WC's Extreme Views

[ElNono]

The topic is the extreme.

Racist paranoia, bitterness and assumptions are hardly unusual. Indeed, they are normal.

Social conventionality now requires that people abstain from expressing it openly. Internet anonymity provides an outlet for a level of hate that would be completely unacceptable in meatspace. Take the internet away and where does it go? Remove racism, and where does awareness of racism go?

As for the stalking thing, I hope all parties will concede sometime soon that it's been done to death. It comes up with depressing, I would say also destructive, regularity. It's a thread killer.

As much as it will, I suspect, surprise Wild Cobra, I agree that discussion of his extreme positions too frequently becomes a matter of pointing to the low hanging fruit that his past foibles tend to be and not enough about engaging him in discussions about why his positions might actually be extreme.

This is true of both the stalking anecdote as well as the black surgeons statement.

Well, that's why I didn't engulf it under the "extreme" premise, but as an addition to it.

The reality as I see it is that he's not really willing to have an open and honest debate on his extreme views or any of the other stuff. His replies towards criticism in this thread is basically more of the same and a palpable example of what I'm saying.

Which is in part why this thread has turned into a discussion about engaging him in honest conversation vs actually discussing with him the topic(s) at hand.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Well, that's why I didn't engulf it under the "extreme" premise, but as an addition to it.

The reality as I see it is that he's not really willing to have an open and honest debate on his extreme views or any of the other stuff. His replies towards criticism in this thread is basically more of the same and a palpable example of what I'm saying.

Which is in part why this thread has turned into the discussing about engaging him in honest conversation vs actually discussing with him the topic(s) at hand.

Yup. He views are comparable to religious views, unworthy of negotiation and discussion for the beholder

[Wild Cobra]

Wrong again ElNono. I can handle criticism. What I cant handle is repeatedly clarifying a point of view, and still having my intent twisted. That's why I so often accuse you of intentional slander, or stupidity. What else can it be, when your rewording of my viewpoint does not reflect my intent?

I do have a few extreme positions, and I feel WH is the only on who found one so far.

[Winehole23]

what about FWD?

[ElNono]

Wrong again ElNono. I can handle criticism. What I cant handle is repeatedly clarifying a point of view, and still having my intent twisted. That's why I so often accuse you of intentional slander, or stupidity. What else can it be, when your rewording of my viewpoint does not reflect my intent?

I do have a few extreme positions, and I feel WH is the only on who found one so far.

Sue me. You don't even know what slander is or means.

The first thing you need to understand is that there's a very thin line between "provocative" and "flat out stupid". It's not that difficult to know where that line lies if you actually take the time to think things through.

The problem is that you rarely, if ever, do. And by the time somebody points out that you crossed the line, you go into this defensive mode where "everyone else must be stupid". It's a tired schtick.

Did you open this thread to have an open conversation about the extreme views? Or just to tell people "they don't understand", "you don't have an open mind"?

[Wild Cobra]

what about FWD?

I'm guessing that you mean the sterilization part?

What's wrong with an exchange of sorts. You agree to having your tubes ties if a woman or vasectomy is a man, so you cannot produce any more children at the governments expense, if you put yourself in that position to require the assistance. Now if you recall, I have pointed out that this doesn't apply to all misfortunes. Just the ones where a couple didn't have the means to raise a child when they conceived. This would only apply to those asking for government assistance to raise the child, and those receiving government assistance already when they conceive.

If you can't afford a child, you shouldn't have one. Right?

Is it right for tax payers to be on the hook for other people's carelessness? Shouldn't there be come action against those who needlessly drain our social welfare system?

I can go on about the cycle of dependance, how those growing up in families receiving government assistance more often than others, become dependent on such things when they mature. It's the life they see and know. It shouldn't be accepted as a normal lifestyle.

Yes, there will be some sob stories over such a law, but over time, don't you believe it would become a deterrent?

Extreme is in the eye of the beholder. I can understand some seeing this as extreme. After all, most younger people see food stamps, earned income credit, and other handouts as a right. It shouldn't be, and I don't see this as extreme. Such programs are designed as a safety net. Not a lifestyle.

Wouldn't it be advantageous to the general welfare of our society if we had less tolerance to irresponsibility that cost our society?

[Winehole23]

What I cant handle is repeatedly clarifying a point of view, and still having my intent twisted. That's why I so often accuse you of intentional slander, or stupidity. What else can it be, when your rewording of my viewpoint does not reflect my intent?.

Others are not obliged to reflect your intent. To understand the plain meaning of your words, perhaps.

To some extent your words speak for themselves. Your habit of continually revising "what you really meant" and dismissing all objections to what you say as crass misunderstanding (referred to notably by BaselineBum upstream) -- undermines you.

It's not very likely that all of your critics are wrong. Think about it.

[Wild Cobra]

The first thing you need to understand is that there's a very thin line between "provocative" and "flat out stupid". It's not that difficult to know where that line lies if you actually take the time to think things through.

Good.

I got you to admit you intentionally provoke people.

What good does that do in discussions?

[Winehole23]

If you can't afford a child, you shouldn't have one. Right?

to me, this is breathtakingly extreme. suffice it to say I think the state should have no role in influencing who does and who does not reproduce. basing it all on income is another striking perversity.

[Winehole23]

Yes, there will be some sob stories over such a law, but over time, don't you believe it would become a deterrent?

sure it would be. totally inconsonant with liberty, but it would almost certainly conduce to the chosen policy aim.

[Wild Cobra]

Others are not obliged to reflect your intent. To understand the plain meaning of your words, perhaps.

When making an argument against me by rewording my words to argue against something I didn't say... I disagree.

To some extent your words speak for themselves. Your habit of continually revising "what you really meant" and dismissing all objections to what you say as crass misunderstanding (referred to notably by BaselineBum upstream) -- undermines you.

I dismiss the objections when the objections have no place. They aren't in context with anything I say, buy a figment of someone creatively or ignorantly revising what I mean.

It's not very likely that all of your critics are wrong. Think about it.

I never said everyone was always wrong. Think about that.

[Winehole23]

expedience isn't everything, you know

[Wild Cobra]

to me, this is breathtakingly extreme. suffice it to say I think the state should have no role in influencing who does and who does not reproduce. basing it all on income is another striking perversity.

I agree to the extent that they still should not have a child, then expect the state to help. If they can do this with the help of family and friends, then there would be no need to prevent a second occurrence from happening.

[ElNono]

Good.

I got you to admit you intentionally provoke people.

What good does that do in discussions?

Uh? I was talking about your ideas.

[Wild Cobra]

Uh? I was talking about your ideas.

Then why do you make it a habit of rewording my intent incorrectly? If not slander, stupidity, or to provoke...

Why?

[Borat Sagyidev]

I'm guessing that you mean the sterilization part?

If you can't afford a child, you shouldn't have one. Right?

I doub't he says the same thing about someone who continually bankrupts businesses, which a significant amount of GOP politicians have done.

They should have all the kids they can handle, at the taxpayer expense of course.

[Winehole23]

making an argument against me by rewording my words to argue against something I didn't say...

Mindreading that discloses what posters really think. You do it all the time.

[ElNono]

Then why do you make it a habit of rewording my intent incorrectly? If not slander, stupidity, or to provoke...

Why?

Rewording what intent? Give me an example

[Wild Cobra]

Rewording what intent? Give me an example

Oh My.

I have repeatedly pointed things out when they happen. how about something else. A fictional example of what you do, that maybe you can wrap your head around.

Fictional situation: I'm at home with my girlfriend, hear a noise, grab my gun, and find a thief holding my girlfriend with a knife. I say "I'll kill you if you don't let her go and drop your knife."

After the story gets to you, you only say something like "he said he was going to kill him!" Such a statement is technically true, but puts the situation out of context, and without the proper context, lets people assume things with their own bias. It usually looks pretty bad.

You repeatedly do such things, repeating commentary out of context.

[Wild Cobra]

Mindreading that discloses what posters really think. You do it all the time.

I only use such a tactic when the intent wasn't made, and I do so to expose possibilities of what their words mean. I don't misrepresent someone's words when they had proper context.

[ElNono]

I'm guessing that you mean the sterilization part?

What's wrong with an exchange of sorts. You agree to having your tubes ties if a woman or vasectomy is a man, so you cannot produce any more children at the governments expense, if you put yourself in that position to require the assistance. Now if you recall, I have pointed out that this doesn't apply to all misfortunes. Just the ones where a couple didn't have the means to raise a child when they conceived. This would only apply to those asking for government assistance to raise the child, and those receiving government assistance already when they conceive.

If you can't afford a child, you shouldn't have one. Right?

Is it right for tax payers to be on the hook for other people's carelessness? Shouldn't there be come action against those who needlessly drain our social welfare system?

I can go on about the cycle of dependance, how those growing up in families receiving government assistance more often than others, become dependent on such things when they mature. It's the life they see and know. It shouldn't be accepted as a normal lifestyle.

Yes, there will be some sob stories over such a law, but over time, don't you believe it would become a deterrent?

Extreme is in the eye of the beholder. I can understand some seeing this as extreme. After all, most younger people see food stamps, earned income credit, and other handouts as a right. It shouldn't be, and I don't see this as extreme. Such programs are designed as a safety net. Not a lifestyle.

Wouldn't it be advantageous to the general welfare of our society if we had less tolerance to irresponsibility that cost our society?

See, this is a prime example of somebody that didn't think this through.

And when you brought this up originally, I gave you specific examples of why this would be a terrible, short-sighted idea.

Furthermore, the post includes numerous assumptions and generalizations that you don't really care to back up, but you draw conclusions from.

Example: After all, most younger people see food stamps, earned income credit, and other handouts as a right.

You're also assuming that society would benefit more from the temporary economic savings from the couple not having a child, which is hardly a fact.

[ElNono]

Oh My.

I have repeatedly pointed things out when they happen. how about something else. A fictional example of what you do, that maybe you can wrap your head around.

Fictional situation: I'm at home with my girlfriend, hear a noise, grab my gun, and find a thief holding my girlfriend with a knife. I say "I'll kill you if you don't let her go and drop your knife."

After the story gets to you, you only say something like "he said he was going to kill him!" Such a statement is technically true, but puts the situation out of context, and without the proper context, lets people assume things with their own bias. It usually looks pretty bad.

You repeatedly do such things, repeating commentary out of context.

How about you give me a real example? I mean, if you accuse me of such things, I'm sure it won't be that difficult to find it.

[Winehole23]

I don't misrepresent someone's words when they had proper context.

tbh, you do. all the time.

[Borat Sagyidev]

to me, this is breathtakingly extreme. suffice it to say I think the state should have no role in influencing who does and who does not reproduce. basing it all on income is another striking perversity.

I agree to the extent that they still should not have a child, then expect the state to help. If they can do this with the help of family and friends, then there would be no need to prevent a second occurrence from happening.

Under WC guidelines, pieces of trash like Paris Hilton or Britney Spears who can be factually proven as bad parents should carry on, since they can afford to be bad parents.

His social insight is Nazi like. Why argue with someone so hateful and destructive like this, when all they deserve is a bullet in the head?

Oops, that was an extreme comment. Maybe some of you don't understand.

Wouldn't it be advantageous to the general welfare of our society if we had less tolerance to irresponsibility that cost our society?

Wouldn't it be advantageous to society if we educated them properly on birth control and sexually transmitted diseases?
(of course this rational solution is unacceptable to many conservatives)

[mouse]

pssssst!................WC I responded.......