Interesting Reading: Why US Marines Are Traitorous Mercs

Mns · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:27 pm

I'm keeping this thread open for the sole reason that I'm going to use this thread as a barometer. Any thread that ever comes to anything even remotely resembling this again will be nuked.

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:32 pm

Eturnal you claim others don't have a brain and yet you can't deal with facts that violate your programming except by babbling and linking jpegs. Projection at its finest.

Battletard · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:34 pm

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

What actually amuses me the most about this thread now is how Aestu keeps telling us that this, that, and the other response is childish and/or not intelligent, yet all those responses, or at least the way he perceives them, are things he does on the regular. I'm beginning to think someone never grew out of his narcissistic phase as an adolescent.

And yet all you have to offer is an insult.

Now who is offended?

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:41 pm

Nothing I said implied I was offended or annoyed. I merely made an observation about the substance of the post.

My original post had more substance than just insults yet you chose to take offense where none was offered. There's no comparison, and the fact you try to make one suggests that you are in fact manifesting excessive predisposition to take offense.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:46 pm

You missed the first sentence. I offered an insult and an observation. You do everything you've complained about others doing in this thread with regularity. You've demonstrated a clear inability to acknowledge this just by making the complaint. You argue that people would be better off if they ran their lives the way you think they should, but when it is pointed out that this is contrary to remarks you've made previously, your only rebuttal boils down to "well, when you guys say that it's wrong." Either, as you suggested in this case, people are at least partially responsible for their actions/decisions and the consequences that flow from them, or as you suggest when it is pointed this is contrary to what you normally say, people can't be held accountable because of mitigating factors. If there is any middle ground between those two, it's a narrow isthmus, not the continent you've constructed in your mind.

You often complain of others here demonstrating "cognitive dissonance," but to say that people would be better off if they made more sensible decisions and then immediately argue that when others have said the exact same thing they're wrong because people really aren't responsible for their decisions is the epitome of cognitive dissonance. To say that a principle only holds true in those instances where it supports whatever it is you're arguing for this week is the pinnacle of childish and unintelligent. Yet regardless of how obvious this is, you can't see it when you do it. Now that I have pointed it out to you, it is only going to spur some TL;DR about how you're not really doing that when it is apparent to everyone here that this is exactly what you're doing. The only difference between you and my 12 year-old is that when I explain to him that he's being a jackass, he stops and thinks about it instead of blathering on like a daft git about how he can't possibly be wrong in any way, shape, or form.

Grow the fuck up. You don't get to bitch about other people tossing around "insults" after repeatedly telling everyone they're juvenile and stupid, especially when you're wrong and you've been a complete jackass about it.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:54 pm

Jubbergun wrote:

You missed the first sentence. I offered an insult and an observation. You do everything you've complained about others doing in this thread with regularity. You've demonstrated a clear inability to acknowledge this just by making the complaint. You argue that people would be better off if they ran their lives the way you think they should, but when it is pointed out that this is contrary to remarks you've made previously, your only rebuttal boils down to "well, when you guys say that it's wrong." Either, as you suggested in this case, people are at least partially responsible for their actions/decisions and the consequences that flow from them, or as you suggest when it is pointed this is contrary to what you normally say, people can't be held accountable because of mitigating factors. If there is any middle ground between those two, it's a narrow isthmus, not the continent you've constructed in your mind.

You often complain of others here demonstrating "cognitive dissonance," but to say that people would be better off if they made more sensible decisions and then immediately argue that when others have said the exact same thing they're wrong because people really aren't responsible for their decisions is the epitome of cognitive dissonance. To say that a principle only holds true in those instances where it supports whatever it is you're arguing for this week is the pinnacle of childish and unintelligent. Yet regardless of how obvious this is, you can't see it when you do it. Now that I have pointed it out to you, it is only going to spur some TL;DR about how you're not really doing that when it is apparent to everyone here that this is exactly what you're doing. The only difference between you and my 12 year-old is that when I explain to him that he's being a jackass, he stops and thinks about it instead of blathering on like a daft git about how he can't possibly be wrong in any way, shape, or form.

Grow the fuck up. You don't get to bitch about other people tossing around "insults" after repeatedly telling everyone they're juvenile and stupid, especially when you're wrong and you've been a complete jackass about it.

Lots of verbiage, nothing here. You're trying to marry an insult to a logically invalid argument.

People are self-responsible and ought to be able to engage reasoning grounded in facts and logic. It is really that simple.

Necrachilles · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:02 pm

In after Mayo sighting.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:02 pm

Aestu wrote:

People are self-responsible and ought to be able to engage reasoning grounded in facts and logic. It is really that simple.

I guess you're a "bad person" then, because...

Aestu wrote:

Yes you are a bad person if you expect people to fight an uphill battle against powerful, entrenched interests who define the rules of the game before it even starts...for no reason than to gratify your own Robinson Crusoe delusions.

Cognitive Dissonance: 1
Aestu: 0

ROUND 2!!! BEGIN!!!

Your Pal,
Jubber

Krizen · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:18 pm

You are ignorant.

Please refer to my signature.

Azelma · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:26 pm

Krizen raises a valid point.

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:27 pm

Jubbergun wrote:

Aestu wrote:

People are self-responsible and ought to be able to engage reasoning grounded in facts and logic. It is really that simple.

I guess you're a "bad person" then, because...

Aestu wrote:

Yes you are a bad person if you expect people to fight an uphill battle against powerful, entrenched interests who define the rules of the game before it even starts...for no reason than to gratify your own Robinson Crusoe delusions.

The analogy is faulty. An internet forum is a perfectly even playing field. Life is not. No one has any inherent advantage and no one has any inherent disadvantage besides their personal merits.

Therefore, expecting people to engage a contest equivocally in one sphere and not the other is consistent with the distinctions between the two.

Azelma · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:29 pm

I like how Aestu and Jubber are going back and forth in two different threads and I'm running between them going

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:30 pm

It's an internet forum. Calm down. Take some weed if you have to.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:42 pm

Aestu wrote:

The analogy is faulty. An internet forum is a perfectly even playing field. Life is not. No one has any inherent advantage and no one has any inherent disadvantage besides their personal merits.

Therefore, expecting people to engage a contest equivocally in one sphere and not the other is consistent with the distinctions between the two.

No one was making an analogy. Those are two things you've said within a short span of time that are completely incompatible, neither of which had anything to do with "internet forums." When you said people would be better off doing what you wanted, you weren't talking about them having an opinion on the internet, you were saying their real-world behavior was a root cause of their condition. When it was pointed out that others have made that argument and you disagreed, your response was that they were wrong because those people had "to fight an uphill battle against powerful, entrenched interests who define the rules of the game before it even starts," which also has nothing to do with internet forums, since it's a statement about the condition of the real world. You have made two conflicting statements, and stand by both, yet you are incapable of seeing how the two are incompatible: cognitive dissonance, you has it.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Battletard · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:48 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Interesting Reading: Why US Marines Are Traitorous Mercs

Who is online