Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55781
    25 Aug '16 13:15
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Who here has insisted on that?

    [b]Is there really a need to call someone a "pathological liars" when they actually mean they "have a different viewpoint?"

    But do they? As far as I know, that phrase is used almost exclusively by Duchess, and as far as I can tell, she means it. Why do you not take her at her word and instead try to mind read what yo ...[text shortened]... with something that sounds better to his ear but does not represent what is being communicated?[/b]
    When Duchess calls someone a pathological liar, it does not actually mean that they said anything untrue. It just means that she disagrees with them. I believe that her language is actually not merely an obnoxious violations of the terms of service and against the spirit of discussion, it is also completely inaccurate. For example, demanding trial protections that are standard in modern western civilization for all accused of rape is not being a rape apologist. It just means that you want a fair procedure for accessing guilt and innocence. One is entitled to their views, but Duchess is an extremist on this issue and at best completely indifferent to convicting innocent people. Similarly disagreeing with Duchess does not make you a liar or pathological but as, anyone who has been on this forum can see, it is her standard operating procedure. It certainly would not bother me if her continual insults were converted into more productive speech.
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    25 Aug '16 13:18
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The interesting thing is that the people who are complaining the most about Duchess still engage her regularly.
    If you can't stand someone, ignore them.
    So we should stop commenting in certain threads on issues that interest us just because one poster is in flagrant and continual disregard of the rules of this site?
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    25 Aug '16 13:21
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Well you could start by actually changing the way you behave rather than suggesting changing phrases to make it look nicer when it really isn't. If anything, your plan has resulted in people who would never normally use bad language using this as an excuse to do so under the guise of nice looking words.
    Kelly tried something similar over in Spirituality ...[text shortened]... ever of actually changing his own rude behaviour.
    Rudeness is much more than the words you use.
    In case you really can't figure it out, the suggestion was tongue in cheek though if other posters had joined in with suggestions I probably would have "translated" one of Duchess' post for amusement purposes. I was thinking "racist"= "cuddly" and "sexist" = "snugly" but I guess no one wants to play.😞
  4. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    25 Aug '16 13:35
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    In case you really can't figure it out, the suggestion was tongue in cheek though if other posters had joined in with suggestions I probably would have "translated" one of Duchess' post for amusement purposes. I was thinking "racist"= "cuddly" and "sexist" = "snugly" but I guess no one wants to play.😞
    It's obvious you weren't being serious. Kinda sucks when you're just kidding around and others act all butthurt over it.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Aug '16 14:32
    Originally posted by quackquack
    When Duchess calls someone a pathological liar, it does not actually mean that they said anything untrue. It just means that she disagrees with them.
    What makes you think that? I see no indication in her posts that that is what she means.
    I call whodey a pathological liar and I mean it. I don't say it very often because everybody knows that he is a pathological liar and it simply doesn't need repeating.

    I believe that her language is actually not merely an obnoxious violations of the terms of service..
    Which clause?

    ... it is also completely inaccurate.
    So basically not much different from your completely inaccurate translation of what you think she means?

    For example, demanding trial protections that are standard in modern western civilization for all accused of rape is not being a rape apologist.
    Maybe so. But are you sure that is why she called you a rape apologist?

    Similarly disagreeing with Duchess does not make you a liar or pathological......
    Agree. But lying pathologically, as whodey does, does make you a pathological liar. If you dispute Duchesses claims that you lie pathologically then you can either go into the details and defend yourself, or ignore her. But pretending she didn't mean it, seems to me to not be the best solution.

    In my experience if you ask Duchess to back up a claim of pathologically lying or rape apology, she is more than willing to go and dig up hundreds of quotes to prove it.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Aug '16 14:33
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So we should stop commenting in certain threads on issues that interest us just because one poster is in flagrant and continual disregard of the rules of this site?
    No, you can merely stop responding to Duchess if she upsets you so much. You don't have to stay out of the thread.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Aug '16 14:35
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    In case you really can't figure it out, the suggestion was tongue in cheek .....
    ... at the expense of someone you don't like. Essentially you are complaining about one type of bad behaviour whilst hypocritically behaving badly yourself.
    On these forums the rudest most obnoxious people are usually the outwardly most polite. (Grampy Bobby for example).
  8. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    25 Aug '16 15:13
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    I think I'd rather throw up in a spacesuit.
    In a weightless environment?
  9. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55781
    25 Aug '16 15:21
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    What makes you think that? I see no indication in her posts that that is what she means.
    I call whodey a pathological liar and I mean it. I don't say it very often because everybody knows that he is a pathological liar and it simply doesn't need repeating.

    [b]I believe that her language is actually not merely an obnoxious violations of the terms of se ...[text shortened]... lying or rape apology, she is more than willing to go and dig up hundreds of quotes to prove it.
    After reading your posts, I'd like to reconsider my position. We should not, even if it was meant tongue in cheek, edit people's posts. I believe this forum should be for free exchange of ideas and people should not be insulted for presenting their ideas. Those who cannot engage, within these guidelines, should simply be banned. Too often, we view those who insult others as having a view point worth preserving when in fact they simply hope to chill speech and be unpleasant.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Aug '16 15:31
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I believe this forum should be for free exchange of ideas and people should not be insulted for presenting their ideas. Those who cannot engage, within these guidelines, should simply be banned. Too often, we view those who insult others as having a view point worth preserving when in fact they simply hope to chill speech and be unpleasant.
    Although I generally agree that out and out insults should be kept to a minimum and that mechanisms should be in place to reduce such behaviour, it gets tricky deciding what is an insult and what is not. If someone lies, I want the right to point it out. If someone is a pathological liar, I want the right to point it out occasionally. I do think it unnecessary to repeat such accusations excessively and doing so quickly becomes name calling (and Duchesses use is certainly excessive).
    But the reality is that if we banned all the posters whose behaviour we disliked, it would be an empty forum very quickly.
    This thread is an example of no1 starting a thread which is deliberately targeting a particular poster he dislikes. I suspect that that in itself is against the official forum rules, and if it isn't, it should be.
  11. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    25 Aug '16 15:40
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Although I generally agree that out and out insults should be kept to a minimum and that mechanisms should be in place to reduce such behaviour, it gets tricky deciding what is an insult and what is not. If someone lies, I want the right to point it out. If someone is a pathological liar, I want the right to point it out occasionally. I do think it unnece ...[text shortened]... suspect that that in itself is against the official forum rules, and if it isn't, it should be.
    Yes fine, but as there seems to be an absence of forum moderation, and Duchess' behavior is incessantly hateful and damaging to the forum, No1's fighting fire with fire is understandable IMO.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Aug '16 15:44
    From the guidelines:
    Do not harass other members of the community. Harassment is any unwanted conduct including insults, jokes and any remarks affecting the dignity of another. Such conduct could relate to gender, race, nationality, sexuality, religion, disability or other similarly sensitive issues.


    I believe this thread violates that clause.

    When it comes to raw insults, other posters are actually just as bad as Duchess. For example in anther recent thread you can find:
    You lying little bugger.
  13. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55781
    25 Aug '16 16:06
    Originally posted by twhitehead

    When it comes to raw insults, other posters are actually just as bad as Duchess. For example in anther recent thread you can find:
    You lying little bugger.
    [/b]
    There are other people who are insulting and can probably do better, but I would start with the person who is worst.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Aug '16 17:11
    Originally posted by quackquack
    There are other people who are insulting and can probably do better, but I would start with the person who is worst.
    I suspect, you would start with the person who targets her attacks at you and ignore those who are insulting others. If there is to be moderation it should be clear where the lines are drawn and fairly implemented. Currently the moderation is quite relaxed (non no-existent). If you want stricter rules, then I think you should make clear what those rules would be and accept that they would apply to everyone equally. I agree that Duchess goes overboard but she is hardly alone. I also think that she is best handled by ignoring any inflammatory posts from her rather than engaging them. Part of the problem here is that she does start or engage in interesting topics that people do want to discuss.
  15. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55781
    25 Aug '16 19:34
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I suspect, you would start with the person who targets her attacks at you and ignore those who are insulting others. If there is to be moderation it should be clear where the lines are drawn and fairly implemented. Currently the moderation is quite relaxed (non no-existent). If you want stricter rules, then I think you should make clear what those rules w ...[text shortened]... blem here is that she does start or engage in interesting topics that people do want to discuss.
    I'm not looking for broad rules; simply you should not be able to constantly call people liars and insult their race and gender.
Back to Top