Please, for Zalgo's sake, keep threads from becoming insultfests in D&D...

[Steely Glint]

I think the post in question is:

Have fun raping women in short skirts.

Rather than the one Wraith quoted.

Seriously, "Have fun raping women in short skirts"? Have fun?

[Wraith]

Rather than the one Wraith quoted.

Seriously, "Have fun raping women in short skirts"? Have fun?

Yeah, stupid, but from the context and what was said there it's clear to me that is not an accusation of being a rapist. Even if one thought it was at first glance, he later clarifies multiple times that that's not what he was saying.

Anyways, my point is, it's done now - it's been ~1.5 years, and this is all based on misinterpreting a single retarded post - two tops. Can we please just fucking drop it and never mention it again?

[littlelolligagged]

Just say "Icky is a dingdong," and move on.

[GGT]

Who the hell is Icky?

omg do you guys keep notes at your keyboard or something?

[littlelolligagged]

Icky = Loki

I only rename people I like, though.

(we will not include Monkeyboy in people I like, just in case he is actually reading here. I just like calling him monkeyboy)

[GGT]

Is that another IRC mafia thing?

Seems to me this whole mess is related to clique-ish crap. Old names, new names, discussions in other places we aren't all "in on", keeping score from old places, carrying around old baggage.

What's the point? It probably harms this place in the long run, who wants to step into that kind of drama? No new members, yeah that's gonna get old real fast, almost incestuous.

The Swarmers need to stop. The Clique needs to stop intermingling personalities. There, that's the pussified forum nanny asking certain folks (who know who they are) to just stop. Or take it to PM.

Group hug

[littlelolligagged]

No, it's a lolli thing. I can't help it if others occasionally latch on to what I call people, Geegee.

You can't exactly expect old baggage to disappear just because we moved. And the point of keeping D&D relatively spam-free is to attract the types of members we want.

[GGT]

We? Who is WE? Put this in site discussion then, or make new rules, or passwords for entry acceptance into D & D. Whatever.

I meant the old fights b/w people, they need to stop. Even in GC it's silly to rehash it over and over.

Done here.

[littlelolligagged]

It's been in site discussion.

And, once again, would everyone suddenly be all lovey-dovey just because we moved? Not even Chacha's name change changed his personality, and most people didn't even bother to change that much. It's the same people, there won't be any hugging and singing Kum-by-ya. And if there were, I'd leave.

[']['ear]

6 of one, half a dozen of the other. He doesn't call me a rapist, but a sexist "she deserves it" pig. Big difference.

If it really offended you, I apologize for calling you a rapist and a racist. I did not mean either.

Then why do you keep doing shit like that? I appreciate the apology. Let's not go there again, eh?

[littlelolligagged]

If it really offended you, I apologize for calling you a rapist and a racist. I did not mean either.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other. He doesn't call me a rapist, but a sexist "she deserves it" pig. Big difference.

I still say fuck him. It's the classic Loki distortion. Take a reasonable argument and distort it into something fantastically offensive and anathema to the person it refers to.

Again, if somebody insisted on that to my face and wouldn't back down, I'd be sorely tempted to pop him in the nose.

Really.

This responding to words with violence thing really disturbs me. Do you have anger problems?

[ImAnOgre]

Just asking, but is there something inherently wrong with being a racist? People can like or dislike each other for a myriad of reasons? What is so taboo about skin color? (note, I am not a racist, and I believe all racist are idiots, but if someone chooses to not like a specific skin color, why is that so wrong, it's their choice to make).

[EyeKhan]

If it really offended you, I apologize for calling you a rapist and a racist. I did not mean either.

Back in 2003 or something you called me an anti-semite because, at the heart of it, I was disagreeing with Israeli policy. So as long as your handing out apologies, then I could retire my grudge against you.

Just asking, but is there something inherently wrong with being a racist? People can like or dislike each other for a myriad of reasons? What is so taboo about skin color? (note, I am not a racist, and I believe all racist are idiots, but if someone chooses to not like a specific skin color, why is that so wrong, it's their choice to make).

Racism means you dislike an entire group of people you have no hope of knowing on an individual basis because of qualities you assign to the group via a stereotype. Most people seem to think you ought to know more specifically what you're disliking someone for before you dislike them. Judging someone without knowing much about them, or for qualities attributed to a stereo-type (like what Tear likes to do, btw ) is generally considered doing them an injustice.

Violence != standing up for yourself and your values. It's the most cowardly and despicable way to make a point, even - and your message is completely lost. It's low-class and pathetic behavior.

I'm astonished at how acceptable violence was between kids when I was growing up. I would never tolerate such behavior from my offspring or toward my offspring. I'm not sure if it's a generational thing or because I grew up in a white trash hick town.

[Loki]

Back in 2003 or something you called me an anti-semite because, at the heart of it, I was disagreeing with Israeli policy. So as long as your handing out apologies, then I could retire my grudge against you.

I'm sorry you're an anti-Semite.

[littlelolligagged]

I'm sorry you're an anti-Semite.

And we're all sorry you're you.

Isn't this fun!

[']['ear]

If someone was trying to break something of mine, I'd feel morally justified in physically restraining them. I'm not talking about smashing their face in. Or shooting them in the back, Lewkowski style.

I'd be extremely careful, and only offer violence of any sort if me or mine were physically threatened. I'd rely on the law, and my first reaction would be to call 911.

But no, I'd not offer violence in defense of a thing. I'd can't believe you would do so. Are your possessions with enough to you to offer violence?

Now, I have stopped a few bicycle thefts, but violence wasn't needed.

What are you, Alexander Hamilton?

More like Aaron Burr.

Honor is just another word for pride.

Don't be silly. In addition to pride it has integrity and surety implicit. But yes, pride is a significant part.

[']['ear]

(like what Tear likes to do, btw )

Still smarting about the conspicuous consumption charge over your 5800 sq ft house, eh? That's OK, bring it on and take the cheap shot!

[EyeKhan]

I'm sorry you're an anti-Semite.

Wise choice. Besides, without my grudge against you, what else would we have?

Still smarting about the conspicuous consumption charge over your 5800 sq ft house, eh? That's OK, bring it on and take the cheap shot!

Not really. It bothered me at first because I'd mistakenly thought you were more intelligent than to make sweeping baseless judgements like that. Now I know better and that knowledge is reinforced that much more with your recent whinining about being called a racist when in fact you unappologetically embrace the same baseless judgemental behavior elsewhere. Way to go!

If a white guy uses the N-word on somebody black. What happens? Black guy justified in punching him? I'd say he should resolve it peacefully first, but yeah, a punch in the schnoz is appropriate if the white guy won't back off.

Where does your justification come from? (Street justice? School of hard knocks? You so bad.) Not the legal system, thankfully. Luckily the law doesn't agree with you as said black guy would be charged with assault.

[']['ear]

I'm sorry you're an anti-Semite.

Damn you, you made me laugh!

[']['ear]

I didn't see his apology until after I had posted, and edited mine accordingly.

For some things, yes. The only time I ever got in big trouble growing up was a school suspension for fighting: some kids were going to beat up a friend of mine because he was black. I went and fought for him. I got kicked out of a soccer game in a racial conflict when we played in redneck land. My godparents are black. My first friend was black. I led an integrated personal life in a part of the country that was pretty bigoted in the 70s. So I've fought and bled over race, and I'll be damned if I'll let some punk say that shit to me.

Likewise, I have several women close to me who have been raped. Family. I've stood against that stuff my whole life. I could tell some even worse stories about that, ones that involve a felony, legal risk for me and my family, and all kinds of ugly stuff. And again, I'll not stand for that shit.

You have kids. What if somebody made nasty comments about you being a pedophile. Would you face them down if they stood by it in public? Damn right you would. You fight for things like that.

Read what I said. If somebody came up to me with that shit, we'd have a serious talk. And if they kept it up, damn right I'd pop them. Shame on you for not standing up for yourself and your values more. This is human rights shit, not some argument about how much taxation or government role is appropriate. Grow a spine.

[littlelolligagged]

Violence != standing up for yourself and your values. It's the most cowardly and despicable way to make a point, even - and your message is completely lost. It's low-class and pathetic behavior.

[Steely Glint]

The only acceptable use of violence is self-defense (or defense of someone else), and possibly defense of property in a limited context.

If someone kept it up, and you "popped" them, what do you think you've proved, exactly? In what way are you standing up for your values?

Is the allegation show how negated by the use of physical force?

[']['ear]

Violence != standing up for yourself and your values. It's the most cowardly and despicable way to make a point, even - and your message is completely lost. It's low-class and pathetic behavior.

1) I said I'd talk first. Almost anybody would back down in that situation.

2) Class? Class? Nice.

The only acceptable use of violence is self-defense (or defense of someone else), and possibly defense of property in a limited context.

Right, so you put property ahead of ethics?

Besides, some things are self-defense. To me, being accused of racism or sexual abusiveness is about the same as being accused of pedophilia. I demand satisfaction in that situation.

If someone kept it up, and you "popped" them, what do you think you've proved, exactly? In what way are you standing up for your values?

Is the allegation show how negated by the use of physical force?

You have no honor worth protecting then? That's OK for you. Not me.

[ImAnOgre]

Violence != standing up for yourself and your values. It's the most cowardly and despicable way to make a point, even - and your message is completely lost. It's low-class and pathetic behavior.

Except when you are a kid. Hell, even as a teen it's almost a rite of passage. The number of times someone was going down to the baseball field when I was in high school......

The only acceptable use of violence is self-defense (or defense of someone else), and possibly defense of property in a limited context.

If someone kept it up, and you "popped" them, what do you think you've proved, exactly? In what way are you standing up for your values?

Is the allegation show how negated by the use of physical force?

What about for money? Like boxing? Or MMA? is that acceptable? What about fighting for your country? Or if your job is in the armed forces? What about stopping a crime?

[Steely Glint]

Right, so you put property ahead of ethics?

If someone was trying to break something of mine, I'd feel morally justified in physically restraining them. I'm not talking about smashing their face in. Or shooting them in the back, Lewkowski style.

I demand satisfaction in that situation.

What are you, Alexander Hamilton?

You have no honor worth protecting then? That's OK for you. Not me.

Honor is just another word for pride.

What about for money? Like boxing? Or MMA? is that acceptable?

Since both parties are voluntary participants, those don't count.

What about fighting for your country?

What is my country doing at the time? Being invaded? Self-defense. Assisting an ally? Self-defense by proxy. Trying to avert a genocide? Same. Attacking another country because it feels like having more land? Not ok. Attacking other country over a diplomatic slight? Also not ok (Tea is effective endorsing this sort of behavior with his talk of "honour" and "satisfaction", btw) .

Or if your job is in the armed forces?

See above.

What about stopping a crime?

What kind of crime are we talking about? Don't park on that double-yellow or I'll smash you face in with a brick? Or don't kick that child to death or I'll knock you on your ass? Which of those do you think satisfies the criteria I already laid out?

[ImAnOgre]

What kind of crime are we talking about? Don't park on that double-yellow or I'll smash you face in with a brick? Or don't kick that child to death or I'll knock you on your ass? Which of those do you think satisfies the criteria I already laid out?

Point made for everything..... except, if someone is breaking the law, and a police offer tries to stop said perp, and said perp runs, does the officer have the right to tackle said individual?

(note, I know what you mean, I'm just arguing for the sense of arguing). Feel free to not reply.

[Steely Glint]

Point made for everything..... except, if someone is breaking the law, and a police offer tries to stop said perp, and said perp runs, does the officer have the right to tackle said individual?

(note, I know what you mean, I'm just arguing for the sense of arguing). Feel free to not reply.

What do you mean, do they have the right to do it? I'm not some kind of legal authority, so I don't get to decide who has the right to do anything. Obviously the policeman has the legal right to do that.

Morally, according to me? Sure. The essence of what I am arguing here, is that we're all ostensibly civilized people here and we live in a civil society, and we don't use violence to *solve disputes*. It's use is only acceptable where there is some practical consequence of not using it which is undesirable, providing the level of force you use doesn't result in even worse consequences. A dispute is a contest between ideas, and we resolve those by using our mind. If Loki accuses Tear of rape, Tear seems to think the issue can be resolved by punching Loki in the mouth. In fact, if Tear is a rapist, he is a rapist whether he punches Loki in the mouth or not. And if he is not a rapist, then he's still not a rapist if he doesn't punch Loki. So, what part exactly does punching Loki in the mouth play in the process? What is Tear's motive? It can't be to refute the allegation, because that's ridiculous. Is it revenge? He would agree that's not morally acceptable. Punishment? Does he really think he's so special that anyone leveling such grave accusations at him deserves to suffer a certain level of physical pain? Doubt that. Some kind of dominance thing? That's childish. Because being called a rapist makes him feel bad, and punching the person in the mouth makes him feel better again? Again, childish, primitive behavior. So in this hypothetical bar scenario, what is Tear's motive when he punches Loki?

[Steely Glint]

I'd be extremely careful, and only offer violence of any sort if me or mine were physically threatened.

Or if someone called you a donkey fucker or whatever.

But no, I'd not offer violence in defense of a thing. I'd can't believe you would do so. Are your possessions with enough to you to offer violence?

By violence here, I mean any use of physical force, such as pushing someone away, holding them back, etc.

Think about it. Are there no circumstances where you wouldn't protect something of yours with any level of physical force? Like, if some guy were reaching for your wallet you won't grab their wrist to stop them?

In addition to pride it has integrity and surety implicit.

I'm not sure what part integrity surety has in threatening to beat people up who say things which you find offensive.

[']['ear]

Or if someone called you a donkey fucker or whatever.

Don't try to direct attention from your obsession about possessions.

By violence here, I mean any use of physical force, such as pushing someone away, holding them back, etc.

Think about it. Are there no circumstances where you wouldn't protect something of yours with any level of physical force? Like, if some guy were reaching for your wallet you won't grab their wrist to stop them?

I was always taught that if one is getting robbed, you let them have it. No possession is so valuable that it is worth your life, and many criminals go armed. I was mugged in Seattle and I gave them everything they wanted and was very helpful.

I'm not sure what part integrity surety has in threatening to beat people up who say things which you find offensive.

Let's stick with honor and not try to get into some transitive property thing.

Do you have honor? Is it worth defending? Because right now it's looking like you value possessions above your honor.

[Steely Glint]

I was always taught that if one is getting robbed, you let them have it. No possession is so valuable that it is worth your life, and many criminals go armed. I was mugged in Seattle and I gave them everything they wanted and was very helpful.

Well, I don't live in America, so not criminals are unlikely to have some kind of weapon, especially pick pockets. And I were being mugged, I'd likely just run for it. Since this is the UK, they're not going to have a gun so I guess they're shit out of luck

However, obviously if there's a chance I'd get shot or stabbed I'd let them have it. But you're assuming some kind encounter with a criminal. What about a drunk, unpleasant neighbor, unruly child, angry relative, etc?

Do you have honor? Is it worth defending? Because right now it's looking like you value possessions above your honor.

Honor, if it exists as a meaningful concept, must surely be a manner of acting, not something you just sort of "have". The way you're using it is just a synonym for pride, and no my pride is not worth defending with physical violence.