man. Hopefully 1 of the 30 people slinging the same comments your way in the Religious forum will seep into your Autistic daftery - cuz it doesn't seem healthy iah.

If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.

No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine. Nor do I care if you agree with mine.

Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.

i am more than happy for you to see it that way.

I couldn’t be happier for you.

See?

You said you want to defend your beliefs in like 10 other posts, too, ding. Again, not sure why you play these teenaged girl games like this. Its gross sophistry, and doesnt have the effect of fooling anyone.

No. I don't believe I did say that. I said I have beliefs because I have basis for beliefs. Just because I share that basis doesn't mean I am defending it, GT. It only means I am sharing why I believe as I do. Something you do not seem capable of doing. You practice critical theory. You can't define what something is. You can only criticize what you think it isn't. And even then you need to make extreme arguments and take statements out of context like you just did here by stating that I stated that I am here to defend my beliefs. Show me where I did that. I'll wait.

 

[OldLady]

It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate. You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference. G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time. Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be. But you celebrate it.
It could be interesting.

 

[G.T.]

bye, dingerred. untrigger

 

[ding]

The truth usually hurts before it helps.

 

[ding]

It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate. You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference. G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time. Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be. But you celebrate it.
It could be interesting.

Not everyone is all good or all bad, OL. You treat them as they are.

Just because I challenge what people say or do or believe does not mean I am humiliating them.

Tell you what, go back and show me in this thread where you believe I did this. Because I don't believe you can.

 

[Mindful]

How about changing the words around:

I love you, and I hate you.

How about you actually have an honest discussion?

Why do you hate others?

Feel the love.

 

[G.T.]

It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate. You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference. G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time. Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be. But you celebrate it.
It could be interesting.

Im actually mean because Ive lost tolerance for ding inside of many otherwise cordial convoes, he comes in just to snit at people and I go into defcon 4 fireback because its gross to me. I then quit engaging him for a while, month or two, while he cools off.

 

[Mindful]

Ding. You could at least try to meet me half way.

• Indirect Communication: The British are relatively indirect communicators; they strongly avoid creating conflict and therefore take all necessary measures to remain polite throughout discussion. This involves making indirect statements that vaguely communicate their message without ‘rocking the boat’ (upsetting the status quo). As a result, people often have to read between the lines since what is said is most likely an understatement of what is actually meant (e.g. “not bad” means something is in fact quite good).

 

[OldLady]

It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate. You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference. G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time. Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be. But you celebrate it.
It could be interesting.

Not everyone is all good or all bad, OL. You treat them as they are.

Just because I challenge what people say or do or believe does not mean I am humiliating them.

Tell you what, go back and show me in this thread where you believe I did this. Because I don't believe you can.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[ding]

Ding. You could at least try to meet me half way.

• Indirect Communication: The British are relatively indirect communicators; they strongly avoid creating conflict and therefore take all necessary measures to remain polite throughout discussion. This involves making indirect statements that vaguely communicate their message without ‘rocking the boat’ (upsetting the status quo). As a result, people often have to read between the lines since what is said is most likely an understatement of what is actually meant (e.g. “not bad” means something is in fact quite good).

That's odd because wasn't it you who criticized me for being vague and ambiguous? Sort of ironic, don't you think?

What exactly would you like for me to meet you halfway upon? I'm not clairvoyant.