Master, he couldn't stand to lose you. Look how quickly he dropped me and 5ive. He's got eyes only for you. At this point he's pretty much on all fours shouting "spank me harder". He's not going to risk you leaving forever.

Jimmies are rustled, salty pearls are running down foreheads, the hate is flowing. Trump is like the emperor Palpatine of todays world.

It's not semantics. Hatred is a real thing and how we talk about things makes a real difference

We agree except that it's people who do unacceptable things who face sanctions. Those who are more hateful tend to want more revenge than liberals do.

Where does this 'wil supports child abuse' stuff come from? I find that hard to believe.

These losers are trying to make me out to be some child abuse advocate. It's pathetic. It should all be in the spank debate thread. Its a cluster**** honestly.

For the record, I honestly don't hate master. I REALLY enjoy ****ing with him, but only because he did it to me for so long.

Love ya master.

I can understand that. I enjoy it as much as the next person.

Generally I give people the respect of assuming that if they like to dish it out then they're happy to take it. It's the good bit about PU.

Wil gave a list of examples where he and his friends had agreed that physical discipline was "the best course of action". One example was a child that had been playing with explosives and so the parent punched him in the face. Another was a parent who'd left their gun out in the open, the child found it, and so the parent beat the living **** out of the kid.

We then argued about whether this was, in fact, abusive. Wil tried to backtrack a little, but not much. It's all on record in the spank debate thread.

No, it's semantics. I'm calling someone despicable because they say and do despicable things in the real world. You're semanticing that their actions are in some way separate from their identity.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=230

What a terrible misrepresentation I have made of Wil's posts.

No. I'm saying that attacking the arguer rather than the argument is bad and that hating people is bad.

If you're not doing either of those things then its my mistake* rather than semantics. If you are doing either of those things then it's definitely not semantics - they are very real things.

Or maybe you mean somethign different by semantics than I do. (For the benefit of those who suffer from a touch of the kerowoes - that's a joke)

*edit: I'm not saying you hate people so that bit wouldn't be a mistake.

Yeah Bladesman87 gives a decent summary it starts here

wil being a dickhead

It actually starts earlier with wil saying that people are wrong to always say hitting a child is wrong then contrives some pretty tortuous examples to prove once again he's a dickhead.

Because you're still semanticing that this is "just an argument" and not a conversation about real events. A child actually got punched in the face. An adult actually nodded his head and said "Nice one, mate". I am supposing that the arguer is actually accountable for the argument's manifestation in the real world and not some metaphysically distinct entity.

nah that is just semantics. Address the points raised rather than attack the person who said it. If you were there you could have called the police or social services (or tried to stop it) as well as arguing with much passion that punching the kid was a bad thing to do.

See, there you go. You just slipped in that they're two separate entities.

ok that example is messed up. They were punishing their children for their own negligence.

Nothing is being slipped in. It's quite explicit that they are related but different things.

You may think that calling Wil names helps but it doesn't (except sometimes as an initial provocation), it just makes you feel better while making it harder to engage usefully on what matters which is the subject of hitting children.

That's not the end of it either but yeah wil missed that key component and when it was pointed out went on to cite a bunch of other examples. It's an interesting illustration of his style and why he's almost universally reviled/laughed at/pitied.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but I stand by my position wholeheartedly.

Of course you do. Cowards tend to

No actually the reverse do. I don't lie or change my position because others disagree with me or chastise me. You believe in what you want and behave how you want. Have a blast. It has nothing to do with me.

The issue is people like you get so butthurt about people who disagree with you. You go raise your family and do the things you want, I'll do mine. I'm sure I'll be happy.

You may think that chastising people for name-calling helps, but it doesn't; it just makes you feel better while inciting more name-calling.

Quite possibly. Not convinced it incites more name calling except towards me which doesn't matter

Related still doesn't cover it. You're still missing that these are real world things and not university seminar hypotheticals. So the person isn't this distinction from the actions. The person is actually advocating for actions they have made, such as: vocally approving of abuse to an abuser. This is, in my view, a despicable action. I do not hold your view that a person who does despicable things has a separate identity of someone that is not a despicable person.

As I warned you, we can do this philosophical bull****ting forever. Next I'm going to make the argument that since a person's identity is comprised of their material make up, thoughts, and memories at a given time, and that make up changes from moment to moment, there is no reason to consider me and the me from last week the same person. Hence I ought to have no responsibility for anything the me last week (who isn't me) supposedly did. And then nobody ever faces consequences for anything.

It'll be great. Eventually though, we'll come back to the real world where people that do scummy things are considered scummy people and scummy people face consequences. And all of the fascinating problems of identity will succumb to cold pragmatism.

and in my view it's a harmful action.

You are wrong and you're beign mislead by despicable'. it's a harmful action but the person who did it might just be mistaken, or ignorant or ...

You can but there's nothign particularly philosophical about the above.

It's been done many times in SMP and there's no big problem. Justice survives the PI problem. Revenge fairs badly but that's fine as well.

and we willl come back to the straightforeward points we started with before the hi falootin journey. All good.

No. It's great that you want to set the bar as low as possible for people, but I ain't playing.