Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
De-Green BruceZ De-Green BruceZ

08-31-2014 , 02:29 AM
Quote:
For such an "intellectual" you're pretty stupid at explaining what you wrote. Let's go to the tape:
If you want to know the reason it is so hard to explain without insulting people, this is a prime example of it. I have tried to be civil. I don't appreciate being called stupid. From now on, I will not respond to any post that is insulting to me.

I responded to the post given by the OP when he accused me of abusing my mod powers. What you quoted was intended to be tounge-in-cheek. tomdemaine put a post on his own forum, and then stated you could be banned for that post. I was pointing out the irony of that statement, and suggesting that he should be banned for his own post. It's obvious to anyone who knows how the mod system works that I can't ban another mod, or if I can technically, it's not allowed and would simply be reversed.
08-31-2014 , 02:29 AM
Pretty sure it's a blackmail situation. He must have nudes of Mason.

Then again, who doesn't have nudes of Mason?

Last edited by Anais; 08-31-2014 at 02:30 AM. Reason: Set as their desktop wallpaper
08-31-2014 , 02:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
If you want to know the reason it is so hard to explain without insulting people, this is a prime example of it. I have tried to be civil. I don't appreciate being called stupid. From now on, I will not respond to any post that is insulting to me.

I responded to the post given by the OP when he accused me of abusing my mod powers. What you quoted was intended to be tounge-in-cheek. tomdemaine put a post on his own forum, and then stated you could be banned for that post. I was pointing out the irony of that statement, and suggesting that he should be banned for his own post. It's obvious to anyone who knows how the mod system works that I can't ban another mod, or if I can technically, it's not allowed and would simply be reversed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ View Post
You made a couple nonsensical posts, and when I called you out on their stupidity, you ran off like a little bitch with your tail between your legs to bad mouth me behind my back with losers closer to your intellectual abilities. But I saw your laughable posts, and to answer your dumbass question, having an open discussion is perfectly consistent with banning people who call people racists or engage in other personal attacks. In fact, personal attacks detract from open discussion. The key is to always attack ideas and not the person making them. If you have any more questions about this, pm me. I've been doing this since you were wearing pimple cream and spanking it in your bathroom. I will tell you what to do.

The notion that this thread is no better than what passes for discussion in Politics is asinine. In this forum, we do not reject arguments out of hand because we know they are wrong. We debate them to determine why they have any force at all, so that when we reject them, we gain a more complete understanding of the issue. We don't hide from positions just because they might make some people uncomfortable.

This forum is for thinkers. People like David Sklansky. Not for eggheads that couldn't think their way out of a blackjack deck with no tens, and do little but throw out the occasional cryptic comment just to make themselves feel better about themselves. If you can't understand this, then go back to your estrogen laden liberal butt buddies that think with their vaginas and suck at the teet of political correctness you pathetic douche bag.
Just being civil though.
08-31-2014 , 02:43 AM
Clearly one of the many who refuse to accept his no apology
08-31-2014 , 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
I don't think it's lost on the reds how dishonest you have been about everything.

It's almost surreal, right?


A week in the two threads in the politics forum and I am blown away.


p.s. And this is coming from somebody that pretty much agrees with his overall stance about everything. It has to be some kind of schtick to be intellectually dishonest in nearly 100% of posts.

p.p.s. oops grunch, brucez just posted

Last edited by 5ive; 08-31-2014 at 02:56 AM.
08-31-2014 , 03:08 AM
Being offended is part of life. I was offended all week. Certainly far more than anyone was offended. If someone were truly offended by something I said, they should ask themselves why. Even if the statements I made were my own, so what? They weren't hate speech. I wasn't advocating for any harm to another race. I expressed ideas. Ideas should never be suppressed by an angry mob in a free society. Suppression of ideas is the hallmark of fascism. Why do you want to suppress ideas? Are you the thought police? Do you assume that an idea must eventually result in some action? If you do, then you are making assumptions about people without the relevant facts. That's prejudice. And it makes you no better than a racist.
08-31-2014 , 03:15 AM
BruceZ,

Can you explain the thought process behind this:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=44

Quote:
But if the Bayesian cost function says there's little to be lost by convicting you in error, then we don't need a high probability.

If we're going to apply probability theory, we should assume that some lives are more valuable than others. Of course the liberals will whine about how that violates their "equal protection under the law" bullcrap.

How does the second paragraph fit in with the context of the thread? Why is it necessary to include the last sentence? Do you mean to say this is an inside "joke" amongst SMP? Are you saying that liberal's lives are clearly not as valuable?

I'll also add that I don't want to be accused of hiding any bias, so I'll say this: When people use liberals as a derogatory word by itself or with the term "bleeding-heart liberals" they really mean and want to say "n****rs and n****r lovers." This is what I believe so I will admit the questions are naturally weighted.
08-31-2014 , 03:37 AM
David wanted people to assign a probability to reasonable doubt. I began the thread by saying that I don't think it should be probability based at all. But here I'm saying if it was probability based, you would weight the probability by some cost function which would tell you the cost associated with wrongful conviction. You could make every life worth the same, but you wouldn't have to. Each life could be worth a different amount. Nothing necessarily to do with race. The equal protection clause may not even apply to that, I'm not sure. But casually dismissing this clause that we all hold dear bullcrap that liberals whine about was intended as an absolute joke, and the whole thing had nothing to do with race at all. Basically I was chattering with chezlaw and trying to get a rise out of him. Didn't work.

Last edited by BruceZ; 08-31-2014 at 03:43 AM.
08-31-2014 , 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Do you assume that an idea must eventually result in some action? If you do, then you are making assumptions about people without the relevant facts. That's prejudice. And it makes you no better than a racist.
Are you roleplaying an idiot again?
08-31-2014 , 03:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
Hatchet job? I waited for Bruce to explain himself, instead of doing so he doubled down on the hate. There's no rush to judgement here.
Yes hatchet job seems to fit better than most permissible phrases.

You haven't been remotely fair and its certainly qualifies as a fierce written attack.
08-31-2014 , 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Are you roleplaying an idiot again?
I wouldn't want to steal your part.
08-31-2014 , 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Being offended is part of life. I was offended all week. Certainly far more than anyone was offended. If someone were truly offended by something I said, they should ask themselves why. Even if the statements I made were my own, so what? They weren't hate speech. I wasn't advocating for any harm to another race. I expressed ideas. Ideas should never be suppressed by an angry mob in a free society. Suppression of ideas is the hallmark of fascism. Why do you want to suppress ideas? Are you the thought police? Do you assume that an idea must eventually result in some action? If you do, then you are making assumptions about people without the relevant facts. That's prejudice. And it makes you no better than a racist.
At least you're starting to drop the lazy excuses and be honest with everyone: those really are your views and the issue here, to you, is that people disagree with you.

"Hey guys I think racist stuff, and say it all the time, but it's not like I actually own slaves so what's the problem" probably didn't sound as good though.
08-31-2014 , 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
BruceZ,

Can you explain the thought process behind this:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=44

"But if the Bayesian cost function says there's little to be lost by convicting you in error, then we don't need a high probability.

If we're going to apply probability theory, we should assume that some lives are more valuable than others. Of course the liberals will whine about how that violates their "equal protection under the law" bullcrap."


How does the second paragraph fit in with the context of the thread? Why is it necessary to include the last sentence? Do you mean to say this is an inside "joke" amongst SMP? Are you saying that liberal's lives are clearly not as valuable?
That was directed at me! I take it back Mat. Ban him forever.

Do I really need to add for the audience that of course it wasn't serious, it was in context and I don't really think he should be banned!
08-31-2014 , 04:31 AM
For all you hypersensitive types that offend so easily, how do you feel about this?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...babies-924406/

Just to give you the flavor of what we are willing to discuss on SMP.
08-31-2014 , 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
I wouldn't want to steal your part.
So you're actually arguing that failing to give the guy spouting racist **** the benefit of the doubt on how he acts on those ideas is just as bad as being an actual racist?

LOL
08-31-2014 , 05:38 AM
What's the difference between not giving me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not going to act on my idea, and my not giving some black guy the benefit of the doubt that he's not going to rob me?
08-31-2014 , 06:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
What's the difference between not giving me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not going to act on my idea, and my not giving some black guy the benefit of the doubt that he's not going to rob me?
Careful Bruce! They're not going to engage and try to understand any point you make, they're just going to pick phrases that sound bad, take them out of context and demand you defend yourself from accusations while determinedly sticking to their position of avoiding engagement and trying to understand any point you are making.

That other thread was delicious. Roasted babies!
08-31-2014 , 06:19 AM
08-31-2014 , 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Being offended is part of life. I was offended all week. Certainly far more than anyone was offended. If someone were truly offended by something I said, they should ask themselves why. Even if the statements I made were my own, so what? They weren't hate speech. I wasn't advocating for any harm to another race. I expressed ideas. Ideas should never be suppressed by an angry mob in a free society. Suppression of ideas is the hallmark of fascism. Why do you want to suppress ideas? Are you the thought police? Do you assume that an idea must eventually result in some action? If you do, then you are making assumptions about people without the relevant facts. That's prejudice. And it makes you no better than a racist.
this is pretty much the point I was making earlier. Kind of the Voltaire argument, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
08-31-2014 , 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
]Even if the statements I made were my own, so what? They weren't hate speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
This forum is for thinkers. People like David Sklansky. Not for eggheads that couldn't think their way out of a blackjack deck with no tens, and do little but throw out the occasional cryptic comment just to make themselves feel better about themselves. If you can't understand this, then go back to your estrogen laden liberal butt buddies that think with their vaginas and suck at the teet of political correctness you pathetic douchebag.
No hate speech to see here, boys. Women and gays clearly aren't real people capable of being hateful towards.
08-31-2014 , 06:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
That was directed at me! I take it back Mat. Ban him forever.

Do I really need to add for the audience that of course it wasn't serious, it was in context and I don't really think he should be banned!
It sounds reasonable when Bruce types it, but now I recall you being active in the politics Ferguson and I don't recall seeing you say something as simple as 'yo relax, most of those were jokes.'
08-31-2014 , 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Now Playing:
Trouble is you play adult games.

I can think of some crackers but pas devant les enfants
08-31-2014 , 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostOstrich
this is pretty much the point I was making earlier. Kind of the Voltaire argument, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
Yup - basically what a lot of liberals detest.
08-31-2014 , 07:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
It sounds reasonable when Bruce types it, but now I recall you being active in the politics Ferguson and I don't recall seeing you say something as simple as 'yo relax, most of those were jokes.'
I did respond to that quote explaining it was directed at me and not taken seriously.

I also responded to pvn about the race-baiters quote which was also in conversation to me. pvn demanded to know my understanding in context: 'chezlaw your a liberal ****, take that!' and the *** wasn't that rude. i explained. This again wasn't serious.

Does pvn respond in any fair manner in that thread, or here?

Its not all jokes, there some serious content in there as well. But certainly some jokey stuff, some attempt at parody has been spotted as well.
08-31-2014 , 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostOstrich
this is pretty much the point I was making earlier. Kind of the Voltaire argument, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
Except Bruce seems to have a history of threatening bans when people write things he doesn't like.

Free speech also means we're allowed to call dummies dumb, *******s *******s, and racists racist.

      
m