Discussion in 'Four Corners' started by Pantherjim., Jun 29, 2018.
So that's two votes for option three then?
There are more than just those too. It’s strange that the two posters complaining about this are two of the worst at doing it.
Count me in.
Oh, seeing as that is what 'circular questions' means, then what are you trying to say?
Why are you engaging in a circular argument?
so why weren't you worried about the discourse back then ?
If by back then you mean this very thread, it's a good question!
Most interdasting. Lets go through the sum total of contributions that a poster has made on this thread, outside of a whinge about moderation, unvolunteered largely, and consider its impact on discourse.
For the sake of privacy, we shall refer to him as J Imbo;
This poster starts with a solid 'but Labor' tarbrushing.
Comes back on another tangent a week later with this;
Hmm, what is this contributing to discourse?
Justifies retarded comment with this;
Name calling, a preposterous leap in logic, this post has it all! What a horrific addition to the general discourse this comment is!
Change is what you make it. If this J Imbo was interested in quality discourse, one would assume that their contributions besides complaining about moderation would equal more than this. But hey, here we are!
J Imbo sounds like he’s a bit of a wanker.
Leaving aside the fact that this thread would be six or seven pages shorter were it not for your irrelevant bullshit, the thread itself was doomed to be another left/right slugfest as soon as PJ decided to smear an entire political philosophy in the title
It can be and is all of the above.
I reckon it's fair enough to say you will only get out what you put in.
True. Which makes it pretty reflective of the general political discourse, unfortunately
I'd like to believe that, but I'm not so sure I can
Seems we need a safety exclusion zone, a safe space if you will, for our local sooks from “the right” where they can bang on about what ever shit they like without fear of ridicule for their stupidity.
It will also allow them to be as hypocritical as they please without question.
It seems to be what they are calling for.
Ah, the old 'someone else started it therefore my shit is ok' defence. For someone so concerned about the quality of discourse it sure is impressive how quickly you abandon that standard.
As for my shit, I'm not the one who wouldn't back down tp admit a statement didn't contain hyperbole and then suggest a poster 'hold their breath' and then opine that brain damage would make little difference when I couldn't back my position up. Perhaps if you conceded that you spoke shit it would have been over much quicker. For someone worried about the quality of discussion you sure don't like it when posters want you to actually back up a point with actual substance
Your opening post;
Practice, preach et al
Your second paragraph contradicts your first
How so Jimbo?
You accuse me of using the 'someone else started it therefore my shit is ok' defence
Then you admitted posting pages of shit because you think I did
Perhaps your advice would be worth considering if you weren't such a brazen hypocrite yourself
I am not the one complaining about the quality of discourse Jimbo, you are. So yeah, I'm not being a hypocrite because I haven't made that argument
Option three for you too then
You have no actual substance to back up a point. Again.
Good to see you are staying true to form.
Can you point out my hypocrisy or are you just full of shit again Jimbo?
8 pages of J Imbo shit posting is an example of everyone else other than J Imbo shit posting.
Separate names with a comma.