There are a number of specific IIN users who I have repeatedly wanted to strangle (metaphorically, obviously) usually because they're egotistical and condescending. Do you?
Are You Normal?
Ask your question today!
Ask your question today!
|
Sorry, you need to be signed in to comment.
Somebody out there must hate me! Show your face to me you unironed-shirt wearing buffoon! I'll make a ring out of your foreskin / labia and feed your eyes to my pack of dogs!
In terms of my being the enemy; there are a couple of users I roll my eyes at or shake my head at, but none I would harbour a grudge against so severe that upon death I would haunt them as a pale asian girl in a nightdress and long black hair.
*__^
Then I can play it whenever I need him (err..her!) to crawl out of my tv screen :P
But he needs to die first and become a creepy, pale asian girl. I'm not that kinda guy to give my address to random people!
Someone told me that love would all save us.
But how can that be?
Look what love gave us.
A world full of killing, and blood-spilling, that
world never came.
And they say that a hero can save us.
I'm not gonna stand here and wait!
I'll hold on to the wings of the eagles.
Watch as we all fly away!
AND THEY SAY THAT A HERO CAN SAVE US!
I "nuuuuuuurgh" you.
The vast majority of people on this site I'm really very fond of. I'm pretty gregarious in real life and I'm always interested in people. There are very nice people on the site.
I suppose it bothers me when people try to single others out, when they bully, when they take out their anger or insecurity, and it really bothers me when people try to bring the mood down or destroy something that people on the site are enjoying. I don't mind self-destructive people (I'm one of those) but it bothers me when people try to destroy things for others.
I don't like egotism or condescension but anyone who displays it, including me, is putting themselves up to have their bubble burst. There are a couple of people on the site who are good at bubble-bursting and, if randomjelly ever comes back, that would make three.
Maybe you and I should join the ranks of the bubble-bursters...
@: OP No. I am very tolerant. I have fell from grace a handful of times, but I try to keep it balanced. I'd say, I'm doing a good job.
You're blowing our cover!
Wait a minute....he's you!?!
Get out of here you Dutch poofter!
Besides, my English is a hell of a lot better than your Dutch is sweetheart, or have you been able to figure out what "krijg de tering" means? Probably not...
I don't speak poofter, mr Dutch poofter.
Is the feeling mutual?
If so, yes.
If not, who cares.
but, as someone already said it above, a few individuals' comment(and it's the same individuals every time) make me sigh and facepalm. And sometimes wonder why i'm even bothering to answer.
I don't want to sound vague and make anyone think that I'm talking about them. I'm not going to tell everyone who they are, because I'm not that sort of person. If anyone actually wants to know whether I like them, if it isn't already obvious, then they can just ask. Otherwise, that's all I'm saying:D!
If you insist on getting in to debate, then believe that you don't need any reliable source of information to prove your point when your point is being challenged, then you are an enemy of logic.
If you insist of saying facts out of things such as a dictionary definition (You know who you are), then you're an enemy of logic.
If you say something is wrong due to an offensive matter, then say something is right when the situation is the exact same as the one that had the offensive part in it, and that you put your emotions over logic, then you are an enemy of logic.
If you're an enemy to logic, you're not an enemy of me, you're just too unbarable to even consider an enemy, so logic will have to do the hating for me.
haha you. have. ISSUES.
You:
Took five times for you to acknowledge the dictionary quote I took that I quoted from the dictionary. Number one.
You thought that in order to prove "your" point, the person that you're saying is wrong and is challenging your point has to do the research. You think you have no need to show reliable sources of information. Number two. -EDIT- And it wasn't that you could do it, you tried and failed, then when you realized there was nothing that supports your claim, you thought simply not having to try again covered that up. Number two.
Easy one. Eugenics. Number three.
Number four. You are offended that you run under these things, and you know you run under this list, so you try to reply to say that I do the exact same thing, regardless of people able to tell you that when I have been "proven" wrong, I accept it, unlike you.
Yes, I have issues. I tried to have a logical debate with someone that says that the dictionary isn't a reliable source of information for word definitions. What was I thinking. You're right, I do have issues, trying to have a logical debate with such a person is just terrible.
-EDIT-
Once again, I give examples that show my point. What do you have? Nothing so far.
You claim that I "just described myself". I will assume you "think" I do this all the time, so give me an example of where I have done this, at all.
(Waits for the "I can state anything, I don't need proof, I said it, that means it must be true)
Most people here just state their opinion without giving any reason or example to show why it should be seen as reliable information, where as I do.
It's not that I write a ton, it's that they write too little.
Pathetic. I would assume you have a brain, using it is pretty handy. If you can't back something, don't state it.
You make GUESSES.
you are a bag of sewage. don't forget that. I will prosper. you will lay on the sidelines crying about your waste of a life.
I know: I KNOW things that you have not the capacity to inquire for.
Life isn't about semantics. I find it UTTERLY laughable and wholly despicable that you do not have the sense to realize that you do not hold yourself to the same standard as others. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. STOP ACTING LIKE YOU'VE EVER CITED OR "BACK[ED]" A WORD OF WHAT YOU'VE SAID. YOU ARE IN FACT DESCRIBING YOURSELF in your attempts to describe me.
you are a like a stubborn hemorrhoid. tah tah bitch---at least until the next time you say something stupid.
I am actually pitying you right now. "I" make guesses?
Ok. I can accept that...If you prove it. Like I said, give examples, otherwise you're just stating things with no value, which is what you're good at.
Oh, boohoo. Incase you haven't realized, schoolyard insults aren't that insulting to me. So please, have some dignity and act your age?
Oh you do, do you? Once again "Woe is me, woe is me". Listen, you can brag about yourself all you want, but to me you're still that fool that can only state things, then has no evidence to back them up. Once again, do I? Yep...Like I keep stating, in our previous debate I used a reliable source of information (the internet), and poor little Thinkingaboutit stil thought she was right when it proved her wrong.
Not to mention, very predictable, and for even being online, easily manipulated. I knew exactly how to get you to reply, easily, just insult you and your credibility (which you have none of).
Do I not? PLease, give examples. Again, if you think "your word" is reliable information, well that just proves everything I have said so far.
What? So, I didn't quote the dictionary and backed what I said up?
My, you're pathetic, truelly. "I am better than you, I am better than you. You haven't ever backed anything you have said up. I am better than you".
Oh, would you like proof of me backing up my claims? Sure, I'll back up both.
http://isitnormal.com/story/is-it-normal-that-eugenics-makes-me-sick-128151/#comment-1172157
There's my evidence, now where's yours?
Aha, my "ateempts" to describe you? You're easily described. Hey, remember this part? "Again. You love to state things, yet lack any logic to back up what it is you claim."
...I think that part was just proven.
The irony..."I'm" stubborn? Little miss "dictionary is wrong, I'm right", is calling "me" stubborn? Ha.
You know, the funny thing is here, is that you're trying to convince me you're so much better than me, that it actually shows you're pretty lacking in a lot of areas, far more than me.
"Tah, tah, bitch", at least until next time I want to pretty much control you and make you reply. Like putty in my fingers.
Remember, I just proved my point there. I stated you don't give examples to prove you right, you gave none. Shocker! Haha.
I love how I can accuratly prove you wrong and make you look stupid, it's pretty fun.
I don't have "issues". I make good points, and then put them all together to come to a conclusion, which is what people do to find things out.
I have no problem with people not agreeing with me "logically", I have a problem with them disliking it just for the sake of them "not liking it", when it shows if you dissagree, then you are seen as quite idiotic.
If they didn't agfree with me, they should explain why. I gave no reason for them not to agree. Everything I said is logical. I explained how it isn't logical to go in to a certain activity, then refuse to do the things that is needed to make the activity active...How is that at all wrong? It isn't, which is why I had to address that these Emotion>logic people are being pointless.
If people can't handle facts, and need it watered down to please their little cotton socks, then they need to grow up. Boohoo to those people, a fact doesn't make you pleased? That doesn't make it any less true.
Secondly, while you do make good points, the way they are delivered is just as important as actual content. The way you ordered them made you sound rather like an extremist. I saw you mention in one of your polls that many people see you as self-centered, and arrogant, and I think that your presentation of facts is responsible for this, in part. Saying that enemies of logic were too unbearable for you to argue with was true, but it made you sound condescending. It's alright to be sure of yourself, confidence is a good thing on a site like this- but you can't see yourself as being above anyone on here. The best thing about the Internet is that it puts everyone on the same level. I see you as my equal. That is why we're having a conversation as opposed to a blatant argument. I know that you have enough respect to partake in this conversation. But your comment implied that you were the pinnacle of logic, that you therefore cannot be wrong, and that you are above the "unbarable" users on here.
I am above many people on certain subjects of debate on here, just like there are people above me in other areas of debates, or maybe in the same debates. I do see myself as a valuable piece to contribute to debates due to seeing it from a different side of things. (That is my personal belief, you may dissagree)
No, no. I am not always right. I have admitted to being wrong a lot. I would even go as far to say that I have admitted to being wrong more than most people on this site have. I am not the pinnacle of logic, far from it. Although, I value logic over emotion, so if there is a topic I am familair on, then I believe I will comment on logic rather than let emotion get involved.
When I say the "illogical" people, I mean the people that "know" they are wrong, yet still fight against something. People that have been proven wrong, asked to (respectfully) to give me a reason to take their argument seriously (reliable sources of information that back up their claim), and some can't, yet think they are still right, regardless of me giving reliable sources of information.
Let me explain this through an old folktale. The leader of a land was keeping slaves, which is wrong. Someone stood up to him, bringing a number of plagues down on the land. The final plague was the murdering of an entire generation. The first plagues were warnings to the leader, but since the leader was convinced that his truth was the final truth, he hardened his heart and refused free the slaves. His pride and closed-mindedness was his downfall, leading to the death of his only son. Had be been more open about what he considered to be the "truth," then maybe he would have had the chance to save his child.
Judging from your stubborn hatred of women, I doubt that you have a child. You are probably also an atheist, which means that this folktale (which you've undoubtedly identified as the Passover story) may seem irrelevant to you. But it's very relevant. If you were willing to stop making generalizations about gender and race, and open your mind to what other people consider the truth, then maybe you could learn something.
I direct you back to your hatred of women- one reason that you have the reputation that you do is because you bring your views into topics that are barely applicable. On a poll about age and generational differences, you tried to use the situation to justify your hatred of literally half of the world's population. The reason that your comment got so many thumbs down was not because people could not take "the truth," it was because their truth was different to yours. They did not make generalizations, so they saw your comment as being closed-minded and self-centered. Your reputation is yet strengthened by how defensive you get when you get a thumbs down, or when someone contradicts you. You're almost constantly trying to make yourself the victim (you comment a lot on how heterosexual white men have fewer rights than everyone else) which is simply not true. It may seem like the truth to you, but to other people, it is not. Different versions of the truth are credible in different situations.
I agree, I make generalizations. I understand that. I have a problem with mixing "alot" with most. In my experience, the things I say are true, which is why I state them. I do realize that what I experience does not equal to every other individuals actions aswell. Although, the fact that I have moved a lot is something that brings me back to the "hold on, I have moved to a lot of places, yet these generalizations I make seem to be true with the group of people I am generalizing in this area".
Personally, I don't believe I can be linked to the slave-owner in that example. I don't make the things I see as truth up due to my own pride and thought, they are encouraged through the actions of others. These beliefs I have are due to observations, not blind assumptions.
I don't hate women at all. Just because I see their gender as a group inferior to the male gender as a group does not mean I hate them. The majority of people I grew up with were females, and I liked them very much. If anything, I have been the victim of males far more than the victim of females, which is why I don't see myself as very emotional on the subject, because if I was emotional about it, I would brand the male gender evil for how many times I have been their victim since a young child.
To be honest, I'm not sure on athiesm, religion, etc. I believed in God at a young age, but I came to realize that I couldn't know life's secret, nobody can, so I don't choose to have any belief. I started to not be so sure about God's existance when I realized that the only information I have to believe he exists is the word of other people, and a book that has been changed a lot. So I don't have any belief other than I simply can't know.
There isn't more than one truth. There is the truthm then there are opinions we believe to be truth. We debate and talk about our opinions of what the truth is, and the one with more logical reasons of truth are more than likely the real truth, not just an opinion.
That being said, I believe that we're all linked to the slave-owner in some way. You can't deny the fact that you and I are both, in some way, blinded by our pride. You're evidently very proud of being a man, since you make generalizations about women (as you said, you believe your gender to be superior to mine). I'm proud of other things about myself, which makes me biased as well. It's impossible not to be biased, since we're all human here (as far as I know). But we can all do our best not to judge people based on our own selfish pride and generalizations.
I think there is only one truth, but we as humans can never really know what that truth is. I can't necessarily see the whole truth, and neither can you. That's why we need to be able to swallow our sense of pride, and learn to take each other's truths into account. I believe that men and women are equal- I have been trying to see the world in terms of your truth, but I haven't been able to. I can't see a way in which a person's merit can be judged solely on which hormones and organs they happen to have. My truth may well still be wrong, but I've tried to accept your truth, and it just has not worked for me so far. Perhaps, if you tried to accept my truth, you could see a new way of thinking about the world; and if you can't see the way that I see, then it just means that we've got truths that can't work together. Again, I see myself as your equal, and I see the more emotional user of this site as equals as well. Because for all I know, their truths are more correct than mine. I may disagree with them, but maybe there's something I'm not seeing.
I am relaxed when I debate. A lot of people seem to think I'm raging at the screen when I'm in a debate, I assure you the opposite.
I believe my version of the truth is truth, so I challenge their version of truth with my version of truth, that way we communicate to figure out which one of our truths are more accurate.
In some senses, yes. Although, the whole gender thing is something that my pride isn't a part of. I try to make it clear that I am not saying that "I" am better than all, or even most females in the world, just that I share the same gender with the group of people that have, and stil do, achieve more in our species' progression. I never claimed that I am something to envy just for my gender, just that the group I belong to is something to envy.
I used to be someone you can say is a feminist, so I am not that biased, just the reasons for acknowledging the male gender as a group is better was more understandable. I used to argue just as much as I do now about how women are superior. That all changed when I took an interest in the subject, got told by someone to look up the issue more before I comment, then realized I was wrong.
I think we can see the whole truth. When it comes to truth, it is black and white. It is true or it isn't, there is no inbetween unless something has been misunderstood.
I can't see it as truths, I see it as opinions, just like what I consider the truth to be an opinion unless people are unable to counter my opinion that I believe to be fact. There is only one truth, just different opinions of what the truth is, that doesn't change what the truth actually is, though.
I believe the male gender as a group are better, and that males have the potential to be greater individually if they are educated in ways that fit their energy levels and interests at a young age that works towards their progression.
Science states that the male brain and female brain are different, which they are. Males have more grey matter, and women have more white matter. Grey matter is what makes us intelligent, and since men have more naturally, if trained in the way that fits their progression needs, I believe they can do better the majority of the time.
I still firmply believe that the only reason women have as much use as they have today is due to the contributions males have made in technology to society that eneables women to work just as much as males, that they rely on technology to work as well as males.
I have accepted your truth once upon a time, it used to be my own truth, but I was corrected, and the logic behind why I was wrong was truth.
I definetly don't see the emotional>logic people's truths being anywhere compared to those that think mainly with logic. Truth is logic, realized by logic, and so on. Emotions can corrupt a truth.
I'll start the debate off. What makes the female gender equal to the male gender?
If you still think this discussion to be necessary, then here's my general rule of thumb; treat everyone like you, as a human being, want to be treated. Because that's what we are- humans. And that's what everyone says that they're striving for, masculinists and feminists alike. Neither group is particularly effective in working for that goal, but that is the ultimatum. Every human treated well, regardless of intelligence, race, gender, or creed. On the off chance that you are right, and men are somehow superior to women, that still doesn't change the fact that every human on this earth has the right to be treated as a human. That means basic respect for a human being. Even if the person that you're talking to is a total and complete jackass, you are still obligated to treat them in a civil manner and see them as an equal.
I do treat people the way I want to be treated. I treat people with respect (as an opposing debater). I exress my argument, then give examples and reasons to why I believe it to be right. I won't thumb someone down without explaining why (so they have the chance to prove why I thumbed them down wrong), and I look for reliable sources of information to link if asked. If anything, the majority of people aren't going by that rule of thumb.
I don't see women inferior to me by default.
I do treat people how I want to be treated. I respect them (as an opposing debater) and read what they have to say and reply to all of the imortant parts, and if asked to reply to a specific part, I do.
I have to go for a bit, so I'll reply to the second part soon. I had to rush the top part, unfortunatly.
Secondly. If males and females are as smart as eachother, that would still make males superior. They both have the same intelligence, but only males have superior strength.
I have no doubt that in different areas, women have equal performance, such as women are equally as good at language as men are at math. But, we need to see which one of the two that each brain is more better at for usefulness in the society that was made after our brains were. So do the rules and intelligence our society go by run better with male brain or female brain?
http://socyberty.com/society/men-vs-women-who-is-more-intelligent-2/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm
I think that it is quite a clear indication that if one group has more of something that enhances their ability to do something, and the other group has something else that enhances something else, they aren't going to be the same in every subject.
I would have to read more in to that psychologists statements. Did he give any information that shows how they are equally smarter?
So far these science links state that males are better at science, math (problem solving). What intelligence is more required in today's society, the intelligence that gives better mathamatics, better science, and more reasonable and logical thinking without more emotion, or the intelligence that isn't equiped to do as well as the other in maths (problem solving and science, etc? White matter supports multitasking and things such as language, which I believe women excel more at. However, when it comes to progressing things, male brains are more equaiped, and society shows this with all the great men in the past and present that progress out technology, science, etc.
Coiuld you link those pages, I would like to see them, too.
Thanks.
I would say more, but I'm hurrying.
Secondly, is strength really how we judge a person? If we were to somehow get Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. to fight to the death, and Hitler won, would we say, "Oh, Hitler must be the superior person." It might have been different a couple hundred years ago, but in this day and age, strength doesn't count nearly as much as intelligence and the ability to function in society.
Neither brain is more useful to society- like the articles said, each brain was built by evolution for a certain, equally intelligent, equally important task. We're not debating with math right now, we're debating with language. Though our society does seem to value math and science more, language, art, and emotion are equally as important in a spiritual way as well as a mental way. The world isn't just about progress, progress, progress. I know that you don't like emotion, since it dissuades the truth (and you are very correct). But that's only from a debating standpoint. What would the world be if we couldn't feel? If we could never get fully, emotionally invested? If we didn't love our children as much as we do, chances are, a lot of them would end up dead and unappreciated.
I think the point I'm trying to make is, you see the world as being clockwork- we have to keep moving, and getting better technology. I'm trying to tell you (for lack of a better phrase) to slow down and smell the roses. There's a different side to life that you're just not acknowledging.
I'd write more too, but I also have places to be. I read the same articles that you did, plus these:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6849058/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/genders-really-do-think-differently/#.UArI9HDavmd
http://www.livescience.com/3808-men-women-differently.html
Thanks.
You're missing the point. You said we are both equally intelligent. If that is so, then men also are far more stronger, so they have an xtra trait for usefulness. If they are equal, then have one more extra trait that is needed, then that would imply they have more to offer.?
I have to dissagree. We could of gotten this far in technology without those things, where as we couldn't without the male intelligence, science, math, etc.
I never said emotion was bad, I said it's bad when it overcomes logic.
Life isn't all that different. We work towards progression our whole lives, and so does our species.
(Hurrying this up, so I'll read and reply back to those links in a bit. I have to do barn work)
Again, I think the problem is that we're looking for different character traits in people. I'm looking for a sense of loving and overall morality, you're looking for progress.
Yes, we've gotten technology from "male intelligence," but you're missing my point- what I'm saying is that technology isn't everything. We can't judge a person by their degrees of usefulness. There's more to life than moving forward, and if you don't learn to appreciate that, then you'll never have a chance to experience it.
That's exactly what I'm saying- emotion is only bad from a debating viewpoint, and the whole world isn't a debate website.
I have to go back to you using the term "male intelligence." Do we really have to divide up our society that way? The whole world isn't a war between men and women.
If both have the same equal intelligence, and men have another trait that is needed just as much, where as women don't, then going by logic, men are superior, becase they share equal intelligence, yet men win in strength, so men have a quality women don't.
There is no connection here. If someone said "This person is better because they ate a green apple over a red apple", then I said "This person is better because they have a better trait", i's the same logic, Hitler had no facts, he based his judgements on biased opinion and their beliefs, not their capability.
I am stating a fact. If both are equal in one area, then only one is better in the other, then the one with two good qualities are superior. The Hitler example was a terrible one, I have to say.
Sense of loving and overal mortality is not important as progression. For example, if we didn't progress as a species, stayed in our primnal states, morality wouldn't be invented, we would be murdering, attacking, hurting eachother all the time, it was progression that made us seek order, which made morality more in line, not emotion.
Technology isn't everyting, it's most of it, though. Technology in today's society is needed to keep it running the way we have it now. Technology is man's greatest acomplishment.
There isn't more to life than moving forward. As an example, I will say homeless people. They aren't able to move forward, and look at their position.
I never said emotion is bad, I said it's bad if it overcomes logic, not that it's bad in general. Emotion only becomes a problem when it ignores logic and reasoning.
Well, it was male ntelligence, so I don't see the problem. yes, we do. Too many times are women getting praised for their efforts in society directly, where as a lot of male intelligence that succeeds the woman's aren't being noticed.
Maybe it wasn't a snap comment? It was me stating the known, that it was male intelligence. I think it's quite irritating when we take intelligence and call it our own, when they don't belong to the same group. Men and women run under the same species, but not the ame group. Just like how people like to mention how there are mor criminals, murderers, rapists than women doing such things, I will mention how their are more greater intelligent men inventions and contribution than women's.
If I am to say "Human intelligence" when it was directly male intelligence, then I am not going to until "Male criminals" become "human criminals".
See, there's the real difference in our opinions. I see life's importance inside a human being, you see life's importance in what the human does outside him or herself. Yes, we had to progress to a certain length to be able to feel morality. I'm not saying that progress isn't important. What I'm saying is that we don't have to constantly be thinking "progress" now that we have progressed as far as we have.
The point I was trying to make was, most men and women I know don't see it as being men vs. women. You're one of the few people I've talked with who thinks that society is one big argument between the two genders. You say that you're not sexist, but the definition of sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex" which is what you're doing. I'm not saying that men cannot be discriminated against, I'm saying that whether you like it or not, you are making startling generalizations. Don't get me wrong, so am I- but at least I admit it. We are all a bit sexist and racist, we can't help it.
Look, if it's all the same to you, I'd like to draw this debate to a close. If you have anything else you'd like to say to me, then feel free to reply. But I feel as though we're simply going in circles, and there are more productive (I am well aware of the irony) things to do. Some debates are not meant to be won; rather, they are meant to be learned from.
I see it as both, actually. As a species, as unique as ours, progression is in our nature. Everything we do involves progression, we strive for it. If one is working, aren't they working to progress their wealth? And so on.
I think, in a society such as ours, women are only good for giving a "helping hand", and that's important. Although, I think men are more so better for progression. Without the progression men made, women wouldn't be able to work even half the ammount men do, and the only thing I expect is for the group that is getting the benefits off of what one group has done is to acknowledge it.
Part of society involves this war, it is something that is in society, such as racism, poverty, etc. I am in no way sexist. Someone done what you have done before and gave me the definition of the word sexsim, and I looked in to it. If you actually look for the definitions that describe the words that describe the definition of sexism, you'll find that things such as descrimination is only discrimination if it is something that is not true, which I don't do. Basically, it is only descrimination if what is being said against them is something that is not true, that is what it comes down to if you look in to the definitions of the words that descrobe such words as descrimination. So in actual fact, I am not sexist.
Stating things that are true that people don't want to hear, and in which gives women a negative look is not sexism, it's criticism. This society expects men to admit to theirs, yet expects nobody to mention women's, and as soon as someone does, they class it as sexism.
I understand if you want to come to a close, so no worries.
The second part was needed. Read over the comment she replied that to...Now look at the dislikes on that comment...Now ask yourself, would a logical person do any of those things that I listed? Ofcourse not, yet they dislike the comment, showing they dissagree with the message, which means they don't find it illogical, which in turn shows how illogical they are.
You make good points, Itduz, when you stay on topic but you have a way of turning a debate into an attack on a person's emotional stability. Questioning their logical. In turn by doing this, I just get the vibe that you're a little hurt by what other people say about you. Thus, you're not emotionally stable yourself, cause if you were I would think you'd be smart enough to know not to waste your time with some users and just not reply at all.
I only question their emotion over logic when they do things such as insult but not stay on topic, or thumb down for no reason. If they stick on topic, I stick on topic.
I am not emotionally hurt, I am irritated because I can't understand why they would choose to do something, then "choose" to be illogical.
Unfortunatly, I am not like that. If someone replies to me, I have to reply back to them, unless we have reached a conclusion in which we both agree on. Usually now, if people do this, I just reply to them saying something on repeat until they want to engage in debnate logically instead of just plain insults.
Also, I read your recent story about losing respect for the IIN community. I would like to say this. People on this site don't hate you. From time to time they might get annoyed, like how they get annoyed by Allistala. But overall I think that you are liked on website. Personally, and I hope that I'm not sounding gay by saying this, I would miss you if you were gone, and I'm sure a lot of people would to.
I have no problem with people dissagreeing with me or thumbng me down even if I have wrote pages of paragraphs, aslong as it sticks on topic, replies to each point made, and doesn't refuse to answer questions that would prove them wrong. If someone thumbs me down and explains why, then I can accept that. They explained why, and if I can, I will express how their reasons aren't logical (if they aren't). Instead, they just thumbs down, even when it supports the claim that they're being illogical, then they complain when I call them illogical for their illogical behavior.
Because I usually think they are worth the time, regardless of them saying things I dissagree with, that we can come to a conclusion. Another reason why is because if you let a stupid point by, it'll get thumbsed up to the max. I would have a logical counter, yet I am to be seen as not able to logcially counter what they said, which I don't like. Then you have to deal with idiots like, and yes I am going to name the person directly, Thinkingaboutit, that thinks if you ignore them, they're smarter than you...I also dislike that. If someone is smarter than me, then I want them to prove it by answering everything they can logically, instead of being illogical. If they do that, I can accept them being smarter than me. There are many people on here smarter than me, and those people have said I am wrong on many occasions, and some have proven me wrong, and I happily admit to them doing so.
Meh, I don't think so. I think people do dislike me. Maybe they don't hate me, but dislike me, and I can accept that aslong as it doesn't interfere with any conversations we have. I think a very few would miss me, but atleast those few would, which I'm greatful for.
This community...Really. By thumbing down that comment you indirectly stated that these things aren't illogical to do...Well done, IIN community, you get an A+ for stupidity.
What's funny is that if I ever done this (which I haven't despite you thumbing up the comment that says I do), yet if I did do it, you'd see it as illogical, yet indirectly imply that it's not illogical here.
-Sigh- I wish this generation of IIN would pass real soon, this is just irritating now.
Nice! You avoid logic, yet you reply on an emotional level that actually has no accuracy to my life. Welldone. Instead of sticking to the topic that you can reply to and know about, you decide to assume on a person's personal life...You go girl.
What's funny is that my original comment that you originally commented to had about four to five lines more...Not much, yet you were willing to read that, just not the one that puts you on the spot to give an example of why anyone should take you seriously...Again. You go girl.
Reply to me when you have something reliable to say.
Live long and prosper. (I think that's what he says).
I could have written this much better.
Oh, hope that wasn't egotistical and condescending.
Sorry, I prefer to state the truth. I have been known to be a tad tactless though. Not sure why? Must be their fault not mine! :D
You're a dumb ass. I got it already, now go away dumb ass.
Most notably Aleks85/Lizardskin and me have butted heads on opinions before, but we are both men, and are perfectly capable of accepting different opinions and not causing some causing high school drama!
Having internet enemies seems like too much stress to add to an already stressful world! Can't we all just get along? lolz
if someone hates me for being me, that's their own mental issue and not my problem :)
If I disagree with someone on a post, I don't even bother to remember it afterwards.
If anyone here hates me, feel free to let me know, but I really couldn't care less.
I am sure I have some people that don't like me as well. It is the natural order of things I suppose.