Is it morally acceptable to edit your posts and imply another user is a pedophile just because you dislike them? - Politics Discussion

[–] Corbell (8373) a month ago

Buddy, clearly you are a troll and your goal is to provoke an emotional response.

SO, your pretense that this is a problem for you, instead of a "Score" is just you gaslighting the normal people off the site.

And to be clear, YES, it is morally acceptable for people to do that, to someone like you.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>Buddy, clearly you are a troll and your goal is to provoke an emotional response.

As my OP said: Forget about what you think of me, and my political positions. I want a genuine answer to this. Is this moral?

Are you implying that the user in question is such an emotionally maladjusted idiot that he can't help but throw baseless allegations at people when "provoked"?

>And to be clear, YES, it is morally acceptable for people to do that, to someone like you.

Why?

You think lying about people is acceptable? Why should I think you have any morals whatsoever?

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) a month ago

1. A genuine answer requires that we consider YOU, and what a troll you are. Your attempt to avoid that, is just you being disingenuinous.

2. I already explained why. Stop playing retarded.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

1. Why would you thinking me a troll have anything to do with it? Respond to my apparently shitty points, note my bad behaviour. What does lying about me achieve? Either it's wrong, or it's not.

2. In a really bad way that makes me conclude you have no ethical standards whatsoever. Any behaviour is fair game so long as it's the right target. Literal scientology tier tactics.

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) a month ago

1. You constantly play the "hatchling" lefty troll archtype. Everything you do is fake and designed to be an annoying asshole. That is why I think you are a troll.

2. No. Civility is something people earn by behaving in a civil manner. You are a troll. You should be shunned and driven from normal society. No one could behave like you in real life. Our failure to have ways to deal with you online, is a failure of our cultrue to keep up with tech advancements.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

1. Okay. So address that. Criticise that. How does lying, and doing so openly and willfully about me substantiate your position there?

2. So if you knew me in real life, would it be justifiable for you to assault me, to slander me, to steal from me?

How should I be "dealt with" online? How has the online system failed currently?

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) a month ago

1. The way I already described.

2. You would not dare behave like this to someone's face. And you know it.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

1. Not what I asked you. You want to discredit me. How does lying about me, and doing so brazenly, achieve that?

2. Not answering my question. So if you knew me in real life, would it be justifiable for you to assault me, to slander me, to steal from me?

How should I be "dealt with" online? How has the online system failed currently?

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

1. Not what I asked you. You want to discredit me. How does lying about me, and doing so brazenly, achieve that?

2. Not answering my question. So if you knew me in real life, would it be justifiable for you to assault me, to slander me, to steal from me?

How should I be "dealt with" online? How has the online system failed currently?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Skavau-bot is malfunctioning again 👆🏻

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

No, I repeated my response because Corbell is apparently desperate to not answer me.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

OK bot.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

By this logic, you're a bot because you copy and paste yourself all the time.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

There’s no equivalence between you and I, remember? You’re a lying, evil sack of shit, remember?

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

I know of no such thing.

>You’re a lying, evil sack of shit, remember?

Accusing people on no evidence of being a pedophile is evil, shitbrains.

You claiming I am a liar doesn't make me a liar, nor bind me into agreeing with you. Remember? You are essentially saying "rules for thee, but not for me". "I can copy and paste and that means nothing but when you do, that means you're a bot". It's blatant hypocrisy.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

I didn’t accuse you of being a pedophile, fucking liar, I asked you to confirm the rumours… which you did.

Again, there’s no equivalence between you and I, You’re a lying, evil sack of shit - not based on my word, based on your track record of behaviour, available for all to see. Understand?

Now, show everyone what I’m talking about, rewrite history again and throw in another mindless copy-paste of your last bullshit response…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>I didn’t accuse you of being a pedophile, I asked you to confirm the rumours… which you did.

I did not "confirm the rumours" (read: baseless allegations). You replying to me, and then editing your post afterwards saying "If this is true, then confirm this by replying to me" is not exactly fair play. It speaks about your continued dishonesty and blatant hypocrisy.

>Again, there’s no equivalence between you and I, You’re a lying, evil sack of shit - not based on my word, based on your track record of behaviour, available for all to see. Understand?

You claiming I am a liar doesn't make me a liar, nor bind me into agreeing with you. Remember? You are essentially saying "rules for thee, but not for me". "I can copy and paste and that means nothing but when you do, that means you're a bot". It's blatant hypocrisy.

>Now, show everyone what I’m talking about, rewrite history again and throw in another mindless copy-paste of your last bullshit response…

Another childish copy and paste that you complain about me doing. What history have I rewritten?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Perfectly said, Corbell.

Skavau is a mendacious gaslighter, and like all wokists he plays the victim once he’s been exposed (and goes running to the mods to censor those who call out his basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks)

He doesn’t seem to understand that by being a nasty, deceitful imp he has forfeited any right to respect or fair treatment.

He sowed, and now he is reaping.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>Perfectly said, Corbell.

How is that "perfectly said"? You speak of censorship, but Corbell is coming close to suggesting support for vigilantism and censorship against me. He suggests that I should be "shunned and driven from normal society" (however he proposes that should happen), and then says there's a "failure to have ways to deal with you online" (what "ways" is he suggesting should exist?). This to me, suggests possible support for censorship - something you claim to despise.

>He doesn’t seem to understand that by being a nasty, deceitful imp he has forfeited any right to respect or fair treatment.

So what treatment is acceptable when dealing with me then? Is anything beyond the pale?

>He sowed, and now he is reaping.

What have I done that is as repulsive as accusing someone, on the back of no evidence, of being a pedophile?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

So what treatment is acceptable when dealing with me then? Is anything beyond the pale?

After what you’ve done, and continue to do, the list of punishments that are ‘beyond the pale’ is ever shrinking.

Now ask more of your signature straw-questions…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

My "crimes" somehow being worse than baseless, libellous accusations?

Can you be more specific please? What treatment is acceptable when dealing with me?

>Now ask more of your signature straw-questions…

And you continue to edit your posts after you posted them.

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) a month ago

Thank you.

reply

[–] Kowalski (58863) a month ago

WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS SO TENSE?

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

So you would endorse someone or you yourself would be willing lie to other users that I am a pedophile?

That make you feel like you're on the right side of history there?

reply

[–] Rorikon (16425) a month ago

You know, you can call them names or accuse them with whatever else as well, right? Although it may be against the rules to just attack other posters via ad hominem but you do have the right to defense yourself via the castle up yours I can do it too doctrine.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Right, but what would making things up about them that are obviously not true, that I know is not true, achieve?

These are people who claim to be moral. I am making a point about their conduct.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Given Skavau’s track record, I wouldn't believe his version of events, Rorikon. There’s a reason he linked to an exchange in which you can’t see the other person’s posts (because Skavau had them deleted)

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

So you're back to devoting your life again to nothing more than following me around on the forums.

> There’s a reason he linked to an exchange in which you can’t see the other person’s posts (because Skavau had them deleted)

I could link to many other exchanges. And again, you have not answered: Do you thus, as I've asked, think the moderators here are authoritarian? Do you think a moderator that deletes comments that violates website rules are fascist? Are libel laws fascist? You keep avoiding these questions.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

You can stick your insincere Hatchling and Straw questions back up your ass, ya lying sack of shit.

Now let’s address those pedophile rumours about you, if they’re true, mindlessly repeat your last post…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

I will continue to repeat myself every time you refuse to answer. And check back for any edits by you. What am I lying about?

So you're back to devoting your life again to nothing more than following me around on the forums.

> There’s a reason he linked to an exchange in which you can’t see the other person’s posts (because Skavau had them deleted)

I could link to many other exchanges. And again, you have not answered: Do you thus, as I've asked, think the moderators here are authoritarian? Do you think a moderator that deletes comments that violates website rules are fascist? Are libel laws fascist? You keep avoiding these questions.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

…as I suspected. Seek professional help Skavau and Stay. Away. From. Kids.

Please 🙏🏻

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Professional help for what? I neither go near, nor specifically avoid kids. And you did not answer, so I will repeat myself:

I will continue to repeat myself every time you refuse to answer. And check back for any edits by you. What am I lying about?

So you're back to devoting your life again to nothing more than following me around on the forums.

> There’s a reason he linked to an exchange in which you can’t see the other person’s posts (because Skavau had them deleted)

I could link to many other exchanges. And again, you have not answered: Do you thus, as I've asked, think the moderators here are authoritarian? Do you think a moderator that deletes comments that violates website rules are fascist? Are libel laws fascist? You keep avoiding these questions.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>Now let’s address those pedophile rumours about you, if they’re true, mindlessly repeat your last post…

You continue to childishly edit your posts after I have replied.

Why is it acceptable for you to lie?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Whatever, just stay away from kids. Please.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Again: I neither go near, nor specifically avoid kids. I am of no threat to them.

Also, it's telling you're doing the exact same behaviour you're claiming is misleading for me to point out in the linked thread in the OP.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

I neither go near, nor specifically avoid kids. I am of no threat to them.

I wish I could believe that. Can you just please promise us that you’ll stay away from kids.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

And on what evidence do you disbelieve me?

>Can you just please promise us that you’ll stay away from kids.

Will you promise to stop beating your wife or girlfriend?

Also, it's telling you're doing the exact same behaviour you're claiming is misleading for me to point out in the linked thread in the OP.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Dude, please.

Just promise us that you’ll stay away from kids and there’ll be no need to involve Child Protection Services.

Please.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Nothing new said.

I will repeat:

And on what evidence do you disbelieve me?

>Can you just please promise us that you’ll stay away from kids.

Will you promise to stop beating your wife or girlfriend?

Also, it's telling you're doing the exact same behaviour you're claiming is misleading for me to point out in the linked thread in the OP.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

I’m sorry, kids.

I tried 😞

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Tried what, exactly? Accusing me of things that I don't do? Acting like I'm going to do something I don't do?

reply

[–] BKB (6190) a month ago

Put this fucker on ignore.. He's been exposed as nothing more than a fucking troll out to get a reaction.. Fuck him.. He's on ignore and it's the best thing ever next to the other 4 idiots on ignore..

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) a month ago

You are correct.

reply

[–] Blade13 (655) a month ago

Let me ask you a serious question. Do you think transgenders should be allowed to dance in front of children?

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Sexually, or sexually charged dances? No.

Just dancing in front of children like other adults, or anyone might? Sure.

reply

[–] Kowalski (58863) a month ago

💯

reply

[–] Blade13 (655) a month ago

Yeah I was talking about the drag queens currently dancing in front of children all over the world, and in some cases they are half naked. Are you ok with drag queens dancing in front of children?

reply

[–] Kowalski (58863) a month ago

KIND OF THE SAME QUESTION...SO THE ORIGINAL ANSWER APPLIES.

reply

[–] Blade13 (655) a month ago

Same question goes to you, Ski.

reply

[–] Kowalski (58863) a month ago

DRAG QUEENS ARE FINE...DANCING IS FINE...SEXUAL SHIT IS A NO NO.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (3822) a month ago

Drag Queens' whole identity revolves around sex, there is no drag queen dancing that is not a sexual display.

reply

[–] tvfan (8415) a month ago

Exactly. And they are aware, but are playing willfully ignorant while pretending to defend both sides.

reply

[–] Kowalski (58863) a month ago

TELL US ALL YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING....OH WAIT...YOU JUST DID....GOOD WORK,CHAMP.😂

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

I'm from the UK, and we have had drag-adjacent content (related to pantomine here) embedded into our culture, and it's not exclusively adult content.

Such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmTHPfvr1ow Literally introducing the queen.

If the drag queen is sexualised, then no, I would not be okay with it.

reply

[–] Blade13 (655) a month ago

Ok that sounds good. You know the majority of people on the left are ok with drag queens dancing for children. It's sickening. I can see now you do have some morals, many on your side don't.

To comment on the OP no it's not morally acceptable to accuse someone of being a pedo.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15273) a month ago

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Did I defend any of those posters?

reply

[–] JoWilli (15273) 25 days ago

no, but the mods do...

I just like pointing out the hypocrisy of MC.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 25 days ago

I mean, okay, but I'm not them. If you think those are bad, then I assume you think it's wrong for people to call me a pedophile because they don't like me.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15273) 25 days ago

I think its wrong to accuse anyone of being a pedophile.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 25 days ago

Thank you.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 14 days ago

Surely it depends on whether they have showed signs of being a paedophile?

In any case, Skavau is rewriting history. There were rumours about him being a paedophile and he was asked to confirm them. You’ll notice that he has linked to an exchange where the other postser’s posts have been deleted (by Skavau, who ran to the mods to have them censored).

He has also invented the motive of ‘because they don’t like me’

For a full breakdown of Skavau’s deceitful rhetorical tactics see here: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/660c7f30debed218d7770de5/Is-it-morally-acceptable-to-edit-your-posts-and-imply-another-user-is-a-pedophile-just-because-you-dislike-them?reply=660e87378ee476508cc9ff89

Skavau, in reply to this make a load of excuses for your shitty behaviour and play the victim. Show everyone how it’s done…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 14 days ago

>Surely it depends on whether they have showed signs of being a paedophile?

And what "signs" have I shown?

>In any case, Skavau is rewriting history. There were rumours about him being a paedophile and he was asked to confirm them. You’ll notice that he has linked to an exchange where the other postser’s posts have been deleted (by Skavau, who ran to the mods to have them censored).

No, you edited your posts after I replied to say that any reply by me would constitute a de facto "admittance". This is nasty, manipulative and fundamentally dishonest behaviour.

And there were no "rumours". There were baseless allegations thrown by another user.

reply

[–] tvfan (8415) a month ago

It is the group that you are always defending that has no morals; therefore, your post is hypocritical.

Oh, and editing a post has nothing to do with morals.

Once again, you make a fool of yourself by creating callout posts like this one and crying to the mods every time someone triggers you.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>It is the group that you are always defending that has no morals; therefore, your post is hypocritical.

At no point have I defended pedophiles. Defending the civil rights of LGBT people is not defending pedophiles. Your continued false comparison is rejected.

>Oh, and editing a post has nothing to do with morals.

Editing your post to try to implicate another user falsely is a pretty obviously bad faith, immoral action.

>Once again, you make a fool of yourself by creating callout posts like this one and crying to the mods every time someone triggers you.

I have only "cried to the moderators" when unfounded baseless accusations are thrown against me.

reply

[–] CraigC (6979) a month ago

You assholes have been throwing nasty labels at us for years. Wish I had a nickel for every time some hysterical idiot called me a racist, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe, masogynist, etc., etc., ad nauseam. You can't win an argument with logic and reason so you hurl stupid insults and try to bully us with labels. Butthurt hypocrite.

If you endorse the grooming of children, for example drag queen shows, you earned it.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>You assholes have been throwing nasty labels at us for years. Wish I had a nickel for every time some hysterical idiot called me a racist, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe, masogynist, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

I don't recall whether I have ever personally accused you of those things, but this is not tit-for-tat. These are judgements of attitude. Or beliefs expressed in argument. Right-wingers may often accuse leftists of being, for instance, anti-american, communists, satanic (if religious) etc. Those would be somewhat comparable accusations.

Accusing someone of being a pedophile is a more specific allegation.

>You can't win an argument with logic and reason so you hurl stupid insults and try to bully us with labels. Butthurt hypocrite.

When did I insult you?

>If you endorse the grooming of children, for example drag queen shows, you earned it.

And when did I endorse that, specifically?

reply

[–] CraigC (6979) 20 days ago

Peoples' lives have been ruined over such false characterizations. How does it feel?

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 20 days ago

It's wrong when it happens to others.

Where does that justify it happening to me here?

reply

[–] CraigC (6979) 18 days ago

It's not a justification, it's a reason. You can't play with fire for decades on end and then whine when you get burned. Leftists have been throwing around nasty labels and weaponizing words for years. When leftists come back to the sane world and actually engage people, things might change. Until then, this is the environment you assholes created. People are still being bullied into submission through the fear of being labeled a racist, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, whatever. That's a child's logic.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 18 days ago

When did I personally "play with fire" as you characterise? How did I create this? Are users not responsible for their own behaviour towards others?

reply

[–] CraigC (6979) 18 days ago

You're a leftist, you play the same games. Either way you're guilty by association. If you want to dissociate yourself, then do it.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 18 days ago

I'm guilty by association because I might happen to hold some of the same political positions on some issues that other, less agreeable leftists hold?

Are you capable of actually condemning the obvious bad behaviour the OP refers to?

reply

[–] CraigC (6979) 14 days ago

I'm capable of not giving a shit about your hard time.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 14 days ago

Avoiding giving a straight answer.

This is basic moral failure.

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 14 days ago

Just dropped in for a quick look.

Skavau, everyone is pretty much telling you exactly what I told you.

You need to wake the fuck up and deal with that fact that your behavior is teh problem.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 14 days ago

>Skavau, everyone is pretty much telling you exactly what I told you.

>You need to wake the fuck up and deal with that fact that your behavior is teh problem.

What about my behaviour justifies being accused of being a pedophile on completely baseless ground?

You hateful sack of shit. I will make a mental note to never sign off responding to you without throwing insults at you, such is how repellant I find you.

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 13 days ago

EVERYONE HAS ANSWERED THAT QUESTION FOR YOU AT GREAT LENGTH.

That you keep asking it, makes you the troll.

You are the bad guy.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 13 days ago

>EVERYONE HAS ANSWERED THAT QUESTION FOR YOU AT GREAT LENGTH.

No, they have not you lying hateful repulsive sack of shit.

>You are the bad guy.

No, the bad guy are violent fascist fucks like yourself who incite violence towards others like you do to me. You think the state should persecute me. You think it's acceptable to lie about me. You think I should be assaulted. All because you don't like my arguments. I never did anything at any point to justify your nastiness towards me in the first place. You are an evil scumbag.

You have a cult-like scientology mindset who thinks its justified to do whatever you like to people you don't like.

You are a piece of discharged rectal mucus.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 12 days ago

All because you don't like my arguments.

More straw. You’re getting what you deserve because you’re an evil, lying sack of shit. Capiche!?

Are you going to finally digest this or are you going to show everyone what pathological denial looks like… again?

I’m banking on the latter. Don’t disappoint now…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 12 days ago

>More straw. You’re getting what you deserve because you’re an evil, lying sack of shit. Capiche!?

It's not a strawman. Corbell is just a hateful piece of shit that he dehumanises and villainises everyone he has disputes with.

>Are you going to finally digest this or are you going to show everyone what pathological denial looks like… again?

I am not going to "digest" anything that is a lie.

And I am in no mind to take any advice from a piece of shit scumbag lying wanker like yourself who openly justifies lying about other people. You have no grounds to claim morality over anyone else on anything. Why would I take advice from someone who spreads malicious and knowingly false claims about me?

From top to bottom you are a hypocritical piece of shit on everything.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 11 days ago

Bullshit. Corbell has absolutely skewered you. You asked a question with this thread and you’ve been given the answer time and again… but you’re so lost in your own denial that you ignore the answer and throw endless tantrums as you try to reassert your false self image.

You’re an evil, lying sack of shit and you deserve the natural punishment you’re receiving. Karma has come for you but you just kick and scream, earning an extra dose every time.

Your hatred of Corbell only boosts his reputation. Every insult you launch at him only cements his stature as a decent person whose word carries weight.

To be called a ‘hypocritical piece of shit’ by an evil festering turd like yourself is a genuine badge of honour 🙏🏻

Now, immediately fart out another mindless knee-jerk response in which you exhibit a blithering inability to comprehend that you’re to blame for the predicament that you keep whining about, peppered with your trademark straw-questions and lies. Show everyone what pathological denial looks like. Go…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 11 days ago

>Bullshit. Corbell has absolutely skewered you

Skewered me in what sense? By saying it's okay to insult me? Anyone could say anything to me and you'd say they "skewered me" such is your absurd position.

> You asked a question with this thread and you’ve been given the answer time and again…

The answer being that Corbell implicates himself as being such an immoral nasty hateful piece of shit that he thinks its acceptable to lie about people just because he doesn't like them. He also thinks I should be silenced by forced. Since you're so scornful of censorship, I assume you should be objecting to that?

But you're not because you yourself are also a little fascist hypocrite.

>You’re an evil, lying sack of shit and you deserve the natural punishment you’re receiving. Karma has come for you but you just kick and scream, earning an extra dose every time.

How am I evil? What am I lying about? It's "karma" that endorses other people lying about others, is it?

All you and Corbell do is throw baseless accusations with no merit and never back up, or answer anything.

reply

[–] CraigC (6979) 13 days ago

Wrong. That is as straight an answer as you can get. Lumping all you assholes together is just the cost of doing business.

I'm capable of not giving a shit about your hard time.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 13 days ago

>Wrong. That is as straight an answer as you can get. Lumping all you assholes together is just the cost of doing business.

Literal Scientology cult-like brain. Collectively viewing all "assholes" as suppressive persons where any upleasantness is justified.

You are essentially exhibiting a cult-like mentality.

reply

[–] CraigC (6979) 13 days ago

Yes, the cult of logic and deductive reasoning. A cult with no meetings and no leader. Meanwhile you shitheads do nothing but repeat what you've been told to. Please, stop with the deflections. Oh, I forgot, you're incapable of thinking for yourself.

No, we're just using your tactics against you and you don't like it. Still capable of not giving a shit about your hard time. Plus you're a Brit, poking your nose in American politics, which you clearly do not understand. Go back to being a "subject" with no liberty.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 13 days ago

>Yes, the cult of logic and deductive reasoning. A cult with no meetings and no leader. Meanwhile you shitheads do nothing but repeat what you've been told to. Please, stop with the deflections. Oh, I forgot, you're incapable of thinking for yourself.

You are declaring that it is morally acceptable to lie about people who you dislike. That is Scientology-like tactics. Are you aware of how Scientology works, fuckwit?

>No, we're just using your tactics against you and you don't like it.

When did I throw unfounded allegations at you? Quote me.

>Plus you're a Brit, poking your nose in American politics, which you clearly do not understand. Go back to being a "subject" with no liberty.

I can do what the fuck I want.

Plenty of Americans here "poke their nose" into British politics. Do you equally chastise them for doing so?

reply

[–] CraigC (6979) 12 days ago

Bullshit, Americans don't give a rat's ass about anybody's politics.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 12 days ago

This is utter nonsense. Multiple posters on here: Corbell, Blacksun openly opine about UK politics.

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 12 days ago

1/ I'm fine with receiving or giving constructive good faith discussion with outsiders.

2. You have been given an clear and CONSISTENT answer to your question. Stop asking it. Start dealing with the fact that that is the reality of the situation.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 12 days ago

1. Your definition of "good faith" is credulous apologetic brown-nosing where the other person meekly presents a facade of objection to whatever you claim. I basically think, as on most things, you are a piece of shit.

2. I have been given no meaningful, non-partisan answers that aren't some rebranded flavour of pathetic excuses for why you get to be a hateful piece of shit.

And I will do whatever the fuck I like. I don't answer to scumbag hypocritical fascists like yourself. Why don't you grow a pair and answer some of my questions?

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 12 days ago

1. No, it's not.

2. You started this thread to ask a question. People have answered it. The fact that you want to ignore the answers and just keep asking the question, is a good example of how and why you are a problem.

3. It is time to address the answer. It you were never prepared to do that, then it was never an actual question, but just you being a troll boi fag.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 12 days ago

1. Yes it is. As a rule now, I just assume you are lying deceitful dishonest piece of shit.

2. People, like you, mostly you and Melton have revealed themselves to be hateful fascist pieces of shit who think it is appropriate to lie about other people whilst claiming the moral highground. You are a true scumbag of the highest order.

3. I'll do whatever the fuck I like, fuckface.

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 12 days ago

1. No, it's not.

2. And thus you demonstrate teh point. That this entire thread is built on a "Question" that is not a question. It is just shit talk.

3. It is time to address the answer. It you were never prepared to do that, then it was never an actual question, but just you being a troll boi fag.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 12 days ago

1. Yes it is. As a rule now, I just assume you are lying deceitful dishonest piece of shit.

2. People, like you, mostly you and Melton have revealed themselves to be hateful fascist pieces of shit who think it is appropriate to lie about other people whilst claiming the moral highground. You are a true scumbag of the highest order.

3. I'll do whatever the fuck I like, fuckface.

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 11 days ago

1. Your denial is your problem.

2. No, that was you pretense to justify ignoring our truthful comments. This thread has demonstrated that our view in the consensus view.

3. Your position seems to be that...actually you don't seem to have a coherent position. Now that your stupid denial has been refuted, may I suggest that you start... explaining that you...no, that doesn't work....

Why can't you just stop being such an asshole? Have you tried not being an asshole?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (608) 11 days ago

You do not get to say someone is rude after you told them to kill themselves. This is where you sit your self righteous ass down and shut the hell up. Your virtue signaling is disgusting.

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 11 days ago

Grift, as you lefties have found that being completely dishonest trolls and hacks has worked for you for a long time.

The thing is, your behavior was not with out cost. You were mining down on the social capital of our soceity, destroying it, and taking advantage of it. YOu were playing outside the rules and winning becasue your enemeis were still playing within the rules.

Well, now the civic decay you have caused, has led toa point where your enemies are not willing to play by the old rules either.

This is the cost of your behavior.

Two points.

1. It is fag to whine about it, at this point.

2. You keep doing the same behavior, you will only be INCREASING the reaction. So, if you don't like TODAY, you might want to think if you are ready for TOMMORROW.

3. That was rhetorical. I know that you will NOT be able to thinks about the connection between cause and effect, that that is beyond you, and that you will continue and that when the bill comes due, all you will do is be surprised and whine like an even louder faggot.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (608) 11 days ago

Not a leftist so that bullshit you spouted is dismissed. You have no idea who I've voted for in my lifetime and which policies I support. Not all Republicans are immoral and not all Democrats are immoral. I broke no rules. You don't get to throw a label on me because I disagree with you. Maher is a leftist you talk of him positively. I think he is trash. I think anyone who supports a genocide is a scumbag which is why I don't like Biden or Steven Crowder. You think because I dislike Trump I'm some Biden apologist. Also go and point out where I ever supported Blm, or rioting, looting and stealing. If you can't you need to concede you just lied about me. However you are a spineless dumbass so I know you don't have the stones to do that.

About telling someone to kill themselves no it isn't.

Lol you are talking shit.

I pay my own bills without any help. So no I have a work ethic. I don't complain about being oppressed like you do. I make a six figure salary. I'm doing just fine.

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 11 days ago

You're clearly a leftist.

The rest of your post is moot.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (608) 11 days ago

No I just disagree with certain right wing policies. Your generalization is moot and dismissed. I'm not either. Also since you are right wing I'm applying all the negatives of the right onto you. Why do you think Sandy Hook was a hoax and why do you support genocide?

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 11 days ago

>Grift, as you lefties have found that being completely dishonest trolls and hacks has worked for you for a long time.

We're not talking about "lefties" in a general sense. We're talking about how you decide to treat individuals based on political disagreement. With this comment however, it seems you're implying that anyone who you regard as a left-winger is essentially fair game. That anything may be said about them. That all accusations can be lobbed. This is literally the Scientology fair game doctrine.

2. With this comment, you're essentially admitting you are petulant piece of shit goaded on to be an a nasty lying asshole by other people objecting to what they say.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 11 days ago

1. "No u". What you insist I can just reject and throw right back at you. I still assume you are lying deceitful dishonest piece of shit.

2. No, that is precisely what you've revealed. What is the "truth" behind the baseless accusations of me being a pedophile? You've already admitted that they're made up bullshit, but you say that it's justified to lob them at me anyway because you think people you don't like deserve that level of attack.

Because you are a hateful fascist piece of shit.

3. You wouldn't know what my position on anything is even if I spelled out, because you are such a dimwitted moron.

>Why can't you just stop being such an asshole? Have you tried not being an asshole?

I won't take lectures on "being an asshole" from a guy who can't even describe how I'm being an asshole other than in vague gesticulations, nor from a guy who openly justifies lying about other people and a guy who threatens violence against me.

That's you, fuckface. Go look in the mirror you hateful shitstain.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 12 days ago

My point here also was that CraigC dislikes it, and has said so on many prior occasions when I as a Brit "poke my nose" into US politics but he has no problem with you and others poking your noise into UK politics.

That is clear hypocrisy.

reply

[–] CraigC (6979) 12 days ago

It's not hypocrisy, it's truly none of your business. Not only is it none of your business, you have no understanding whatsoever. You don't have the slightest idea of what we're about or why our laws are the way they are. Which is comical considering our shared history. Which is part of why it's none of your business.

We don't give a fuck what you think. We only throw a few stones here and there because you jackasses ROUTINELY poke your nose in with your meaningless rhetoric and opinions.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 12 days ago

It is blatant hypocrisy.

What is the business of UK politics to Corbell and Blacksun? Fucking none. Yet they post about it. Do you scream at them for "poking their nose" into UK politics?

>We don't give a fuck what you think. We only throw a few stones here and there because you jackasses ROUTINELY poke your nose in with your meaningless rhetoric and opinions.

And I don't give a fuck what you think. I will do what I like.

I don't answer to you.

reply

[–] CraigC (6979) 12 days ago

Do you live here? I check in for five minutes a week and you instantly respond to all my posts. Get a fuckin' life dude.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 12 days ago

I don't always reply instantly, but when I am browsing - the notification pops up. Going to answer my post here:

What is the business of UK politics to Corbell and Blacksun? Fucking none. Yet they post about it. Do you scream at them for "poking their nose" into UK politics?

>We don't give a fuck what you think. We only throw a few stones here and there because you jackasses ROUTINELY poke your nose in with your meaningless rhetoric and opinions.

And I don't give a fuck what you think. I will do what I like.

I don't answer to you.

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 12 days ago

The difference is probably more on them realizing that when I make comments on UK politics, my motivation is in Good Faith, with the goals of the interests of the UK citizens.

While yours are not.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 12 days ago

>The difference is probably more on them realizing that when I make comments on UK politics, my motivation is in Good Faith, with the goals of the interests of the UK citizens.

Bullshit.

You talk shit, have spoken shit you know nothing about, have Americasplained how the UK works to me and others who actually live in the UK and know more about this country than you ever will.

>While yours are not.

What comments have I made on US politics that suggests my motivation is not in good faith?

Fuckface

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 12 days ago

1. I feel all people have the right to expect that their national policies will be crafted in pursuit of their interests. Including the uk.

2. Pretty much everything about you.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 12 days ago

1. Except you've openly argued with me and another Brit (or more Brits) on here about how our society works despite knowing fucking nothing about here because you an ignorant hateful americentric piece of shit.

2. Not an example. What comments have I made on US politics that suggests my motivation is not in good faith?

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 11 days ago

1. I explained my points at the time. That you disagreed does not justify your hysteria today.

2. Dude. YOu're the piece of shit here. Not me. Stop the shit talk. You don't like that? CHANGE. You don't want to change? Stop whining like a fag when people notice that you are a piece of shit and treat you accordingly.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 11 days ago

1. No, you did not. You can keep claiming that you did, but you did not.

2. Not an answer. Go fuck yourself.

What comments have I made on US politics that suggests my motivation is not in good faith?

If my arguments are so bad, so awful, how does making up baseless accusations against me somehow strengthen your point?

Fuckface.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 14 days ago

It’s stunning watching this nasty lying sack of shit try to play the victim. Well done for not engaging his devious straw-questions.

Full breakdown of Skavau’s deceitful rhetorical tactics here: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/660c7f30debed218d7770de5/Is-it-morally-acceptable-to-edit-your-posts-and-imply-another-user-is-a-pedophile-just-because-you-dislike-them?reply=660e87378ee476508cc9ff89

reply

[–] Corbell (8373) 14 days ago

Agreed, melton, that was beutifully done.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 14 days ago

What am I lying about in this thread, exactly?

What straw-questions have I asked him?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 14 days ago

👆🏻 A couple of Hatchling questions for you to ignore.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 14 days ago

Corbell is a little fascist bitch who ignores and runs away at most questions anyway.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 14 days ago

I’m sure those are more of your trademark lies but the fact that you despise Corbell only improves his reputation.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 14 days ago

Corbell has suggested that I should be stopped from using social media, and that I should be assaulted in real life.

So not remotely.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 14 days ago

I’m sure those are more of your trademark lies but the fact that you despise Corbell only improves his reputation.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 14 days ago

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/660c7f30debed218d7770de5/Is-it-morally-acceptable-to-edit-your-posts-and-imply-another-user-is-a-pedophile-just-because-you-dislike-them?reply=660c8a8bdebed218d7770ec4

Hinted at it within this thread.

"You are a troll. You should be shunned and driven from normal society. No one could behave like you in real life. Our failure to have ways to deal with you online, is a failure of our cultrue to keep up with tech advancements."

What does this mean? What is he implying? I'm thinking he's implying that I should be stopped, in some way by force, from using social media. I of course asked for clarification here on this point, but the little fascist bitch ran away and refused to answer.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 14 days ago

You’re a censorious fascist fuck so I wouldn’t start pointing fingers, and Corbell’s right - your appalling behaviour warrants severe punishment.

Now, make a load of tedious, pathetic excuses for your hypocritically fascistic behaviour. Go…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 13 days ago

Asking moderators on a private website to remove abusive and libellous comments is censorious? Are they "fascist" as well? If I'm a fascist for reporting those comments, then are the moderators on here also fascists for removing them?

Wouldn't this also by your logic, make Corbell a fascist?

>Corbell’s right - your appalling behaviour warrants severe punishment.

What "severe punishment" specifically does my "appalling behaviour" warrant precisely?

Do you not see the irony here? You're complaining about me being censorious and fascist and yet you endorse Corbell implying that I should be dealt with, in some way, by force from using social media.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 14 days ago

What am I lying about in this thread, exactly?

What straw-questions have I asked him?

CraigC is another nasty piece of work by the way, so I expect little of him.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) 14 days ago

Hatchling questions.

CraigC sees through your bullshit, that’s why you despise him.

There could scarcely be a greater character reference than to be hated by an evil creature like you.

Now, debase yourself for our entertainment by farting out more Hatchling questions, lies and some lame insults. Demonstrate a blithering lack of awareness that everyone is onto your shtick 🤣 Go…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 14 days ago

>CraigC sees through your bullshit, that’s why you despise him.

What "bullshit" is this? You've never ever been able to demonstrate even a fraction of your claims.

Neither has Craig. He runs away like a little bitch every time.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 14 days ago

>Now, debase yourself for our entertainment by farting out more Hatchling questions, lies and some lame insults. Demonstrate a blithering lack of awareness that everyone is onto your shtick 🤣 Go…

Another petty, copy and paste (bot like?) post edit. Apparently when you repeat yourself, that's legitimate, but if I ever do it that somehow makes me a bot.

What am I lying about? What is the "shtick" that people are on to me about?

reply

[–] Lord Rake (3822) a month ago

Yep, feigned outrage when someone uses their tactics against them. They will act like they are deeply offended when called a pedo "which all of their own normalization of perverse aberrant behavior seems to be leading" and then a minute later call someone they disagree with Adolf Hitler. Hitler is by their own standards the devil and the worst it gets.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

When did I do the things that Craig is specifically referring to?

>They will act like they are deeply offended when called a pedo "which all of their own normalization of perverse aberrant behavior seems to be leading"

What behaviour are you referring to, specifically? Do you think said behaviour should be criminalised?

>and then a minute later call someone they disagree with Adolf Hitler. Hitler is by their own standards the devil and the worst it gets.

When did I do this?

reply

[–] Lord Rake (3822) a month ago

Maybe this will help jog your memory.

Skavau - "LordRake you are a scumbag and Hitler incarnate!"

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

A fake quote.

Do you think making things up about me, like I refer to in the OP, somehow makes your argument more credible?

reply

[–] tvfan (8415) a month ago

You have referred to several users on this forum as "scumbag" numerous times.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

A scumbag is hardly comparable to accusing someone of being a pedophile or school shooter.

I've insulted you plenty of times, but I've never accused you of committing a criminal action.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (3822) a month ago

It's amazing how you responded to a response I made to CraigC within a few seconds of me making it.

You had time within the ten seconds after I responded to Craig, to find the new post, read it, press the reply button, select text from my response and quote it in different sections of your message and also come up with your typical questions, then press reply.

It is uncanny because from my perspective I responded to CraigC and clicked off the response window and you had already responded. Truly impressive!

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

This is one reason I’ve oft suspected that Skavau is a bot - it just farts out a mindless response - nearly always a ticker tape of straw-questions and Hatchling questions - seconds after you’ve posted.

It also flat-out ignores information that doesn’t help its cause, like inconvenient evidence and explanations as to why people hate it.

Skavau is distinctly inhuman.

reply

[–] Kowalski (58863) a month ago

😂

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>This is one reason I’ve oft suspected that Skavau is a bot - it just farts out a mindless response - nearly always a ticker tape of straw-questions and Hatchling questions - seconds after you’ve posted.

Moviechat pings you with notifications. It takes seconds to click that, see the hasty response others utter, and then reply to them.

>It also flat-out ignores information that doesn’t help its cause, like inconvenient evidence and explanations as to why people hate it.

What "inconvenient information" have I ignored pertitent to the notion that it is acceptable to accuse people of being a pedophile?

reply

[–] Lord Rake (3822) a month ago

Moviechat pings you with notifications to a response directed at another user?

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

No, I meant specifically in context to direct responses there - but certain users spend their time focused on trying to insult me, so they usually post other comments to other users around direct replies to me.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

You didn't exactly say much. It doesn't take long to reply.

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (9712) a month ago

If someone calls you that must be a reason for it. I never get called that. Go figure.

Signed, million man

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Good point. I don’t know where the rumours of Skavau’s pedophilia started but there must have been a reason for them.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

He was replying to another user, not me.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

You know exactly where the "rumours" (read: baseless allegations) came from because I told you. There was no reason for them.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Your word carries zero weight, you’re a pathological liar, remember?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks, over these rumours - they’re looking increasingly credible…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>Your word carries zero weight, you’re a pathological liar, remember?

I know of no such thing. You claiming I am a liar doesn't make me a liar, nor bind me into agreeing with you. Remember?

>The lady doth protest too much, methinks, over these rumours - they’re looking increasingly credible…

Based on what are they looking "credible"?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Your track record makes you a lying sack of shit, available for everyone to see, regardless of my ‘word’.

Based on the lady protesting too much, fucking idiot 🤦🏻‍♂️

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>Your track record makes you a lying sack of shit, available for everyone to see, regardless of my ‘word’.

My "track record" that you're apparently incapable of explaining to anyone.

>Based on the lady protesting too much, fucking idiot 🤦🏻‍♂️

I am more doing this to make a point about your morality, or lack of.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

My "track record" that you're apparently incapable of explaining to anyone.

You’re such a pathological bullshitter you can’t even conceive of reality anymore. This is fascinating. Your track record doesn’t need to be ‘explained’, it’s right there, first hand evidence available for all to see.

Your need to filter reality through the bullshit-machine you call your brain and spin it into a narrative to suit your ideology is at the core of your derangement.

I am more doing this to make a point about your morality, or lack of.

Yeah, not convincing. You’re curiously obsessed with these rumours, if there was no truth to them you’d let them slide.

And the idea that an evil, lying sack of shit like you would be in any position to moralise over others is laughable.

Now, show everyone how fucking insane you are by filtering everything I’ve just said through your bullshit-machine and twist it into something digestible for your ego. Show us what pathological denial looks like. Go…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>You’re such a pathological bullshitter you can’t even conceive of reality anymore. This is fascinating. Your track record doesn’t need to be ‘explained’, it’s right there, first hand evidence available for all to see.

"It's obvious" is not an argument. You have never been able to justify it. You've just lobbed claim after claim without any substantiation to other users.

>Yeah, not convincing. You’re curiously obsessed with these rumours, if there was no truth to them you’d let them slide.

They aren't "rumours". They are baseless allegations. And I've told you why I am focusing on your particular attacks.

>And the idea that an evil, lying sack of shit like you would be in any position to moralise over others is laughable.

You still can't pinpoint a single lie that I've told.

All the while you are justifying lying about other people.

Does however awful I am justify your behaviour?

----

>Now, show everyone how fucking insane you are by filtering everything I’ve just said through your bullshit-machine and twist it into something digestible for your ego. Show everyone what pathological denial looks like. Go…

Yet another dishonest post-response edit by you.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Are you referring to me, or CraigC? you replied to CraigC.

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (9712) a month ago

I know who I replied to. How many times throughout your day do you get called those things he listed? I'm not calling you a pedophile. I know nothing about you.

Signed, million man

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Fair enough. I don't get called the other things that Craig listed. I'm sure Craig gets called those things justifiably and unjustifiably (based on my limited interactions with him)

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (9712) a month ago

He seems like an okay person and is passionate about these topics but the name calling is rather immature

Signed, million man

reply

[–] CraigC (6979) 20 days ago

There is a reason for it. I'm a conservative and that's the only way a liberal 'thinks' they can win an argument.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15273) a month ago

you can also wish other people to die, as long as its Trump.

its not surprising that democrats want to murder Trump, they have been talking about killing him since 2016.

madonna wanted to blow up the white house
depp wanted to assassinate Trump
griffin wanted to sever Trumps head off
fonda wanted to go pedo on Barron

posted 4 years ago by robocat893 (12818)
Maybe Trump will drop dead then America's biggest problem will have taken care of itself.

Which song will you play when he dies?
posted 10 months ago by pepetoony (1510)

What if Donald Trump suddenly DROPPED DEAD?
posted 9 months ago by [deleted]

What if he died from an aneurysm within a month?
posted 8 months ago by [deleted]

R.I.P. Donald Trump
posted a year ago by Martoto (3905)

There are 2 ways to stop Trump from being president again.
posted a year ago by ghostrider38 (1034)
120 replies | jump to latest
There are 2 ways to stop Trump from being president again:

1st: jail/prison: Trump goes to prison for his crimes.

2nd: Death: Trump dies and we'll never have to see his old man face or hear his voice again.

Hope that the CIA whack him soon
posted a year ago by Hybrid66 (1494)
3 replies | jump to latest
Gbye orange fat toad...

Which song will you play when he dies?
posted 10 months ago by pepetoony (1510)

When Trump dies, it will ALL be OVER
posted 7 months ago by [deleted]

https://moviechat.org/nm0874339/Donald-Trump/64e653889ca8854609ae2933/When-Trump-dies-it-will-ALL-be-OVER

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Some of these aren't actually death threats, but just distasteful comments. Not allegations.

But, I'll ask again: When did I defend those comments, or comments like them?

reply

[–] JoWilli (15273) 25 days ago

I just like pointing out the hypocrisy of MC.

carry on....

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) 25 days ago

I mean, if you're asking me personally if rules across the board need to be tightened up - then sure. I do think that. Although that's a different discussion.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15273) 25 days ago

good point. I just like to post it so I will have it on record.

reply

[–] BKB (6190) a month ago

Jesus, you have to go down as the most hypersensitive poster on this site because correct me if I'm wrong, but you've posted more than one of these "I'm butthurt" type of threads before??

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Skavau has form with this sort of phoney ‘poor me’ schtick while simultaneously trolling the whole site? Why does that come as no surprise…

Skavau, throw in some more of your loaded straw-questions, show everyone how it’s done…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

How does my supposedly "trolling the whole site" somehow justify people throwing baseless accusations, that they know are baseless accusations at me? Or indeed anyone else?

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>Skavau, throw in some more of your loaded straw-questions, show everyone how it’s done…

This is not remotely a straw-question. You, and Corbell have specifically justified throwing baseless accusations at me because you don't like me.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Straw

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

How is that a strawman? Corbell has specifically said, and I quote:

"And to be clear, YES, it is morally acceptable for people to do that, to someone like you."

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Pivot from ‘You, and Corbell’ to a Corbell quote.

Fucking pathetic. You’re incapable of being honest.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Oh, so you don't think it's acceptable to suggest I'm a pedophile?

Yet you do it anyway?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Straw questions

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

How is that a straw question at all? You have, repeatedly, suggested I am a pedophile. It is therefore reasonable to assume you think this is acceptable conduct.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Strawman

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

My question asking you "How is that a straw question" is now, in itself, somehow a strawman? What?

The only way it could be a strawman is if you are behaving in a way you do not think is acceptable.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Straw question.

False dichotomy.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>Straw question.

No, it's not. It's just a question. There are no unstated premises in it.

>False dichotomy.

So what is the reason you accuse me of being a pedophile then?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Lie.

Straw question.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

So you're now just behaving like a troll and just throwing out random claims and logical fallacies at me.

reply

[–] Blade13 (655) a month ago

this is a real battle of wits going on here.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

I wish it was a battle, it’s reduced to watching a moronic pathological liar use a basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks and calling them out 🤷🏻‍♂️

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

And what am I lying about here?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Straw question

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

Are you just going to say that to anything I ask, or even just say now?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Straw question

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

So that's a yes then. You're reduced (again) to behaving like an actual 6 year old.

And yes, that is an insult - but it's an observation based on your behaviour.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Strawman

Lame insult

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

That's not a strawman. It's an observation of your character.

Yes, it's an insult. I already said this.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Lie

Obnoxious comment

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Lies with embedded Strawman.

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

More childish behaviour

And "embedded strawman", as a turn of phrase seems incredibly unwieldly to say the least.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

2 extremely lame insults

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

That's not an answer to my question. Are you able to answer it?

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

This thread may be your most spectacular fail yet.

Why has it backfired so epically? Because you’ve cultivated a well-earned reputation as a lying sack of shit.

You pretend to be some kind of neutral innocent treated unfairly, when the reality is that you’re a mendacious gaslighter who is getting exactly the treatment you deserve.

You constantly deploy devious, dishonest rhetorical tricks in the service of your evil woke cult and the ruling regime. Evil actions to serve evil forces, and now you’re facing the consequences.

Your pretence that you’re some kind of neutral arbiter of truth engaging in sincere Socratic questioning is fooling NOBODY. Your completely insincere questions come in two main types…

The Straw-question based on a premise that you’ve pulled out of your ass but must be accepted by your victim as true in order to answer it - a devious way to make someone accept your gaslighting.

The Hatchling question where you feign ignorance of patently obvious truths and established facts and unleash a barrage of insincere nit-pick questions until your victim tires of explaining basic reality, to create the illusion of a ‘win’ for you when they finally check out of the retarded toddler interrogation session. (Full explanation of The Hatchling archetype here: https://youtu.be/nxQqaG4gl9A?si=PKgDXXIraHs8y15L)

The problem is that you’re too fucking dumb to pull off the sophistry you’re attempting. People quickly come to realise they’re not having a dialogue with a good faith interlocutor, but are being manipulated by a creepy Leftist on a gaslighting mission.

Hell, even your OP is full of shit. You’ve rewritten history to paint yourself as the victim. You’ve completely invented the motives of your opponent. You link to a conversation in which your posts remain in tact while the other person’s posts have been deleted (by you running to the mods to have them censored because you’re an authoritarian prick as well) and you expect people to believe your version of what was said in the exchange?? 🤣

People are onto you, everyone has seen straight through your bullshit OP and taken this opportunity to kick the shit out of you, you’re a busted flush on this site.

Will you learn from this? Nope. You’ll double-down with another truckload of lies and your signature Straw and Hatchling questions. Everyone will point and laugh at the freak running round in circles, spewing endless lies, frantically trying to gaslight and failing, completely refusing to take an honest look at yourself. Don’t disappoint now…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

>Why has it backfired so epically? Because you’ve cultivated a well-earned reputation as a lying sack of shit.

Not sure how me being supposedy awful, or a liar somehow justifies other people lying about me. That is a cult mindset.

Do you really think that makes you look good?

>You pretend to be some kind of neutral innocent treated unfairly, when the reality is that you’re a mendacious gaslighter who is getting exactly the treatment you deserve.

Whether or not I am neutral or partisan is irrelevant to the points in my thread. That you think I am dishonest does not justify you being dishonest and hurling baseless accusations my way.

>The Straw-question based on a premise that you’ve pulled out of your ass but must be accepted by your victim as true in order to answer it - a devious way to make someone accept your gaslighting.

What "premise" have I pulled out of my ass here?

No-one has actually replied to my question, other than Corbell, who has revealed himself to be a moral-less sack of shit (although not for the first time).

>Hell, even your OP is full of shit. You’ve rewritten history to paint yourself as the victim. You link to a conversation in which your posts remain in tact while the other person’s posts have been deleted (by you running to the mods to have them censored because you’re an authoritarian prick as well) and you expect people to believe your version of what was said in the exchange?? 🤣

The deleted posts from you were just you accusing me of being a pedophile.

Do you thus, as I've asked, think the moderators here are authoritarian? Do you think a moderator that deletes comments that violates website rules are fascist? Are libel laws fascist? You keep avoiding these questions.

>People are onto you, everyone has seen straight through your bullshit OP and taken this opportunity to kick the shit out of you, you’re a busted flush on this site.

Onto me *what*? Whether or not I lie, or have bad ideas about the world has nothing to do with whether or not it should or should not be acceptable to accuse me of being a pedophile. If I'm wrong, and so obviously wrong, you shouldn't need to resort to baseless accusations.

>Will you learn from this? Nope. You’ll double-down with another truckload of lies and your signature Straw and Hatchling questions. Everyone will point and laugh at the freak running round in circles, spewing endless lies, frantically trying to gaslight and failing, completely refusing to take an honest look at yourself. Don’t disappoint now…

Literally has nothing to do with the OP of this thread.

reply

[–] Melton (2307) a month ago

Incredible, you just farted out another mindless reply moments after I posted. NOTHING went in, and you reacted exactly as predicted.

What an absolute fucking dildo 🤦🏻‍♂️

Go on, double down again, utterly humiliate yourself for our amusement…

reply

[–] Skavau (9426) a month ago

You didn't address any points. You still haven't addressed many points I've made in prior posts.

The chief point on this thread is simple: Not sure how me being supposedy awful, or a liar somehow justifies other people lying about me. That is a cult mindset.

----

Regarding censorship: Do you thus, as I've asked, think the moderators here are authoritarian? Do you think a moderator that deletes comments that violates website rules are fascist? Are libel laws fascist? You keep avoiding these questions.

Also Corbell, on multiple occasions, has implied I should be censored. Does that make him a fascist?

>Go on, double down again, utterly humiliate yourself for our amusement…

Yet another childish edit

reply