So where is the wrath of the community? This is deep waters for you, mate.
Not at all.
- If you abuse an animal, you MAY get a large fine. Therefore THAT is the main reason not to abuse animals?
- If you park in a disabled zone, you MAY get a fine. That is your punishment. Therefore that is the main reason not to do it, right?
- If you steal someone's wallet or purse you MAY get caught. If you do you may get caught and MAY end up in jail. (though probably will not if first offence). Therefore that is the main reason court or jail risk?
- If you do not back your words on IntensitySquared, you may incur the wrath of the community, Therefore the only reason you should not is the wrath you MAY invoke?
Except, you are not really that silly, Odeon and the only reason you are making the argument about the
wrath of the community (and no, let's not go with the "You bought it up" as it was not what I underlined), is that it is a distraction away from my premise of the similar explanations between "Get a life" and "Full of shit" as mere expressions.
So this argument like your claim of me tiptoeing, being dishonest, me pretending and so forth, is dead in the water. The reason it is ought not need to be explained. Quite simply the spirit of the board is and always has been to foster a culture whereby people in this "on the spectrum" community can discuss things in a combative way without risking banning or censoring. Conversely with only one rule, enforcing this rule is more than difficult without said risk of censorship. So what is the only counter to this if the member does not adhere? The punishment is the wrath of the community. You do NOT think this is the sole reason that people ought to back themselves on I2. You are an idiot if you truly believe this and I do not think you are.
No, this is a mere distraction from the very similarly compared claims of me needing to "get a life" and my saying Zegh is "full of shit". Neither, as expressions, need a deeper reading, and in doing so would show an ignorance that neither you nor I have, and looks disingenuous.
The expression "Get a life" is not a literal definition and nor does it require a deeper examination. People when they use it, use it to denounce the object of their derision and are signalling their displeasure at that person's actions.
The expression "Full of shit" is not a literal definition and nor does it require the person requiring a deeper insight into everything someone says. It could be based off one conversation or an impression or a series of actions. It DOES NOT require you have heard or read everything someone says NOR that you are studying them (ie If you watch a couple of interviews with Glenn Beck, you would certainly be in good company saying he is full of shit. There would not be an expectation to watch and read everything he says for the next six months. Nor would you be intellectually dishonest if you proclaimed this after not having watched or read him for 6 month. Only an absolute idiot would argue that point). People use that when they use it, use it to denounce the value of the object of their derision and they are signalling their displeasure at that person.
This all comes back to where I was a few months ago with you. I have a nose for bullshit, Odeon.
There is something bigger here. It never smelled right. This is why I have pursued it as I have. It is not personal, nor upsetting per se. It all seems terribly beneath you intellectually and so I think the reason for you doubling down and denying is something else.
- Your original claims were NOT JUST about me being intellectually dishonest but of being dishonest as well and of pretending, assuming things, and so on. You since dropped this claims or merged them into your greater claim
- You raised some point about something I said about Butterflies ("ganging up")and when I addressed it, you tried the crazy argument technique of questioning ME raising it (points for originality)
- You posted the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty as though I needed that explanation to know what the term meant. In fact I answered every aspect of the term, to show it wanting (something that unto itself, would run against the grain of "transparency" for intellectual dishonesty)
- You then kept repeating variations of the Mantra "You did not read Zegh, so you can't know for sure, he is full of shit, therefore you are intellectually dishonest". Then admonishing me when I had the temerity to question why this alone makes a case for intellectual dishonesty
- You tried a new tact and said that I was tiptoeing around DFG. This was an even weaker claim and you soon dropped it
- Changing tact you suggested I was not Intellectually dishonest afterall and it was a blindspot I had. That premise went nowhere and you gravitated back to the Intellectually dishonest premise again.
- I then showed a few instances of YOU using the term. Once with Calandale - to whom you could NOT have read everything he said for 6 months either (and so could not have been absolutely sure he was "full of shit" .... as if that was ever an argument worth making) and secondly I showed you casting such sentiments to Dr Bitch to something she said in one of her 18 posts, after having joined the day before. You did not (chose not to?) see the similarity of what you were doing and what you accused me of doing
- You then tried to reference Zegh as a reference point to support your claims (I just can't tell you how bizarre this is). Not only have I stopped reading him (because he is full of shit) but referencing him after suggesting that I was wrong about my suggestions you were "sticking up for him", you now try to use him as a reference point to your arguments of my feuding with him. No bias?
- Now I find you telling me to "get a life" and point out the examination of such a generalised insult is stupid and disingenuous AND more importantly, very similar in nature to saying someone is "full of shit". You agreed that get a life was a "mere expression". You have yet to see the hypocrisy.
What all the above tells me is that this line of premise is crap and always was. You likely were not expecting to get challenged, or in the way that I have. You were not expecting or wanting to give ground. You doubled down on what you knew was really weak. You did this for a reason that had NOTHING to do with me being Intellectually Dishonest and I don't think you actually even believed it.
I could be wrong. It does happen. But now trying to sell me on the fact that Zegh now says this or that to support you, is like me trying to evidence you being wrong by referencing something Sol says against you. Yes it is THAT stupid and disingenuous AND that not like you.
You have to have a good reason to act the way you have, and to have done so from the outset. I think it was simply that you were starting to get sick and tired of Zegh and I feuding, me not reading Zegh, spamming Ninja Cats and you were wanting it to stop. You possibly thought that to shame my methods of posting and accuse me of being dishonest, assuming things, being intellectually dishonest, pretending, being intellectually lazy, tiptoeing and use dramatic phrases no matter the consequences. Maybe you thought I would get too distracted or maybe embarrassed or maybe that once pointed out, the rest of the board would join in and I would feel obliged to self-censor. The problem is that it did not work and you have distanced yourself now from everything but the "intellectually dishonest"claim. That claim is looking from where I sit, pretty petty and hypocritical, considering how you use not only other similar general insults and derision BUT also how you use the term itself. I think you wanted to side with Zegh without appearing partisan. Too late for that now.
I honestly believe that this is the case and after having doubled down and given some ground you do not wish to admit what seems transparent to me. I would not have had much of an issue if you had not have just said, "You know, you weren't being intellectually dishonest BUT you were pissing me off and others in I2 were not liking it either. I do blame your part in things more than Zegh and I was just wanting you to stop and hoped by saying something, anything, that you would just drop it." That would seem quite fair. Hell, I may have even considered dropping things with Zegh. No you doubled down again and again after being called on it. So I too will double down with you and with Zegh.
Terrible shame, Odeon. I expected better.
was it something I said?