Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

[Woodruff]

it is funny that in the 'land of the free' there is so much intolerance of phatscotty's views.

It's not his views, actually. There are others here who hold essentially the same views, or even possibly more conservative than his, who don't get the grief he does because they are consistent and not hypocritical...unlike him. He gets the grief because he is inconsistent and hypocritical.

[Woodruff]

i actually think he argues consistently. he feels that people are free to live however they choose, whether they want to hate gays or marry other men, and he feels that majority rule (exercised through voting) should be the ultimate decider of society's values. i have not seen him sway from this.

sure thing, mr. moderate!

stop your trolling this instant!

why haven't the mods banned this guy yet???

Thanks, Mr. Moderate.

[Woodruff]

Neo is a big boy, mr. Stalin. If he doesn't like the way I communicate, especially in a response to his consistent slander, then why does he come to my discussions? Does he really have to click on my threads? Have you ever thought about this?

How would this rationale apply to the seven or more times you've foed and then unfoed me?

[Woodruff]

pathetic. "hey everybody, gang up on Phatscotty!". weak

In psychological circles, there's this idea that if everyone else thinks you're a fuckup, it's probably not everyone else that's wrong.

[Phatscotty]

it is funny that in the 'land of the free' there is so much intolerance of phatscotty's views.

It's not his views, actually. There are others here who hold essentially the same views, or even possibly more conservative than his, who don't get the grief he does because they are consistent and not hypocritical...unlike him. He gets the grief because he is inconsistent and hypocritical.

and all you can do is smear. Don't get me wrong, I take your smear as the highest form of flattery. It means you know I am right, and you can't find a way to squirm out of it or justify your position (RARELY offered) or argue to the contrary, so I must be smeared, because it's all you got.

[Woodruff]

it is funny that in the 'land of the free' there is so much intolerance of phatscotty's views.

It's not his views, actually. There are others here who hold essentially the same views, or even possibly more conservative than his, who don't get the grief he does because they are consistent and not hypocritical...unlike him. He gets the grief because he is inconsistent and hypocritical.

and all you can do is smear.

No it isn't. There was a time, and it still occurs occasionally to this day, when I have attempted to honestly discuss issues with you. In fact, I have tried very hard to do so. But you've never been able to get past your own buffoonery of hypocricy, inconsistency and flat-out ignoring opposing views to allow it to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I take your smear as the highest form of flattery. It means you know I am right, and you can't find a way to squirm out of it or justify your position (RARELY offered) or argue to the contrary, so I must be smeared, because it's all you got.

More accurately, it's all you're worth.

[Phatscotty]

it is funny that in the 'land of the free' there is so much intolerance of phatscotty's views.

It's not his views, actually. There are others here who hold essentially the same views, or even possibly more conservative than his, who don't get the grief he does because they are consistent and not hypocritical...unlike him. He gets the grief because he is inconsistent and hypocritical.

and all you can do is smear.

No it isn't. There was a time, and it still occurs occasionally to this day, when I have attempted to honestly discuss issues with you. In fact, I have tried very hard to do so. But you've never been able to get past your own buffoonery of hypocricy, inconsistency and flat-out ignoring opposing views to allow it to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I take your smear as the highest form of flattery. It means you know I am right, and you can't find a way to squirm out of it or justify your position (RARELY offered) or argue to the contrary, so I must be smeared, because it's all you got.

More accurately, it's all you're worth.

So, you admit that you don't want to talk the issues with me, and just want to troll???????

well, here is me, trying to honestly discuss and issue with you.... viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176256&start=45#p3852968 let's see how you handle that, that is, if you are not a hypocrite....

[BigBallinStalin]

Parade of Hate
Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade

[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.50.18-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.48.11-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.47.16-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.46.43-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.45.56-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.44.00-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-4.02.21-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-4.27.37-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-4.50.36-PM.png[img]

HAHAHA! OH man, this example of Phatism is priceless.

I recall Neoteny stating how PS posts the most extreme idiots of phatsco's disliked position, and then runs with it to justify his hilarious attempt to hold a discussion:

"Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade"


Haha, wow. Neoteny is absolutely correct about Phatscotty. It's time for PS to be ridiculed encouraged to drop his turds in an Atlas Shrugged forum, who would most likely hate him too.

[Woodruff]

it is funny that in the 'land of the free' there is so much intolerance of phatscotty's views.

It's not his views, actually. There are others here who hold essentially the same views, or even possibly more conservative than his, who don't get the grief he does because they are consistent and not hypocritical...unlike him. He gets the grief because he is inconsistent and hypocritical.

and all you can do is smear.

No it isn't. There was a time, and it still occurs occasionally to this day, when I have attempted to honestly discuss issues with you. In fact, I have tried very hard to do so. But you've never been able to get past your own buffoonery of hypocricy, inconsistency and flat-out ignoring opposing views to allow it to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I take your smear as the highest form of flattery. It means you know I am right, and you can't find a way to squirm out of it or justify your position (RARELY offered) or argue to the contrary, so I must be smeared, because it's all you got.

More accurately, it's all you're worth.

So, you admit that you don't want to talk the issues with me, and just want to troll???????

Nope. I admit that you've become such a caricature of dishonesty that it's all the effort you deserve.

well, here is me, trying to honestly discuss and issue with you.... viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176256&start=45#p3852968 let's see how you handle that, that is, if you are not a hypocrite....

I already answered it, hypocrite. See, you keep doing this...you keep demanding that others answer your questions, yet you either completely ignore our own questions (while loudly making your demands) or you thoroughly ignore the answers we do give you. That's just another fine example of exactly what I'm speaking of above.

[BigBallinStalin]

PS, you're either being stupid or you're a clever troll. This one of the ultimate mysteries on CC.

I must admit that I don't know the answer, but what is certain is that people are tired of you being a dick. Please stop being a dick, PS.

[Phatscotty]

PS, you're either being stupid or you're a clever troll. This one of the ultimate mysteries on CC.

I must admit that I don't know the answer, but what is certain is that people are tired of you being a dick. Please stop being a dick, PS.

spoken like a true dick. You could try minding your own business? I guess a dick wouldn't though

[Phatscotty]

Parade of Hate
Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade

HAHAHA! OH man, this example of Phatism is priceless.

I recall Neoteny stating how PS posts the most extreme idiots of phatsco's disliked position, and then runs with it to justify his hilarious attempt to hold a discussion:

"Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade"

Haha, wow.

Well, Do you?

wtf? dodgism does not beat Phatism

[BigBallinStalin]

Parade of Hate
Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP

HAHAHA! OH man, this example of Phatism is priceless.

I recall Neoteny stating how PS posts the most extreme idiots of phatsco's disliked position, and then runs with it to justify his hilarious attempt to hold a discussion:

"Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade"

Haha, wow.

Well, Do you?

wtf? dodgism does not beat Phatism

First, an important question:

why should I take you seriously since (a) you have a history of ignoring other people's pertinent questions, (b) have neglected to maintain the reasonable debate when it goes poorly for you, and (c) frequently fail to concede or acknowledge any of your opponent's points?

If you can answer that, and more importantly prove that your word is not bullshit, then I will feel justified in treating you with the respect, which you have yet to deserve due to your own failings.


Ayn Rand would be disappointed in how you unjustifiably demand from others that which you refuse to provide through yourself (i.e. you fit a, b, c perfectly). You behave like the very person she despises: the looter.

Haha, the "PhatLooter"--a new form of Phatism! TO THE PHATISM THREAD!!! <cue BatMobile music>

[Phatscotty]

Well, I hope I do not HAVE to agree with you, because I disagree. I do not have a history of ignoring other people's pertinent questions. I am always reasonable, and I acknowledge other points from time to time.

If you want to put up some examples, I will address them.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, I hope I do not HAVE to agree with you, because I disagree. I do not have a history of ignoring other people's pertinent questions. I am always reasonable, and I acknowledge other points from time to time.

If you want to put up some examples, I will address them.

Before that, we need to address the content of your argument/position. From there, we can proceed in a reasonable fashion.


(1) So you want to compare Hate/Bigotry between the pro-gay marriage crowd and the pro-Chick-Fil-A/anti-gay marriage (i.e. bigots--in a bad way) crowd?
With some modification to my qualifiers, this comparison is basically your goal--as expressed through your three questions above the pictures.


(2) You list some examples of some tweets by about 10 people, who are assumed to be the of pro-gay marriage crowd (it is possible that they're fake accounts). Anyway, do you think this sample is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd?

(2a) If yes, please argue why it is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd.
(Then please realize that you're exhibiting sample bias, which in turn means that your position on the entire gay marriage crowd would be false. In other words, your poor evidence would fail to support what you're insinuating with your question: "Who are the real haters?" --Apparently, only a few people. Big deal, amirite?).

(But the most accurate answer to that question would be the neo-Nazis, or the Top 10 Player Haters Hall of Fame. It's a toss-up between those two groups).

(2b) If no, then what's the point? About ten people of a group are being mean? Since that's true for almost all groups, then we can reasonably reject/ignore your post. <shrugs>


Next, we'll compare the general positions of each group, and see which one is bigoted--in a bad way. Wait, we already did that here, and the conclusion so far is that the anti-gay marriage crowd, who base their reasoning on Christianity, are bigoted in a bad way. Feel free to overcome the main obstacles here. Until then, they're reasonably deemed as bigoted--in a bad way.

[Phatscotty]

Well, I hope I do not HAVE to agree with you, because I disagree. I do not have a history of ignoring other people's pertinent questions. I am always reasonable, and I acknowledge other points from time to time.

If you want to put up some examples, I will address them.

Before that, we need to address the content of your argument/position. From there, we can proceed in a reasonable fashion.


(1) So you want to compare Hate/Bigotry between the pro-gay marriage crowd and the pro-Chick-Fil-A/anti-gay marriage (i.e. bigots--in a bad way) crowd?
With some modification to my qualifiers, this comparison is basically your goal--as expressed through your three questions above the pictures.


(2) You list some examples of some tweets by about 10 people, who are assumed to be the of pro-gay marriage crowd (it is possible that they're fake accounts). Anyway, do you think this sample is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd?

(2a) If yes, please argue why it is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd.
(Then please realize that you're exhibiting sample bias, which in turn means that your position on the entire gay marriage crowd would be false. In other words, your poor evidence would fail to support what you're insinuating with your question: "Who are the real haters?" --Apparently, only a few people. Big deal, amirite?).

(But the most accurate answer to that question would be the neo-Nazis, or the Top 10 Player Haters Hall of Fame. It's a toss-up between those two groups).

(2b) If no, then what's the point? About ten people of a group are being mean? Since that's true for almost all groups, then we can reasonably reject/ignore your post. <shrugs>


Next, we'll compare the general positions of each group, and see which one is bigoted--in a bad way. Wait, we already did that here, and the conclusion so far is that the anti-gay marriage crowd, who base their reasoning on Christianity, are bigoted in a bad way. Feel free to overcome the main obstacles here. Until then, they're reasonably deemed as bigoted--in a bad way.

and we are already clear that from a pro-gay marriage position, every religious person is a bigot....starting....NOW!!!!

My answer to your question is no, and I would add "Of course not!" PFF wtf? who the hell thinks that way? That because someone shows an example, someone else assumes they are calling out every single person on the planet, and not just the 10 people I demonstrated as bigots, and in today's confusion, "real bigots".

I think the thing that most people would most ignore would be your assertion that because I show 10 examples I am talking about the views of an entire population. That's like the dumbest thing ever, and I feel shame for even responding to such stupidity.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, I hope I do not HAVE to agree with you, because I disagree. I do not have a history of ignoring other people's pertinent questions. I am always reasonable, and I acknowledge other points from time to time.

If you want to put up some examples, I will address them.

Before that, we need to address the content of your argument/position. From there, we can proceed in a reasonable fashion.


(1) So you want to compare Hate/Bigotry between the pro-gay marriage crowd and the pro-Chick-Fil-A/anti-gay marriage (i.e. bigots--in a bad way) crowd?
With some modification to my qualifiers, this comparison is basically your goal--as expressed through your three questions above the pictures.


(2) You list some examples of some tweets by about 10 people, who are assumed to be the of pro-gay marriage crowd (it is possible that they're fake accounts). Anyway, do you think this sample is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd?

(2a) If yes, please argue why it is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd.
(Then please realize that you're exhibiting sample bias, which in turn means that your position on the entire gay marriage crowd would be false. In other words, your poor evidence would fail to support what you're insinuating with your question: "Who are the real haters?" --Apparently, only a few people. Big deal, amirite?).

(But the most accurate answer to that question would be the neo-Nazis, or the Top 10 Player Haters Hall of Fame. It's a toss-up between those two groups).

(2b) If no, then what's the point? About ten people of a group are being mean? Since that's true for almost all groups, then we can reasonably reject/ignore your post. <shrugs>


Next, we'll compare the general positions of each group, and see which one is bigoted--in a bad way. Wait, we already did that here, and the conclusion so far is that the anti-gay marriage crowd, who base their reasoning on Christianity, are bigoted in a bad way. Feel free to overcome the main obstacles here. Until then, they're reasonably deemed as bigoted--in a bad way.

and we are already clear that from a pro-gay marriage position, every religious person is a bigot....starting....NOW!!!!

Since you failed to acknowledge or address the first question, then I'll assume that you agree with its presentation of your goal. And, you ignored the question for #2b, so that's strike one and two.

(re: underlined) I didn't say that. I said, "the anti-gay marriage crowd, who base their reasoning on Christianity, are bigoted in a bad way." And then we provided, in accordance with CC-standards, a reasonable series of arguments which supports that conclusion (note: this is a reasonable example of providing evidence in support of one's claims). Anyway, my quote does not say that "every religious person is a bigot" unless you truly think that anyone, who (1) is against gay marriage and (2) uses Christianity to justify this stance, includes "every religious person." (A) Do you really think so? (if you say yes, you admit to being nonsensical).

(B) Have you made an honest mistake in interpreting my post, or are you intentionally twisting my words?

My answer to your question is no, and I would add "Of course not!" PFF wtf? who the hell thinks that way? That because someone shows an example, someone else assumes they are calling out every single person on the planet, and not just the 10 people I demonstrated as bigots, and in today's confusion, "real bigots".

I think the thing that most people would most ignore would be your assertion that because I show 10 examples I am talking about the views of an entire population. That's like the dumbest thing ever, and I feel shame for even responding to such stupidity.

(C) Since you admit that the evidence which you provided is insufficient--in regard to your questions, then what was the purpose of your questions?

(D) You implied that the goal of your questions was to compare bigotry/hate across these two groups, but obviously and you also admit, that your evidence has failed to do so. So, what's the purpose of your post?

(E) Nevertheless, even if you don't agree that a valid comparison was your goal, what was the purpose of your post?

Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade

[insert pics]

(1) "Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this?" + (2) "who are the real haters?" + (3) "Time to call a spade a spade!"



(F) Are you aware of what your questions imply?

Here's what they imply to me. (1) 'The supporters/customers of Chik-Fil-A don't say such mean things. Prove me wrong, (which is difficult because sufficient empirical evidence is either lacking or not worth it finding).'

(Why is it not worth it? Because the standard of evidence which PS gave (~10 tweets) is complete crap, which he admitted; therefore, no one will take him seriously. Nevertheless, he expects people to take him seriously--which to me is ridiculous, and is proper grounds for labeling him a dick.).

(2) 'Ah-ha! So the real haters are not the Chick-Fil-A people, but apparently... Ooooo, (a) the pro-gay marriage crowd, (b) the crowd who admonished the activities of those who support anti-gay marriage businesses, or (c) only the people mentioned in the tweets are the real haters.'

Some people don't take PS seriously due to his (un)intentional ambiguity. You can't argue against this if he can easily change positions, which makes him appear incoherent to us but correct in his mind. This (un)intentional ambiguity plus the inevitable shifting tactics is a common occurrence with PS and a fine example of PS on the verge of being a dick).

(3) "Time to call a spade a spade" = stop being hypocrites.

Who's being a hypocrite? It's unclear from the ambiguity of the second question, but obviously, if PS poses this question to this community, then he's definitely blaming someone--and for poor reasons too. (Thus, another example of PS being a dick).

If you don't respond to these questions A through F, all of which are important for us to accurately understand you, then my previous description of you will hold true. Phatscotty, this is a rare opportunity for you to convince me to temporarily discontinue my Phatism Awareness Campaign and also temporarily treat you with respect--on the condition that while on BBS-sanctioned parole, you exhibit good behavior.

[GreecePwns]

Keep calm and troll on, BBS.

[jonesthecurl]

I think BBS could be accused of trolling sometimes.
Here I think he is being sincere.

[GreecePwns]

Wait, so trolling isn't saying something the other person disagrees with? Good to know.

[jonesthecurl]

Wait, so trolling isn't saying something the other person disagrees with? Good to know.

No it's not.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Wait, so trolling isn't saying something the other person disagrees with? Good to know.

No it's not.

reported for trolling.

[jonesthecurl]

Wait, so trolling isn't saying something the other person disagrees with? Good to know.

No it's not.

reported for trolling.

no I wasn't.

[AndyDufresne]

Wait, so trolling isn't saying something the other person disagrees with? Good to know.

No it's not.

reported for trolling.

no I wasn't.

Trolling for reported.


--Andy

[crispybits]

Wait, so trolling isn't saying something the other person disagrees with? Good to know.

No it's not.

reported for trolling.

YOU SIR ARE AN IDIOT!!!

(trolled for reporting)