Pittsburgh cop shooter was a Stormfronter

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Do you think your statement "I reckon only a lack of charity allows you to see Coberst's 41 posts in a relation of irony to his failure to engage in discussion here at . " is a statement of facts in evidence?
That's a separate issue
I'd love to hear why you think so.

* mickthinks sighs
It's not a dispute of TLR's own subjective experience and it doesn't imply that he is lying about it.

Originally Posted by Adam

So, to be clear, you agree that TLR found coberst's behavior ironic, that he found the irony amusing, that there was no ill will motivating his amusement, and that none of this is up for debate?

If you have the moral courage.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Adam

If you have the moral courage.

Never too late for him to start, I suppose.

But I have never been known for my optimism.

[Kael]

Was the comment not directed at TLR? If it was, it sure seems like you're saying "only a lack of charity allows you to see Cobherst's 41 posts in a relation of irony to his failure to engage in discussion here at ." That relation of irony is what TLR said he found amusing. TLR went on to say that he had no "lack of charity" behind his amusement at that relation of irony. You replied by saying you were "arguing from evidence."

Help me out here, Mick, 'cause it sure as hell looks like your disputing his subjective experience and implying he's a liar.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Adam

If you have the moral courage.

You are asking me to do something that I have denied doing and that you have falsely accused me of. I think it shows you to be crooked, Adam.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You are asking me to do something that I have denied doing and that you have falsely accused me of. I think it shows you to be crooked, Adam.

Ok, you got me. How is Adam asking you to confirm that you are NOT disputing TLR's subjective experience actually him asking you to dispute it?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You are asking me to do something that I have denied doing and that you have falsely accused me of. I think it shows you to be crooked, Adam.

You've denied agreeing to these four statements?

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Kael

How is Adam asking you to confirm that you are NOT disputing TLR's subjective experience actually him asking you to dispute it?

He's not actually asking me that directly though, Kael.

Originally Posted by Adam

You've denied agreeing to these four statements?

LOL That's a separate question, Adam.

Have you had enough of this now, guys, because I have? I'm about ready to give up and leave you two to it.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

That will just afford him another opportunity to divert attention from his own dishonesty and redirect it toward a red herring of his own creation. He does that all the time. When he finds himself in a corner, hemmed in on all sides by his dishonesty and the social damage it causes, he will simply accuse you of confusing the issue, even when you're obviously not.

mickthinks is nothing if not predictable. Also a moral coward.

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Have you had enough of this now, guys, because I have? I'm about ready to give up and leave you two to it.

This makes me question your commitment to pushing justice up the agenda wherever you can.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

He's not actually asking me that directly though, Kael.

Well played.

For those of you following along at home, what happens next is that we get into another tangential debate (which brings us five or six tangents deep, if you're keeping score) over whether or not my paraphrasing of TLR's claims about his subjective experience is, in fact, accurate. Mick thus avoids answering my question until such time as the tangent plays out and, rest assured, there will be two or three more tangents that will crop up to prevent this particular tangent from ever reaching resolution. He can't answer the question because, as long as he's careful to never agree that any given claim is an account of TLR's subjective experience, he can dispute that claim to his heart's content and simultaneously maintain that he has never disputed anyone's account of their subjective experience.

This is the sort of obfuscation upon which mick depends in order to avoid being held accountable for the things he says.

[ChuckF]

I reckon mickthinks' next strategy to avoid being held accountable for the things he says may be to dismiss everyone else as "unserious," or something similar. Sometimes he depends on that one too.

[mickthinks]

You are as good as accusing me of cheating now, Adam. That's dishonest of you.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You are as good as accusing me of cheating now, Adam. That's dishonest of you.

It's interesting how this was edited from "You are now accusing me of cheating" to "You are as good as accusing me of cheating." What does that show, I wonder?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You are as good as accusing me of cheating now, Adam. That's dishonest of you.

I don't know about cheating. I'm flat out accusing you of disingenuously obfuscating an issue to avoid answering a straightforward question* and, no, it's not dishonest of me because I'm not pretending not to do it.

* - If, for some reason, you do not think the question is straightforward, the honest thing to do, if you were seeking communication rather than obfuscation, would be to point out where the question is unclear, perhaps suggest a better framing, etc., instead of your emblematic "LOL that's a different question/not what I said/unserious" one line responses.

[seebs]

Yeah, that's pretty much why I gave up on trying to talk to mick. The refusal to answer the ASD question suggests two likely interpretations:

1. He has been diagnosed, and doesn't believe the diagnosis to be accurate.
2. He is too focused on the question of whether he thinks it's insulting to be willing to even consider the issue.

Both are sorta crazy.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

How hard did you try, Ang?

How hard have you tried to find the moral courage to address your dishonesty and obfuscation here in this thread?

[mickthinks]

LOL Have I left some issue that you care about unresolved, Adam? If you can persuade me that resolving all issues is a principle that I'm obliged to follow, please do it.

[Adam]

You aren't obliged to do anything in particular, mick. I was simply expressing my curiosity regarding your moral courage, as it relates to your failure or refusal to address your dishonesty and obfuscation here in this thread.

[mickthinks]

You aren't obliged to do anything in particular, mick.

Then as far you are concerned there can be no moral dimension to my 'failure' or 'refusal'. You seem to think there is, though.

[Kael]

In before mick succeeds in turning this thread into a discussion on the existence of moral obligations and their parameters in order to avoid owning up to his lies and obfuscation.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

If you can persuade me that resolving all issues is a principle that I'm obliged to follow, please do it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You aren't obliged to do anything in particular, mick.

Then as far you are concerned there can be no moral dimension to my 'failure' or 'refusal'. You seem to think there is, though.

I simply wonder whether you have the moral courage to address your dishonesty and obfuscation. I don't think that you're under any particular obligation to possess moral courage.

[mickthinks]

You don't think I'm under a moral obligation to possess moral courage? Then you don't understand ethics at all, I think. That would explain a lot of the misunderstandings between us.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kael

In before mick succeeds in turning this thread into a discussion on the existence of moral obligations and their parameters in order to avoid owning up to his lies and obfuscation.

Take a bow, sir.

So, mick, since you apparently do believe yourself to be under a moral obligation to possess moral courage, do you have the moral courage to address your dishonesty and obfuscation in this thread?

[seebs]

Mick, people are trying really hard to find ANY way at all to explain your behavior that doesn't involve carefully considered, premeditated, lies on your part.

I still stand by the theory that much of your behavior is better explained by autism than by malice, but the fact is, anyone capable of recognizing and using English words ought to be able to do better than you appear to be doing here at understanding things, so ignorance simply isn't an adequate explanation of the observed behavior. Some of it really does have to be dishonesty on your part.

[mickthinks]

You keep saying that, but the evidence is against you, seebs. People who have made a genuine effort to understand me say things like this;

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

Some of mickthinks' arguments have been persuasive to me.

whereas those pretending to do so say shit like this:

Originally Posted by seebs

The problem, mick, is that you have no evidence to suggest that you have presented arguments in a way persuasive to anyone but yourself.

Originally Posted by seebs

mick, you have yet to offer any evidence, persuasive to anyone else, that you've been right, or that other people have been able to see it if you have done so.