11 May 16
Originally posted by FMFIf you are having difficulty understanding why I started the thread then I suggest you read the dialogue.
But if this is the kind of comment that's going to be your retort, wasn't this entire thread just you "sticking your nose into other people's business"?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDuchess64 is a she and not a he, as you know. Your misrepresentation is part of your misogyny. It is inherently disrespectful and as such contrary to your self image at the very least. This type of abuse is evidently tolerated by the moderators though it is surely contrary to the terms of service. It rather undermines my confidence that she is being treated appropriate or equitably in this affair.
My learned friend, have you too been sucked into the downwardly spiraling vortex of the blame game? Duchess64 was banned not for fomenting debate, not for providing intellectually stimulating discussion on a wide variety of topics but for taking an intellectual stance and forming it into a shillelagh with which to clobber Robbie over the head with ( ...[text shortened]... kage to your own bias and to those who were sucked along in the pretense and went along with it.
Your tergiversation does not negate the statement that Duchess64 was banned for remarks about you. You concede this, however inelegantly. Of course this does not require me to penetrate the mind of any moderator; the information is there in your own statement.
The allegations she made, and for which you concede she was banned, have been made by a number of others; indeed, they have escalated since she was banned, suggesting that you have failed to protect your esteemed reputation but have, indeed, invited fresh obloquy from other voices whose gender you do not choose to dispute.
None of my statements, you will notice by checking, includes any opinion regarding the veracity of the allegations which are made against you by so many voices. I rather have drawn them to your attention as evidence that they share the opinion expressed by Duchess64 on this matter, without implying they agree with anything else written by Duchess64.
I am entirely open to being convinced by you that in reality you have been treated unfairly, unjustly and dishonestly in a most reprehensible manner by a mob jury. I do not argue that the majority (the mob) is always right. However, this would entail you adhering to certain reasonable standards of integrity and coherence and consistency in your arguments on this topic.
I said in fact that I was "disappointed" by your approach and that it was evidently counterproductive to your presumable aim of declaring your innocence of all charges.
I was "disappointed" because you are being inconsistent (seeking to have Duchess64 banned while protesting the banning of Dasa), you are being abusive to her on a personal level in a way that you are not with male contributors, and because you are enabling your opponents to present an accumulation of evidence that ruins your defence in this sordid affair.
Indeed, at the risk of agreeing with the majority, which is anathema to me, I feel driven to consider that they may have been just in their accusations on this occasion. Lies, hypocrisy and misogyny all seem to have been well demonstrated and poorly defended.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf anyone is behaving like he is having difficulty understanding why he started the thread, and the consequences it is having for him now, it is you.
If you are having difficulty understanding why I started the thread then I suggest you read the dialogue.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 May 16
Originally posted by finneganAll in all a well thought out and compelling post... But this throws me:
Duchess64 is a she and not a he, as you know. Your misrepresentation is part of your misogyny. It is inherently disrespectful and as such contrary to your self image at the very least. This type of abuse is evidently tolerated by the moderators though it is surely contrary to the terms of service. It rather undermines my confidence that she is being treat ...[text shortened]... sion. Lies, hypocrisy and misogyny all seem to have been well demonstrated and poorly defended.
Indeed, at the risk of agreeing with the majority, which is anathema to me
I certainly understand in general not 'agreeing with the majority' simply because it's a majority
as that's a clear ad populum fallacy...
But having an aversion to being in agreement with the majority simply because you don't like
agreeing with a majority of people [which is how that reads to me] baffles me.
Indeed there are many occasions where one should agree with a majority.
For example, there is a majority expert consensus that vaccinations don't cause autism and do
prevent terrible diseases and that humans are causing global warming induced climate change
and that this is bad. Both of those are things that people should agree with because there is a
strong majority expert consensus.
This might be a case of me reading in a meaning that was not intended, but I'm not sure how else
to reasonably understand your words as written.
11 May 16
Originally posted by finneganYour bias seems to know no bounds. I made a statement in the debates forum which highlighted the disparity between liberals and their acceptance of convicted rapists like Polanski and the treatment meted out to Cosby for his alleged infidelities and your friend Duchess64 completely ignored the statement entirely and instead attempted to use it simply as an ill conceived and rather clumsy pretext to vilify someone with a rather vile and slanderous remark.. Its inexcusable and what is more indefensible. Furthermore I presume for I cannot say for sure that the moderator warned your friend that such malicious behaviour will not be tolerated. Naturally because of their arrogance, their seething hatred their attempts to extract vengeance for the perceived slight to them by reiterating the same vile and slanderous remarks resulted in their being banned. What more is there to say than had they cultivated Christian qualities like humility, reasonableness, mannerly conduct, virtue and understanding they would still be contributing but they did not and only have themselves to blame.
Duchess64 is a she and not a he, as you know. Your misrepresentation is part of your misogyny. It is inherently disrespectful and as such contrary to your self image at the very least. This type of abuse is evidently tolerated by the moderators though it is surely contrary to the terms of service. It rather undermines my confidence that she is being treat ...[text shortened]... sion. Lies, hypocrisy and misogyny all seem to have been well demonstrated and poorly defended.
Your remarks about misogyny are ludicrous and are reflective of a real lack of ability to form rational thought when your sensibilities are incensed.
11 May 16
Originally posted by finneganI would also like to point out the logical fallacious nature of your friends ill mannered approach. Stating that many others also share the same sentiments does not make the accusation true. Its nothing more than an Argumentum ad populum, many people believe it therefore it must be true. This formed the basis of their vile insinuation, yes indeed this alleged mathematician caught employing logically fallacious arguments. Oh dear I do hope they apply more logic to their mathematics than they do their arguments.
Duchess64 is a she and not a he, as you know. Your misrepresentation is part of your misogyny. It is inherently disrespectful and as such contrary to your self image at the very least. This type of abuse is evidently tolerated by the moderators though it is surely contrary to the terms of service. It rather undermines my confidence that she is being treat ...[text shortened]... sion. Lies, hypocrisy and misogyny all seem to have been well demonstrated and poorly defended.
11 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I would also like to point out the logical fallacious nature of your friends ill mannered approach. Stating that many others also share the same sentiments does not make the accusation true. Its nothing more than an Argumentum ad populum, many people believe it therefore it must be true. This formed the basis of their vile insinuation, yes indeed t ...[text shortened]... nts. Oh dear I do hope they apply more logic to their mathematics than they do their arguments.
Stating that many others also share the same sentiments does not make the accusation true. Its nothing more than an Argumentum ad populum,
Sort of what I said and you queried.
Originally posted by googlefudgeMuch Madness is divinest Sense -
All in all a well thought out and compelling post... But this throws me:
Indeed, at the risk of agreeing with the majority, which is anathema to me
BY EMILY DICKINSON
Much Madness is divinest Sense -
To a discerning Eye -
Much Sense - the starkest Madness -
’Tis the Majority
In this, as all, prevail -
Assent - and you are sane -
Demur - you’re straightway dangerous -
And handled with a Chain -
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy remark about misogyny was well founded and I explained it in my post.
Your bias seems to know no bounds. I made a statement in the debates forum which highlighted the disparity between liberals and their acceptance of convicted rapists like Polanski and the treatment meted out to Cosby for his alleged infidelities and your friend Duchess64 completely ignored the statement entirely and instead attempted to use it simpl ...[text shortened]... lective of a real lack of ability to form rational thought when your sensibilities are incensed.
On the rest I think you will have to concede that you are the victim of your own hubris, 'hoist on your own petard' as we Shakespearian scholars are given to saying at the least excuse.
Be sure your sins will find you out.
I am not sure what Cicero would say - probably something apt.
Originally posted by finnegan“What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious.”
My remark about misogyny was well founded and I explained it in my post.
On the rest I think you will have to concede that you are the victim of your own hubris, 'hoist on your own petard' as we Shakespearian scholars are given to saying at the least excuse.
Be sure your sins will find you out.
I am not sure what Cicero would say - probably something apt.
Cicero the Apt
11 May 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeCeterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
“What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious.”
Cicero the Apt
(Cato the Elder - maybe)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is essentially the polar opposite of your stance on Dasa and everything that underpinned your 'argument' and criticism of other posters on this thread for page after page. You have done a complete about face on this issue as soon as you've deemed it to affect you personally. Do you not at least concede you have been hypocritical?
What more is there to say than had they cultivated Christian qualities like humility, reasonableness, mannerly conduct, virtue and understanding they would still be contributing but they did not and only have themselves to blame.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou would seek to pass off the serious sexual assaults that Bill Cosby is accused of as having been "infidelities"? His alleged offences include drug facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, rape, and child sexual abuse. Why would you refer to such acts as merely "infidelities"?
I made a statement in the debates forum which highlighted the disparity between liberals and their acceptance of convicted rapists like Polanski and the treatment meted out to Cosby for his alleged infidelities and your friend Duchess64 completely ignored the statement entirely ...
11 May 16
Originally posted by FMFAre you suggesting that the site administration banned Duchess64 for merely thinking?
This is essentially the polar opposite of your stance on Dasa and everything that underpinned your 'argument' and criticism of other posters on this thread for page after page. You have done a complete about face on this issue as soon as you've deemed it to affect you personally. Do you not at least concede you have been hypocritical?