1621

Capricorn 15’s. Born 2244. Enter the Carousel. This is the time of renewal.

Be strong and you will be renewed. Identify.

1622

Full of shit.
of shit.
of

That’s because you’re under the misapprehension that there is a discussion in good faith to be had. I just thought that some of Andy’s usual adversaries would find it relevant (as did happen) because the mental image I had of why these discussions kept going nowhere was that of a young zealot and are actually the product of something altogether different by at least 50%. It’s not something I can or would employ directly (eg your argument is untrue because of your age), but it does change how I perceive his posts in ways that are useful to me in terms of filtering noise from signal. If you want to see it as a smear campaign on the nearly elderly, that’s your prerogative and apparently a popular option.

On Lorini’s point, which I expect everybody here basically accepts, there’s a famous Johnson line…

Given that I explained in some detail exactly why I don’t accept it, I don’t see why you would say that. At best, it’s a vapid platitude that doesn’t accept the usefulness and relevance of considering a source as well as an argument, which seems both impractical and undesirable.

1623

In other words, you used the same tactics used by the Birthers, where you thought it was “interesting” to point something out, even though you would never ever use it as a direct attack. They thought it was interesting to wonder aloud about a birth certificate, and you thought it was relevant to wonder aloud about my age. No, you would never use it as an attack! Saying I’m “old as fuck” is purely an objective, non-judgmental term. You’re just asking questions.

The fact of the matter is, it was a douchey thing to bring up, and even my “usual adversaries” pointed that out, but you just keep doubling down. That says a lot about the kind of person you are.

1624

Your daily metawhining, folks!

Andy, there’s no way to sugar coat this, but you write and argue like a goddamn idiot. One working theory a lot of people assumed as to why is that you were actually 17 or something.

1625

I don’t see that it’s a prerequisite to erring on the side of not being personal. But I didn’t mean to be censorious.

If you want to see it as a smear campaign on the nearly elderly, that’s your prerogative and apparently a popular option.

I don’t, which is why I was hesitant to wade into an overblown argument just to express an opinion on the abstract argument/arguer point. The closest I have to a point of view on Batesagegate is that posters’ age, education, infirmities etc are probably best left in delicate silence for social reasons, however well- or poorly conducted those posters are themselves.

At best, it’s a vapid platitude that doesn’t accept the usefulness and relevance of considering a source as well as an argument, which seems both impractical and undesirable.

If you took it to mean that you shouldn’t consider the source of an argument, then it’d be flat out wrong, not platitudinous. It’s evoking the possibility of abstract reasoning having a value separable from (say, tainted) reasoners. Potentially misleading? Platitudinous? Depends on how you look at it.

1626

If you’d bothered to read the preceding comments, you’d realize that I’m actually speaking out against the whole meta-criticism that LK brought up. And apparently everyone except you and LK thought it was a stupid thing to do, so you’re clearly in the minority here.

1627

I said explicitly what I meant by it. I didn’t claim it was non-objective or non-judgmental. I explained why it was relevant, and I used your own words in reference to your own presumed authority on another topic. That’s entirely different from the birther issue, which is manufactured from the ground up and carried on by purposeful denial of facts. Neither of those things happened in this case, but I guess it wouldn’t be an Andy Bates moment without a false analogy and equivalence.

The fact of the matter is, it was a douchey thing to bring up, and even my “usual adversaries” pointed that out, but you just keep doubling down.

And I’ll keep doubling down, even as you rotate sockpuppets for the response. It got made into a thing, and you got the wedge you wanted. Congratulations! You’re still wrong about nearly everything in a manner very similar to a college freshman, except now I understand that it’s out of spite rather than ignorance. That’s useful.

That says a lot about the kind of person you are.

You mean the kind of person who’s tired of reading your shit?

If you’d bothered to read the preceding comments, you’d realize that I’m actually speaking out against the whole meta-criticism that LK brought up. And apparently everyone except you and LK thought it was a stupid thing to do, so you’re clearly in the minority here.

“Everyone thought it was stupid” is easily proved untrue, like many things you say. This is only a surprise to someone who refuses to consider who they are talking to before assessing the truth value of your words. The fact that you made it up will have no effect on the next thing you say, because you are nothing if not consistent.

That’s fine, and probably something I generally agree with. I think “overblown” is the key point no matter the relative right and wrong of the matter, as that is certainly the case given the mileage this one-liner has generated.

If you took it to mean that you shouldn’t consider the source of an argument, then it’d be flat out wrong, not platitudinous. It’s evoking the possibility of abstract reasoning having a value separable from (say, tainted) reasoners. Potentially misleading? Platitudinous? Depends on how you look at it.

I wasn’t referring to the Johnson quote, which is obviously expressing an abstract ideal, but rather Lorini’s post and those preceding it that sought to create a false binary between using a person’s background as the sum total of the discussion and pretending to never consider it.

1628

Yeah, I got it: You mentioned the fact that I’m slightly older than you, hoping that it would be something that everyone could have a good laugh about. That’s what made it such a dick move, and you got called on it by the very people you thought would be supporting you, so you’ve been bending over backwards to defend yourself ever since.

Any evidence that I’ve ever used a single sockpuppet on this forum, or is that just something you manufactured from the ground up? I mean, I get that you’re desperate to make me look like the bad guy here, but inventing accusations out of whole cloth is pretty shameless.

I was making a rough generalization, not offering a specific count. I get why you’re so defensive, but do you really have to pick out the few other people who seemed to half-heartedly agree with your comments about my age? You’re ignoring the numerous people who pointed out (in great detail) that that kind of discussion is irrelevant and pretty crass of you to bring up in the first place.

1629

If you’re uncomfortable with people using personal information to come to their opinion about you, then perhaps you shouldn’t post it.

LK’s original post, if I’m reading things correctly, was meant to express surprise and some mirth that a man who lived through some very racially charged times was ignoring and poo-pooing evidence that the Birther movement (now what is it? The Secret Muslim-ers?) was fundamentally an issue of race and not constitutional legitimacy.

Given the fact that text conversations are as much about reading as they are about writing, I think it behooves all of us to apply the personal information each particular member grants to the community to our view of that person: to do otherwise is, well, silly, and the more you know about someone the more likely you are to understand them. That seems to be the lifeblood of this particular forum, at least. For instance, I believe I have made clear that I am a young person in this forum (on LK’s scale, at least. I can have a beer) - make of that what you will.

Look, if LK was taunting you saying HAHAHA YOU’RE OLD AND STUPID I’d probably be against it, but that would only be because that is crossing the line of decency and respect. Sharing information you’ve already made available is a silly thing to complain about.

1630

“Speaking out,” well, this is a teachable moment here. I bow to your troll-baiting abilities, sir; manipulating the idiotic goo-goo tendencies of liberals to fall for the “arguments live and die independent of the speaker” line is a skill. Do continue nailing yourself to a cross of someone noticing you’re older than most posters. Also, what molecule said.

1631

Right, because saying that I’m “old as fuck” is completely on the side of decency and respect.

He was making a pointless observation in order to taunt me or shame me or whatever, and he got called out for it by many others. The fact that he’s spinning and trying to justify it doesn’t make it any less of a stupid comment.

1632

Keep on trollin’, baby.

1633

I’m also “old as fuck” by LK’s definition. For some reason I don’t see myself losing vast quantities of decency and respect. Maybe because every post I make isn’t some kind of bizarre trolling attempt.

1634

(just every other one)

1635

So it’s not like birtherism? I think the fact that you can’t prove that all of the time someone’s age is mocked relative to the quality of their views it’s a product of douchiness clearly means that you can’t ever suggest it’s primarily motivated by douchism. I believe noted internet authority Andy Bates established that a few dozen pages back by repeating it over and over again.

Any evidence that I’ve ever used a single sockpuppet on this forum, or is that just something you manufactured from the ground up? I mean, I get that you’re desperate to make me look like the bad guy here, but inventing accusations out of whole cloth is pretty shameless.

It would help a lot if you could provide a long form internet activity log, ideally notarized, in order to dispel these nasty rumors that Andy Bates is really a collective of internet sockpuppets. I wouldn’t want that to tarnish your image.

I was making a rough generalization, not offering a specific count. I get why you’re so defensive, but do you really have to pick out the few other people who seemed to half-heartedly agree with your comments about my age? You’re ignoring the numerous people who pointed out (in great detail) that that kind of discussion is irrelevant and pretty crass of you to bring up in the first place.

Yea, and verily did Andy, he that dies daily for our sins on a cross of bullshit, first of his name, proclaim:
[INDENT]“If thou art overruled by a simple majority on qt3 at any point in an argument, thou shalt hang it up and call it a day.”
[/INDENT]
I don’t know, that sounds like it’s going to be a tough one to live by. Maybe you could pilot the idea and let me know how it works out.

1636

Right, and I’ve said that’s not my point. Age is a factor in a person’s character, not the sole factor or even the major one, but to pretend it’s irrelevant is silly.

So your example about the Cuban Missile Crisis is pretty silly. An 18 year old might have read about the history from the same viewpoint as the person who was alive and watching/reading news at the time. 9/11 is a great example of how “someone who was there” does not make them an authority on what actually happened, the same goes with Cuba. We live in an information age and there are dozens of accounts of 9/11 that don’t make sense when taken individually.

Uh, no. I wasn’t saying “Someone who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis automatically knows more about the Cuban Missile Crisis than someone who didn’t”. I was saying that someone’s political views - be they regarding parties or individuals or nations - will be different if they’ve lived through multiple experiences like the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Wall Street Crash, and 9/11 than someone who basically grew up in a 9/11 world and has no other frame of reference.

Christ, there are people roughly my age who have no concept of British politics prior to Tony Blair. Those who lived through the Thatcher era tend to approach things rather differently…

1637

Andy Bates is gettin’ too old for this shit.

1638

I also have no fucking idea how anyone could think Andy’s a kid. He’s clearly intelligent, educated, and worldly enough to be a disingenuous motherfucker who is more than capable of engaging anyone on this board in his particular brand of bizarre political arguments.

1639

Obviously, we’ll need to see his birth certificate. It’s the only way to be sure.

1640

Uh how about some proof or at least a study for your assertion? Otherwise it’s just more bullshit.