Do condescending people realize they are? [Archive]

Jrocka83

01-13-2008, 08:57 PM

Do condescending people realize they are condescending? Do they just not care?

1 a: to descend to a less formal or dignified level : unbend (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/unbend) b: to waive the privileges of rank2: to assume an air of superiority

What type of condenscending are you talking about, either way I think people do realize what they are doing, but not nesserily realizing they are condescending.

Sounds like something that goes on alot in the millitary. "to waive the privileges of rank" hmm, sounds like most SSNCO's and Officers..:army:

01-13-2008, 09:03 PM

2: to assume an air of superiority

This is the one.

Jrocka83

01-13-2008, 09:07 PM

This is the one.

I don't think most people realize thier own charecter defects, often; it takes a person to hit rock bottom or some significant event to happen in thier lives to see the reflection in the water..

Muku

01-13-2008, 09:10 PM

Do condescending people realize they are condescending? Do they just not care?
Wow...I wonder what suddenly brought this one on? :thumbup: :eek:

I'll bet any money that those that know they are condescending are that way because they feel a sense of superiority and those that dont realize that they are doing it, do it from a position of arrogance.

Edited to add here as an after thought........

Condescending people are that way because they don't have self confidence in themselves and feel power in putting others down, for one reason or another.

P_chan

01-13-2008, 09:47 PM

I think everyone is condescending at certain times, without knowing it.

But some people just have that type of personality.

okisteve

01-13-2008, 11:09 PM

This is the one.

That can assume lots of forms. People can feel threatened or intimidated by a show or pretense of physical superiority, intellectual superiority, economic superiority, official rank (as mentioned), racial superiority, etc.

What kind(s) do you see most?

DoctorP

01-13-2008, 11:28 PM

I think that most of the time that they do realize they are that way...especially when they are online. People act totally different online than in person sometimes.

okisteve

01-14-2008, 07:37 AM

I think that most of the time that they do realize they are that way...especially when they are online. People act totally different online than in person sometimes.

That is the most ridiculous remark I've ever heard:rolleyes:

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 10:49 AM

lol.

Hmmm...I saw this thread late last night, and at the time had thought I would just let such a baiting thread go by, but...I got to admit...it's kinda hooked me for the ease in which it can be shot at.

I kinda find the title strange...if not condescending itself and highlights "pot meets kettle" to the starter and perhaps even those others who have posted thus far here. I sense the purpose was more to rally than to really discuss the point.

Anyways, it sure has given me an idea or two for another thread(s).... lol.

Hold on...I'll post some more soon here.

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 10:54 AM

Do condescending people realize they are condescending?

I dunno, do they? Here's one:

NEWSFLASH!!! Humans have been eating meat since the beginning of time!

Do they just not care?

I dunno. Ask P_chan himself.

Oh man...this is gonna be easy and fun.

DougP

01-14-2008, 10:55 AM

I think that most of the time that they do realize they are that way...especially when they are online. People act totally different online than in person sometimes.

So true:thumbup1: Although other's I've met in person for the most part seem to mirror their online personas. Others have a tendancy to be a bit milder in person. A bit more kind.

okisteve

01-14-2008, 10:59 AM

So true:thumbup1: Although other's I've met in person for the most part seem to mirror their online personas. Others have a tendancy to be a bit milder in person. A bit more kind.

Or maybe a little afraid of getting hit in the face.<3

Crazysix

01-14-2008, 11:00 AM

So true:thumbup1: Although other's I've met in person for the most part seem to mirror their online personas. Others have a tendancy to be a bit milder in person. A bit more kind.
nothing like dealing with a keyboard commando face to face

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 11:03 AM

Do condescending people realize they are condescending? Do they just not care?

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. You may know the answer already:

Do you think we should teach lions and gators to go vegetarian?

<snicker>

Muku

01-14-2008, 11:11 AM

nothing like dealing with a keyboard commando face to face

How true....yet it seems to me that the really condescending one's rarely if ever show their face in a group of people that "know" them from online.

That is also imo an extension of their personality, the ability to "hide" saves them the trouble of facing reality.

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 11:16 AM

Do condescending people realize they are condescending? Do they just not care?

Well, do you? ([QUOTE=dk;3144]Do you think we should teach lions and gators to go vegetarian?) -- style courtesy of Muku

01-14-2008, 11:18 AM

Condescending people are those who make it a habit to be condescending. I can think of a few people in here, and you really aren't the top one one my list. If a person gets angry once, is he an angry person? He is at the time, but he should not be known as an angry person if it is contradictory to his usual behavior.

There are people on this forum who I would say are habitually condescending. Do they know it? Do they just not care?

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-14-2008, 11:19 AM

How true....yet it seems to me that the really condescending one's rarely if ever show their face in a group of people that "know" them from online.

That is also imo an extension of their personality, the ability to "hide" saves them the trouble of facing reality.
I think message boards mirror real life reasonably well. There are those who want to be friends with everyone, and will bend over backwards and forwards to maintain the illusion that they are in total agreement with everyone. There are others who prefer being more outspoken, say what they mean, and choose their associations carefully.

01-14-2008, 11:20 AM

Well, do you? (http://[QUOTE=dk;3144]Do you think we should teach lions and gators to go vegetarian?) -- style courtesy of Muku
This must be an attempt to get me to say nice job with the link n00b, but I won't. That'd be condescending.

Muku

01-14-2008, 11:23 AM

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:....cute!

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 11:26 AM

Condescending people are those who make it a habit to be condescending. I can think of a few people in here, and you really aren't the top one one my list. If a person gets angry once, is he an angry person?

I think one has to look at the group dynamic in which that person may be condescending. Who or what group is it usually targeted at and does that target have some responsibility in having condescension directed at them.

For example, if someone continuously posts in an almost incoherent way I wouldn't fault someone for taking an air of superiority over such a person. If they are a homophobe and pepper their comments with homophobic statements from time to time and such persons create an atmosphere in society that causes suffering for a certain group of people, then perhaps they are deserving of some degree of condescension.

It seems to me like condescension and ridicule has been used by all of the heavy posters here from time to time, and I do not think anyone has used it more than 50% of their posting history.

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 11:30 AM

There are others who prefer being more outspoken, say what they mean, and choose their associations carefully.

The more prudent surely should choose people from the internet they choose to meat or divulge information about their personal lives to in a careful manner. I don't think anyone would have to dig too deep to find news stories of examples of people meeting from the internet and things went terribly wrong after that.

I look askance to meeting people when they link the reluctance to meeting them as part of courage or in some other style as that -- which we have seen here, as if it is a challenge or dare of some sorts.

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 11:31 AM

[quote=TheProsecutor;55307][URL="http://
This must be an attempt to get me to say nice job with the link n00b, but I won't. That'd be condescending.

lol. Indeed it would.

DocTurtle

01-14-2008, 11:32 AM

I dunno, do they? Here's one:

Originally Posted by P_chan
NEWSFLASH!!! Humans have been eating meat since the beginning of time!
Originally Posted by dk
Do they just not care?

I dunno. Ask P_chan himself.

Stating a fact and being condescending aren't always hand in hand. And from that post that you linked to P_Chan, I would dare to say that you would have been the condescending one. The title of the thread is even Vegetarianism for moral and ethical reasons. That alone is condescending by the definition given. The title alone states that your morals and ethics are to be held with higher regard then those of meat eaters. I think you are edging more into values than anything.

Anywho, do they? Some yes, some no. I know people who are that way and until you brought to their attention they have no idea and apologize immediately. Often these people feel very ashamed of it and weren't trying to come across in that manner in any way shape or form.

On the other hand, there are those who often will do it out of spite. Those ones are (insert vulgarity here). :thumbup:

01-14-2008, 11:33 AM

It seems to me like condescension and ridicule has been used by all of the heavy posters here from time to time, and I do not think anyone has used it more than 50% of their posting history.
Which is why I did not specifically point my finger at anyone in this thread. I'm sure I've done it on occasion, but I don't go out of my way to do it. (Now pointing a finger) Vvloc on the other hand just made a post that if you disagree with him on the topic of torture, you deserve to be spoken down to. That's fine. Whatever.

I use sarcasm a lot, but I try not to speak down to anybody with actual intent to hurt.

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 11:45 AM

Which is why I did not specifically point my finger at anyone in this thread. I'm sure I've done it on occasion, but I don't go out of my way to do it. (Now pointing a finger) Vvloc on the other hand just made a post that if you disagree with him on the topic of torture, you deserve to be spoken down to. That's fine. Whatever.

I use sarcasm a lot, but I try not to speak down to anybody with actual intent to hurt.

Well, people do not have a window into others' minds to view their intent. That said, sarcasm can end up hurting just as much as condescension and I can clearly see how the two may be misinterpreted.

I try not to engage NBTP too much because whenever he attempts to weigh in on more serious issues his writing comes across nearly incoherent and I spend more time trying to have to understand it than what it is worth. Is that condescending to say such? According to DocTurtle in a previous post above, stating a fact is not condescending.

I don't think vvloc was being condescending to NBTP because he disagreed with him, but more on the point that NBTP seems to be supporting torture. Is it superior to hold that torture is wrong? IF one thinks so then that attitude surely will come out. Is it superior to hold that slavery is wrong? IF so , then that attitude will come out. Is it superior to hold that Nazism is wrong? iF so then that attitude will come out.

vvloc posted about condescension and owned up to it. He didn't beat around the bush about it. Since he explained himself quite well, and your thread post here asks a question, I am not sure why you created this thread if it were meant more or less for vvloc. You already had your answer, didn't you?

Muku

01-14-2008, 11:47 AM

The more prudent surely should choose people from the internet they choose to meat or divulge information about their personal lives to in a careful manner. I don't think anyone would have to dig too deep to find news stories of examples of people meeting from the internet and things went terribly wrong after that.

Missing something from your diet? Fruedian slip maybe?

I look askance to meeting people when they link the reluctance to meeting them as part of courage or in some other style as that -- which we have seen here, as if it is a challenge or dare of some sorts

In the case of JU, only you and maybe one other person would think this way.

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 11:53 AM

Stating a fact and being condescending aren't always hand in hand.

Well, that will always change depending the view of the one who feels they were targeted by the comment. The person directing the comment can surely find a way to justify it as not condescending if they wish.

And from that post that you linked to P_Chan, I would dare to say that you would have been the condescending one. The title of the thread is even Vegetarianism for moral and ethical reasons. That alone is condescending by the definition given. The title alone states that your morals and ethics are to be held with higher regard then those of meat eaters. I think you are edging more into values than anything.

Sure, but ridiculous just as is this thread topic. Because, any opinion that upsets the status quo certainly can be viewed as a knock from a new upstart who thinks they have a superriour way to believe something or go about it.

Jesus was condescending to Jews for telling them they were free from the Old Law i.e. that if they continue to abide by the Old Law then they are wrong. Gee...DocTurtle, I could throughout all of history and point this out over and over. Your reasoning would have any statement as condescending that challenges the worth of the status quo.

"Abolition of slavery is the moral thing to do."

Whoa! IN that statement it just called anyone who disagreed with that as immoral!!!

I think you need to rethink your reasoning on this. It seems arbitrary.

mikersoft

01-14-2008, 11:54 AM

Missing something from your diet? Fruedian slip maybe?

LOL, nice catch.

Muku

01-14-2008, 12:00 PM

Well, that will always change depending the view of the one who feels they were targeted by the comment. The person directing the comment can surely find a way to justify it as not condescending if they wish.

However it is the person that is reading the comments that decides whether or not the comments were condescending or not.

You youself indirectly are admitting that you are condescending towards others in the post that this comment came from.

Oh and to infer or imply, through the example that you gave, that you are anything even closely related to Jesus is condescending as well.:rolleyes:

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-14-2008, 12:00 PM

I have meet some of our forum members, and think they are good people. In cases such as these, I think there was something of a mutual respect before we decided to get together for face-to-face discussion. While some may use the forums for the express purpose of dating, friend finding, or a place to affirm their self-worth, others may have other reasons for participation.

DocTurtle

01-14-2008, 12:23 PM

Well, that will always change depending the view of the one who feels they were targeted by the comment. The person directing the comment can surely find a way to justify it as not condescending if they wish.You are spot on with that statement.
Sure, but ridiculous just as is this thread topic. Because, any opinion that upsets the status quo certainly can be viewed as a knock from a new upstart who thinks they have a superriour way to believe something or go about it.Again I will agree with you. Glad to see we are meeting eye to eye on this.
Jesus was condescending to Jews for telling them they were free from the Old Law i.e. that if they continue to abide by the Old Law then they are wrong. Gee...DocTurtle, I could throughout all of history and point this out over and over. Your reasoning would have any statement as condescending that challenges the worth of the status quo.

"Abolition of slavery is the moral thing to do."

Whoa! IN that statement it just called anyone who disagreed with that as immoral!!!

I think you need to rethink your reasoning on this. It seems arbitrary.Which is odd since you seem to agree??
Definition that we are working with: To assume an air of superiority
Because, any opinion that upsets the status quo certainly can be viewed as a knock from a new upstart who thinks they have a superriour way to believe something or go about it.Thank you for agreeing :)

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 12:28 PM

Thank you for agreeing :)

Feel free to agree with me anytime, DocT. More than happy to pull you up.

DocTurtle

01-14-2008, 12:37 PM

Lol, sure sure. You stated that my way of thinking was "arbitrary" but yet you agreed with it with this: "Because, any opinion that upsets the status quo certainly can be viewed as a knock from a new upstart who thinks they have a superriour way to believe something or go about it." That's rather contradictory...but, if you agree with my "arbitrary" way of thinking, than I suppose I have to thank you? :thumbup: I even double checked the meaning of arbitrary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary) just in case too.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-14-2008, 12:42 PM

DocTurtle

01-14-2008, 12:44 PM

Who are you refering or directing that to Eel? I know what you are talking about...but where did that come from?

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 12:53 PM

DocT, my point that you have bolded is on perspective. You said you thought the thread title to the link was the first point of condescension and hence it somehow made Pchan's condescension less so. I therefore said that sure, all statements knocking the status quo could be justified as condescension. This is what really makes the whole thread discussion ridiculous because virtually anything from the perspective of another could be declared condescending. I gave 3 clear examples of that with Jesus, slavery, and Naziism.

But then again, if an idea is inferior, and one whole heartedly believes it to be inferior, I see no fault with taking an air of superiority towards that. You would have to if you are going to say it is wrong to hold the opposite view -- which is what opposite ends of the spectrum do.

I guess the real or more useful question to the discussion, if the OP starter wanted a useful discussion on the point, would be: How much condescension or sarcasm can a discussion handle? But even there it becomes quite grey, because for as annoying as condescension and sarcasm can be to some, others will find a certain degree of sophisticated whit and subtle humor in it.

But perhaps many are not sophisticated enough to appreciate those.

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 01:01 PM

A lot of people post their opinion along with some sort of excuse, so they can conveniently back out later. "I only have a few minutes...my child is on my lap as I write...". Might as well write "the dog ate my homework". It's difficult to take this sort of poster seriously.

Exactly! And all that wouldn't be so bad if they came back and picked up where they left off...or just honestly said they no longer want to discuss it OR honestly said they need to think more on the issue and that they may not be too sure about their initial position.

"I'm busy" or "I'm tired" or "I have work" yada yada back outs after only a few sparse points makes me wonder, "why even come into the discussion to begin with?" Hell, a simple "fair enough" will do, too.

DoctorP

01-14-2008, 01:03 PM

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 01:06 PM

How about people who post...then come back days or weeks later to make the 2nd post because no one wanted to discuss their topic in the first place?

Haven't you seen discussions take off like that? I have.

Sometimes the people who may find a post interesting are just not online for a while when they are made, and if a follow-up post comes about later while they are online, then they get involved in the discussion.

This is just inherent in forums.

DocTurtle

01-14-2008, 01:06 PM

DocT, my point that you have bolded is on perspective. You said you thought the thread title to the link was the first point of condescension and hence it somehow made Pchan's condescension less so. I did not say that Pchan's post was any less condescending, that was an assumed by you. I can also see how that could have been perceived though. To clear things up, I don't think Pchan's comment was any less condescending than yours. To say one's condescension is any less than anothers is...wait for it...condescending.

I therefore said that sure, all statements knocking the status quo could be justified as condescension. This is what really makes the whole thread discussion ridiculous because virtually anything from the perspective of another could be declared condescending. Yes, it is ridiculous, but that does not make it any less the fact at what is or is not condescending.

But then again, if an idea is inferior, and one whole heartedly believes it to be inferior, I see no fault with taking an air of superiority towards that. You would have to if you are going to say it is wrong to hold the opposite view -- which is what opposite ends of the spectrum do. Which is still condescension.

I guess the real or more useful question to the discussion, if the OP starter wanted a useful discussion on the point, would be: How much condescension or sarcasm can a discussion handle? But even there it becomes quite grey, because for as annoying as condescension and sarcasm can be to some, others will find a certain degree of sophisticated whit and subtle humor in it. Do you feel that this is anything other than subtle humor? Debating the ridiculous a little to much? Kinda like the guy who tells the bad jokes all the time but everyone laughs anyways just to make him go away? I often find you debating the little points so I thought I would have a little fun and do the ribbing for a change. Meh, I suppose we should try to get back on topic though.

But perhaps many are not sophisticated enough to appreciate those. No need to go tossing mud about in the house.

DocTurtle

01-14-2008, 01:08 PM

Haven't you seen discussions take off like that? I have.

Sometimes the people who may find a post interesting are just not online for a while when they are made, and if a follow-up post comes about later while they are online, then they get involved in the discussion.

This is just inherent in forums.
There have been several threads revived like that. Sometimes the threads just slip through the cracks...it happens. Sometimes you forget that you've posted and then you go back when you remember it and see that no one has posted on it so you give it one last try when the forum is a little slower. Nothing wrong with that :thumbup:

TheNoNamedOne

01-14-2008, 01:10 PM

I often find you debating the little points so I thought I would have a little fun and do the ribbing for a change.

lol. Fair enough, DocT.

Good exchanges.

DoctorP

01-14-2008, 01:12 PM

There have been several threads revived like that. Sometimes the threads just slip through the cracks...it happens. Sometimes you forget that you've posted and then you go back when you remember it and see that no one has posted on it so you give it one last try when the forum is a little slower. Nothing wrong with that :thumbup:

one last try is understandable...but 3 or 4 tries is overboard!

DocTurtle

01-14-2008, 01:24 PM

Ahh, yea...haven't seen that. That I'll agree with you on.

Ren Cortan

01-14-2008, 02:44 PM

I think condesinding people have been doing it soo long it's like second nature. I try to turn the other check, but I only have two. Then I find the inner American comming out and expressing my "right" to be an a$$. Now you have two adults showing their darker side.

DoctorP

01-14-2008, 02:46 PM

01-14-2008, 03:00 PM

"I'm busy" or "I'm tired" or "I have work" yada yada back outs after only a few sparse points makes me wonder, "why even come into the discussion to begin with?" Hell, a simple "fair enough" will do, too.
They don't call it "my two cents" without reason.

If my two cents aren't worthy of your time... cool. I'll keep that in mind.

ja_Patriot

01-14-2008, 03:17 PM

Do condescending people realize they are condescending? Do they just not care?

I assume you mean as it applies to this forum.

I think they do, they know who they are, and being so transparently self-conceited, I don't think they care.

But do we care? Does anyone care?

It's like the discussion on the "virtue" of being penurious on thanking people with the "thanks" button. To cut to the chase, a condescending fool wouldn't use it. Simply "beneath" him.

Like the case of a great debater, or so he thinks, who turns out to be a petty rabble-rouser, pretentious with the judiciousness of a highfalutin pseudo-jurist or the grotesque impersonation of a Greek philosopher, but without standing in real life or an actual stake in the issues.

Like the keyboard commando, who incites with verbal bullets but devoid of the courage to face up with the people he "debates", insults even. Condescending? Perhaps. Pitiful to be sure and a coward.

Or those who gives tips to others but whose own writing really can't cut the mustard, yappari.

Or the opinionated bastard who doesn't think much of the opposing opinion of others.

Admittedly, I fit into the last group. An opinionated s.o.b. in my own beliefs, especially in religion, decency and common sense.

Feel free to add other categories and classify yourselves in those described above.

DougP

01-14-2008, 11:26 PM

Muku

01-15-2008, 04:57 AM

oh my goodness what the heck happened in this part of the forum??:ohmy::scared: There's no way I'm going to read through all this tonight:(

Do blank know that they are blank? threads are everywhere.:argh3:
Talk to dk in your mod's forum....one of you three who didnt participate in it should take a read through it though. Thank you.

Oppss Edited to Add.....
My mistake I see that someone did, thank you!

okisteve

01-15-2008, 07:06 AM

How about people who post...then come back days or weeks later to make the 2nd post because no one wanted to discuss their topic in the first place?

Why do you have a problem with that?

okisteve

01-15-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorP http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/images/hexcell/buttons//viewpost.gif (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?p=55365#post55365)
How about people who post...then come back days or weeks later to make the 2nd post because no one wanted to discuss their topic in the first place?

Why do you have a problem with that?
__________________
"I could take a dump on a plate of rice, then put curry sauce on it, and it would taste better then Cocos." - JU Restaurant Reviews
"If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?" No, obviously, it comes from Morans.

DoctorP

01-15-2008, 03:43 PM

exactly!:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:

okisteve

01-15-2008, 03:55 PM

Screw "exactly", that's why I did it. So what's the problem, if you can express it?

DoctorP

01-15-2008, 03:58 PM

exactly...6hrs wasn't fast enough for you...see my other thread: http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3304

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-15-2008, 04:02 PM

What does bumping a thread have to do with being an instant society? There are many reasons why some may have not seen or replied to the thread. Judicious use of a "bump" can get discussions going, and bring a timely thread that has slipped down the the ladder to a wider audience.

DoctorP

01-15-2008, 04:02 PM

but bumping a thread just to push someone to answer is not the same thing. And it may not be an instant society, but it does show impatience.

okisteve

01-15-2008, 04:03 PM

He's talking smack and can't explain it himself. Waste of my time.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-15-2008, 04:08 PM

but bumping a thread just to push someone to answer is not the same thing. And it may not be an instant society, but it does show impatience.
Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of a bump. How can one be pushed to answer against their will on an Internet forum? IIUC, the sole purpose is to expose more readers to a topic, in order to stimulate discussion.

DoctorP

01-15-2008, 04:20 PM

Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of a bump. How can one be pushed to answer against their will on an Internet forum? IIUC, the sole purpose is to expose more readers to a topic, in order to stimulate discussion.

Perhaps you can't comprehend. If the post that is bumped is intended for a specific person then that IMO is a waste of time.

DoctorP

01-15-2008, 04:22 PM

He's talking smack and can't explain it himself. Waste of my time.

After all the talk around here by some people of backslapping and use of the "thanks" button...it is clear there are other cliques here.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-15-2008, 04:38 PM

Perhaps you can't comprehend. If the post that is bumped is intended for a specific person then that IMO is a waste of time.
Well, perhaps I don't. The topic seemed to be thread bumps in general, but you appear to have an axe to grind regarding very specific posters and practices. I hope it works out for you.

As for cliques, I do get the feeling that a small core of members who appreciate discussion, evidence, and an appeal to reason has emerged. Certainly makes things more interesting around here.

retributionnk

01-15-2008, 04:38 PM

what cliques?

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 05:22 PM

As for cliques, I do get the feeling that a small core of members who appreciate discussion, evidence, and an appeal to reason has emerged. Certainly makes things more interesting around here.

And refreshing it is!

Maybe as it concerns reason, there is a polarization -- the haves, and the have nots.

Bones

01-15-2008, 05:38 PM

As posted by TP:

I try not to engage NBTP too much because whenever he attempts to weigh in on more serious issues his writing comes across nearly incoherent and I spend more time trying to have to understand it than what it is worth. Is that condescending to say such? According to DocTurtle in a previous post above, stating a fact is not condescending.

I don't think vvloc was being condescending to NBTP because he disagreed with him, but more on the point that NBTP seems to be supporting torture. Is it superior to hold that torture is wrong? IF one thinks so then that attitude surely will come out. Is it superior to hold that slavery is wrong? IF so , then that attitude will come out. Is it superior to hold that Nazism is wrong? iF so then that attitude will come out.

You're absolutely right TP, with your opening statement in the first paragraph listed above. And it will take me some time to correct that, but I'm working on it.

As far as vvloc is concerned , he's entitled to his opinions, as are you, or any other poster out there.

As far as torture is concerned, I'm against it, up to a point. In a combat environment, if you have captured a key player of the opposing side that you believe has the information that you need to win your battle, then some leeway should be given in regards to how you obtain the information that you require.

But just to torture somebody, just because you can, is wrong.

I would also say, that you spend way too much time, looking for hidden meanings. Read what the person has written, and take it at face value. It's a forum. Not a "Doctorate's Thesis" for crying out loud.

A "Regime change", could mean anything from a whole new government being installed, or just the replacement of a leader. In the case of Iran, they just have a new "Talking Head", the clerics are still the one's in charge.

Maybe one of the things that's bothering you is that you are a civilian, and have never been exposed to my line of thinking in regards to certain issues. I can appreciate that.

In closing, if you, or I post something, someone will disagree with at least a part of what we have posted. It's "Human Nature", not an attack on us.

NBTP

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 05:54 PM

I'll get to the rest later, but as for this:

Maybe one of the things that's bothering you is that you are a civilian, and have never been exposed to my line of thinking in regards to certain issues. I can appreciate that.

Doesn't bother me at all that I am a civilian, and perhaps I have been exposed to your way of thinking on certain issues (if you are referring to some kind of default military way of thinking, hence your prefixing the clause with reference to "civilian") more than you know or could imagine, and that I have been cured from such simple minded thought. Embracing reason, logic, respect for uncompromising morals and principles, and an aversion towards prejudice, an honest acceptance of the evidence, rationalism etc... to name but a few important things, are all cures for the military mentality that is locked in some kind of perverted Rambo patriot mind that supports "the ends justifies the means."

IN fact, NBTP, I HAVE been exposed to your way of thinking more than enough (in real life and on this forum and other forums) to know how easy it is to expose in serious discussion all the shortcomings wrapped up in it.

Bones

01-15-2008, 06:00 PM

As posted by TP:

IN fact, NBTP, I HAVE been exposed to your way of thinking more than enough (in real life and on this forum and other forums) to know how easy it is to expose in serious discussion all the shortcomings wrapped up in it.

Fine. Me too, is it going to change things?

I doubt it. Well, maybe one day.

NBTP

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 06:07 PM

As posted by TP:

Fine. Me too, is it going to change things?

I doubt it. Well, maybe one day.

NBTP

Surely not with cancerous apathy such as that!

Be decisive, take a side, and aim for the heart! Flesh wounds in battle are comical if that is what their goal is, as surely are equivocators are who try to fall on both sides of an issue e.g: NBTP: As far as torture is concerned, I'm against it, up to a point.

Bones

01-15-2008, 06:50 PM

As posted by "The Prosecutor":

Surely not with cancerous apathy such as that!

Be decisive, take a side, and aim for the heart! Flesh wounds in battle are comical if that is what their goal is, as surely are equivocators are who try to fall on both sides of an issue e.g:

Yeah, I have a response:

Uh, what ?

Send me a PM, and explain to me what you are talking about. I'm having real difficulty understanding your concept of reality. It's no that I disagree with you, but in todays world, I firmly believe that some issues are worth revisiting.

NBTP

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 06:58 PM

You are funny, NBTP! First you say you do not understand what I am talking about, and then you say it is not that you disagree with me, but...

lol. So, if it is the case that you do not completely disagree with me, then you must understand what I have said to make such a statement. Oh man....lol.

Surely you understand what I have said. You are just being coy.

Bones

01-15-2008, 08:01 PM

As posted by TP:

You are funny, NBTP! First you say you do not understand what I am talking about, and then you say it is not that you disagree with me, but...

lol. So, if it is the case that you do not completely disagree with me, then you must understand what I have said to make such a statement. Oh man....lol.

Surely you understand what I have said. You are just being coy.

Yeah, funny. :cool:

You're talking to "The Habu". So "coy" is out of the picture. Granted, I've turned the volume down, as compared to my old posts. And when I've heard people talking about me, I've mostly confronted them directly, or I've let things slide.

At one point in time, I was firmly against one subject or another. That was my point of view back then. Some people liked what I posted, some people wanted to kick my a$$. Funny, once I confronted the actual person, the level of violence was not as they had predicted. Funny how the "bravado" changes, when you actually meet the offender who has ticked you off.

I can't remember how many times someone wanted to meet me, or challenge me to a fight. Most of those times turned out to be a waste of time. I showed up, or they didn't, or when I approached them they had time to cool down.

So, I really don't see what your problem is.

Oh, and I do agree with you, up to a point. I've mentioned that before.

NBTP

retributionnk

01-15-2008, 08:14 PM

Be decisive, take a side, and aim for the heart! Flesh wounds in battle are comical if that is what their goal is, as surely are equivocators are who try to fall on both sides of an issue e.g:

Do you find indecisiveness to be a character flaw?? I don't feel like someone generally agreeing or disagreeing with an issue with some reservations, and then quantifying that with a situation in which they would do the opposite is 'comical' (to put in the terms of your analogy) at all. The truth is, people who keep a truly open mind may fall on both sides of an issue quite often. People's opinions change often with the gaining of life experience or knowledge on a particular issue. It seems as if you are saying the world is merely black and white, when in fact, everything has shades of gray.

Bones

01-15-2008, 08:23 PM

Can't help it retribution, I like your avatar.:D

NBTP

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 08:31 PM

It seems as if you are saying the world is merely black and white, when in fact, everything has shades of gray.

Sure there are shades of grays on some issues, particularly moral dilemmas, but basic moral questions are either black and white. What I find comical are those who constantly equivocate and say crap like, "it's all relative to the situation, time, or culture."

Errr...I'm against slavery. It is wrong...up to a point.

Errr...I'm against torture. It is wrong...up to a point.

Errr...I'm against genocide. It is wrong...up to a point.

Errr...I'm against rape. It is wrong...up to a point.

Like wtf? Let's not go out on a limb and state any true convictions on basic morals, huh?

And then society is pissed because politicians can't answer simple questions or the President says it all depends on what is meant by "is" when it comes to questions of inappropriate sexual relations with an intern? Well, if a population base equivocates so much, then such politicians are the deserved soup for them to choke on over and over.

retributionnk

01-15-2008, 08:40 PM

Thank you for your clarification, and I will agree wholeheartedly (not just to a point) with the point that you're making about the wishy-washy morality of our society.

As for the issue of torture, I would say that I'm for it. Now, is there a set of circumstances where I would reverse my opinion say that it is not warranted, cruel, or even downright morally evil? Definitely. I don't feel like that makes me a equivocator.

I may have taken this out of context, as I don't know your history of debate with NBTP very well, and please tell me if I have.

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 08:57 PM

Thank you for your clarification, and I will agree wholeheartedly (not just to a point) with the point that you're making about the wishy-washy morality of our society.

Thank you.

As for the issue of torture, I would say that I'm for it. Now, is there a set of circumstances where I would reverse my opinion say that it is not warranted, cruel, or even downright morally evil? Definitely. I don't feel like that makes me a equivocator.

Yes, it does make you an equivocator (not said pejoratively). I don't think you have really thought about the morality of torturing and its use in real life. I really don't want to turn this thread into a torture debate when we already have 2 threads on it. The most in depth one can be found HERE (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3150). I would say it is not necessary to start reading it from page 1, but perhaps starting from pg 5, 6, or 7, may be a good point to prime yourself for the discussion if you want to come out in support of torture...for whatever degree you think is appropriate or how you see it has been useful in history with a net benefit.

I may have taken this out of context, as I don't know your history of debate with NBTP very well, and please tell me if I have.

I don't hold anything against NBTP. He's pretty harmless here as it concerns debate. He seems to have glorified memories of his long ago aggressive alter ego "Habu." Cute when he refers to him at times.

Anyways, go to his profile and read some of his posts where he tries to weigh in on serious things (by the way, he pops in the link I gave you above with some good examples of his debate skills), and you may come to the same conclusion. Maybe not. If you are shy about honesty and less aggressive, you may choose the more diplomatic approach of not mentioning anything about it.

Bones

01-15-2008, 09:04 PM

As posted by TP:

And then society is pissed because politicians can't answer simple questions or the President says it all depends on what is meant by "is" when it comes to questions of inappropriate sexual relations with an intern? Well, if a population base equivocates so much, then such politicians are the deserved soup for them to choke on over and over.

That's actually a good response TP.:thumbup1:

Far be it for me to say that you are trying to shift the focus of the conversation, or who may be wrong, when people disagree with your line of reasoning.

NBTP

P.S.

Firm convictions, are a good thing. Until you try to push your beliefs onto others, who may not agree with you. A discussion as you've pointed out, is a good way to change peoples opinions. But it's not a discussion if you can not reach a common ground between their beliefs, or yours, and your's is the only opinion that counts.

Bones

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 09:09 PM

Hold on, NBTP. I wanna wait for ya to get a few back slaps before I reply just to see how many and who fall for that weak everything after the smiley.

P_chan

01-15-2008, 09:16 PM

.....buttsecks

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 09:22 PM

No Pchan! Wrong wrong wrong. Your supposed to use the "thank" button feature!

P_chan

01-15-2008, 09:33 PM

Don't worry TP I wasn't offering, no reason to get excited.

Bones

01-15-2008, 09:40 PM

As posted by TP"

[quote]Hold on, NBTP. I wanna wait for ya to get a few back slaps before I reply just to see how many and who fall for that weak everything after the smiley.[/here]

Here we go again. Sheesh!!!:cursing:

You accuse me of being coy, and then accuse me of identifying myself with my old handle.

Isn't the whole idea behind our posting to move forwards?

Why is it when I try to do that, that you bring back former discussions?

Have I ever claimed to be the "Captain" of the debating team?

Just what is your problem?

NBTP

Muku

01-15-2008, 09:43 PM

Just what is your problem?

NBTP

NBTP.....Do you really have to ask? :D

Bones

01-15-2008, 09:53 PM

As posted by Muku:

NBTP.....Do you really have to ask?:D

Actually, I do.

This dude seems to have far more serious issues than I ever realized.:eek:

NBTP:cool:

Bones

01-15-2008, 09:54 PM

Anyway, it's getting late. Im outta here for tonight.

NBTP

DougP

01-15-2008, 10:34 PM

Hmm well things picked up a bit in here today.. Went through and read it and if at all possible I would like my five minutes back. Seriously a simple bump and a adolescent like cry for attention are two completely different things. One refreshes a thread that may be sinking down the list in a sea of newer emerging threads. This is also done in hopes that the information is not lost and may be read by others, possibly because it is useful to quite a few. Unlike the cry for attention which basically adds nothing to the thread and is merely a call out to another person or group of people. Quite often a bump can be a selfless act where as a constant "Hey, answer my question" can be down right selfish and annoying.

ja_Patriot

01-15-2008, 10:37 PM

And refreshing it is!

Maybe as it concerns reason, there is a polarization -- the haves, and the have nots.

TP, have or have not what? Could you clarify?

You may an advantage being a moderator, but in as far as being condescending to those who happen to disagree with your point of view, at the end of the day no one really cares and no one's going to change viewpoints any time soon.

But with respect to other attributes, standing, resources you may think you have, you could be living in a glass house. Throw those stones with caution.