• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

International War Room V240: Congratulations to Rush Limbaugh on one month sober

What is your kink


  • Total voters
    29
Status
Not open for further replies.
I honestly have no clue what you two are even arguing about.

That said, I like money. If you guys outline what this is all about I may bet on it

Now, this is a little better (@Social Distance Warrior). I don't care about the money so much, but I like testing ideas. I'd bet that SDW can't produce any examples of actual dishonesty from @Andy Capp, as it's kind of his thing to just call disagreement dishonest, and I haven't seen anything from AC that would lead me to think it's likely that there is a real example.
 
Very much in character for me not to like boring shit. And, no, man I'm happy for you guys. Just don't dig the PDA.

I gotta disagree but there's plenty of that to single out in this thread. Not sure why I'm a target. He made what I would consider a regular comment to losing a bet I said not to take. Would you have preferred a breakdown of why he shouldn't have done it or a profanity laced tirade?

I expect to see you police the thread like you just did in the future. I suspect that won't happen though.
 
Proposal: SDW and AC make a loser-stays-away-for-a-month bet on whether SDW can find a real example of AC knowingly saying something untrue (y'all can appoint a panel to rule on it). And then maybe other people can take some side action.
 
Now, this is a little better (@Social Distance Warrior). I don't care about the money so much, but I like testing ideas. I'd bet that SDW can't produce any examples of actual dishonesty from @Andy Capp, as it's kind of his thing to just call disagreement dishonest, and I haven't seen anything from AC that would lead me to think it's likely that there is a real example.

it's in the Joe Rogan thread...

check out the first few pages...

and also pay attention who throws out the first insult.

I merely pointed out that Andy Capp is actually in agreement with Joe Rogan...and when I did, he immediately reframed the argument, insinuating that I didn't care about the health of obese folk.

I'll go find the quotes.
 
I gotta disagree but there's plenty of that to single out in this thread. Not sure why I'm a target. He made what I would consider a regular comment to losing a bet I said not to take. Would you have preferred a breakdown of why he shouldn't have done it or a profanity laced tirade?

I expect to see you police the thread like you just did in the future. I suspect that won't happen though.

I happen to be actively reading the thread now. You're right that I don't comment on every long, boring exchange. And don't take it too personally. Really, it was a sort of neutral ask. Not meant as an attack.
 
I am not following the argument, but using someone's suicidal thoughts as am insult is something only a grade A shit head would do.
 
it's in the Joe Rogan thread...

check out the first few pages...

and also pay attention who throws out the first insult.

I merely pointed out that Andy Capp is actually in agreement with Joe Rogan...and when I did, he immediately reframed the argument, insinuating that I didn't care about the health of obese folk.

I'll go find the quotes.

Wait, wait. I haven't seen the thread (or I don't think I have). Before I open it, any interest in the bet idea?
 
Now, this is a little better (@Social Distance Warrior). I don't care about the money so much, but I like testing ideas. I'd bet that SDW can't produce any examples of actual dishonesty from @Andy Capp, as it's kind of his thing to just call disagreement dishonest, and I haven't seen anything from AC that would lead me to think it's likely that there is a real example.

Well put the bet together. I'm game but someone is going to have to summarize (You get the nomination since you see to be invested in this)
 
Wait, wait. I haven't seen the thread (or I don't think I have). Before I open it, any interest in the bet idea?
Who is disputing that obese people are affected worse by contracting COVID? Are you being this sort of obtuse asshole on purpose?

Do you think fat people should be valued less by society in terms of trying to protect them from unnecessary harm?

I clearly was what?



This is your most bitchmade effort at attention whoring in quite a while. Why not answer the direct questions I addressed to you instead of this pussified shit?

I'll try again in case you grew a pair in the last minute. Nothing I said implied the assertion was false, but you certainly implied support for the notion espoused by TS that fat people are undeserving of protection and it's not his fault if they die; he's not wearing a mask because he doesn't want to and doesn't care.

Do you think fat people should be valued less by society in terms of trying to protect them from unnecessary harm? If not, why are you supporting TS?


now tell me @Jack V Savage , do you consider this to be honest of my posts in that thread?
 
Wait, wait. I haven't seen the thread (or I don't think I have). Before I open it, any interest in the bet idea?

it's the fat/obese/covid/god's wrath thread.

now tell me Jack...reading this...who was in the wrong here...who clearly misrepresented and reframed the argument?
 
I gotta disagree but there's plenty of that to single out in this thread. Not sure why I'm a target. He made what I would consider a regular comment to losing a bet I said not to take. Would you have preferred a breakdown of why he shouldn't have done it or a profanity laced tirade?

I expect to see you police the thread like you just did in the future. I suspect that won't happen though.

It's the Lounge thread, post about whatever you like. I dgaf about college hoops, but hearing about betting is more interesting than communist literature or pro wrestling.
 
now tell me @Jack V Savage , do you consider this to be honest of my posts in that thread?

I'm only seeing his posts. First one is him agreeing that obese people are affected worse (and denying that there's any dispute about that). Second one is kind of hard to get because of all the preliminary insult stuff, but he said that he agreed with "the assertion" (that obese people are affected worse? If so, that's correct based on the quote). And he said that you implied support for the notion ... that fat people are underserving of protection. I assume that that's what you're disputing?
 
I'm only seeing his posts. First one is him agreeing that obese people are affected worse (and denying that there's any dispute about that). Second one is kind of hard to get because of all the preliminary insult stuff, but he said that he agreed with "the assertion" (that obese people are affected worse? If so, that's correct based on the quote). And he said that you implied support for the notion ... that fat people are underserving of protection. I assume that that's what you're disputing?

Yes, to your very last sentence.

now tell me...does anything I write in that thread reflect or even insinuate this notion...

while you're at it...

take a look at the Secretary of Health Thread I started....and Andy's post there as well.

tell me, are his posts honest and/or do you believe he is arguing in good faith?
 
@Jack V Savage

what is your position?

LOL funny coming from you. Since when do you care what someone's position is before labeling them? Anyway, once they who would presume to know finish embarrassing themselves by being offended by what they think instead of what is real I might get into that with you.

That's what any rational person would come away with, given your passionate defense.

Care to explain your position, or are you afraid it might go into the Liberal no-no territory?

do you disagree with anything I posted in this thread?

you're here in this thread complaining about how people are mischaraterizing your positions or making up things you believe on the issue.

I'm here, asking you directly, what are your thoughts on the OP. would you like to have a conversation?

But my position is so clear and obvious. Let's hear @jamesmiller14 explain it to everyone since your attempt was such a pathetic failure.

The only thing that's pathetic is your resistance to state your actual position. Likely because you're afraid of offending some randos you consider "friends" on Karate forum.

OK, let me try.

I would say your position resembles something like this.

Although you don't quite understand transgenderism, you don't afford it much attention. You may even wonder why people care so much about it. Like many here in this thread, you probably hold the position that if she's qualified, then so be it, no big deal.

is this a fair representation of your position?

Run, run, run...

You're mad because I already laid out your position, and it was spot on. Until you actually find your spine, we'll just go with what I already said.

"Good pick, 'cause trans!"

Feel free to correct me.

I think you posted this thread expecting replies like those I quoted in post 280, and it damages the credibility of your OP saying you have no problem with it, "just sayin'", so I encourage you to elaborate on what you thought you might accomplish if you think it was A-OK. I already asked you to defend that earlier but received no reply.

And no, your assessment is incorrect. In the main, however, my "position" on transgender identity is irrelevant when my point is that kind of irrational hate identified above is why this thread had a predictable track. They're fucking evil and too mental to be trusted with any responsibility according to this thread, and half the people saying that can't manage to not be banned on a "karate forum". Think about that.



tell me Jack...who here is trying to have a civil, honest conversation?

who is reframing and being dishonest about the other party's position.

please be honest here.

here's the entire thread

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...retary-is-transgender.4157304/#post-163337525
 
Do i ever get out of this fucking city in the FFVII remake?

If not this game is a tugboat
 
it's the fat/obese/covid/god's wrath thread.

now tell me Jack...reading this...who was in the wrong here...who clearly misrepresented and reframed the argument?

OK, so he saw this: "Joe Rogan has been saying this for months... and Bill Maher just had a segment on this last week. I'll go find it." and responded with a general attack on Rogan. You then asked him if he disagrees with the idea that COVID hits obese people harder. And he seemed offended by that question (he appeared to be objecting more to the tone and maybe implied agreement with the thread title--i.e., that COVID is nature/God's wrath upon fats) and then asked you if you think fat people should be valued less by society, which seemed to offend you.

My take is that neither of you was being dishonest, but both of you were being ungenerous and overly aggressive. Though he was just asking a question, he did imply a harsher anti-fat position than you took; and though you were just asking a question, you implied a belief he didn't hold (or possibly that objecting to the tone of the thread title was equivalent to disagreeing with an uncontroversial fact).

Good piece here on what I see the issue as between you two:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trapped-priors-as-a-basic-problem

I recommend the whole thing, but the most-relevant portion:

Phobias are a very simple case of trapped priors. They can be more technically defined as a failure of habituation, the fancy word for "learning a previously scary thing isn't scary anymore". There are lots of habituation studies on rats. You ring a bell, then give the rats an electric shock. After you do this enough times, they're scared of the bell - they run and cower as soon as they hear it. Then you switch to ringing the bell and not giving an electric shock. At the beginning, the rats are still scared of the bell. But after a while, they realize the bell can't hurt them anymore. They adjust to treating it just like any other noise; they lose their fear - they habituate.

The same thing happens to humans. Maybe a big dog growled at you when you were really young, and for a while you were scared of dogs. But then you met lots of friendly cute puppies, you realized that most dogs aren't scary, and you came to some reasonable conclusion like "big growly dogs are scary but cute puppies aren't."

Some people never manage to do this. They get cynophobia, pathological fear of dogs. In its original technical use, a phobia is an intense fear that doesn't habituate. No matter how many times you get exposed to dogs without anything bad happening, you stay afraid. Why?

...

It makes sense that once you're exposed to dogs a million times and it goes fine and everything's okay, you lose your fear of dogs - that's normal habituation. But now we're back to the original question - how come flooding doesn't work? Forgetting the barbarism, how come we can't just start with the Rottweiler?

The common-sense answer is that you only habituate when an experience with a dog ends up being safe and okay. But being in the room with the Rottweiler is terrifying. It's not a safe okay experience. Even if the Rottweiler itself is perfectly nice and just sits calmly wagging its tail, your experience of being locked in the room is close to peak horror. Probably your intellect realizes that the bad experience isn't the Rottweiler's fault. But your lizard brain has developed a stronger association than before between dogs and unpleasant experiences. After all, you just spent time with a dog and it was a really unpleasant experience! Your fear of dogs increases.

...

I've heard some people call this "bitch eating cracker syndrome". The idea is - you're in an abusive or otherwise terrible relationship. Your partner has given you ample reason to hate them. But now you don't just hate them when they abuse you. Now even something as seemingly innocent as seeing them eating crackers makes you actively angry. In theory, an interaction with your partner where they just eat crackers and don't bother you in any way ought to produce some habituation, be a tiny piece of evidence that they're not always that bad. In reality, it will just make you hate them worse. At this point, your prior on them being bad is so high that every single interaction, regardless of how it goes, will make you hate them more. Your prior that they're bad has become trapped. And it colors every aspect of your interaction with them, so that even interactions which out-of-context are perfectly innocuous feel nightmarish from the inside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top