If you can admit he was stupid, not lying, then we're good. — AmadeusD

How do you know he didn’t lie? Stupid people lie.

she wasn't even hired — AmadeusD

I told you that after graduating from Harvard she was hired a top international law firm. She’s had other positions as well.

its not lying or any other kind of bigotry. — AmadeusD

Right, it’s an example of the “Newman effect.”

Very, extremely, disagreed. — AmadeusD

So you’re as callous as Kirk.

How do you know he didn’t lie? Stupid people lie. — praxis

Yeah, that's absolutely true but we do not assume someone is lying at face value - in this case, particularly because he was clearly bent to believe shit that couldn't possibly be well supported. But, his beliefs are not my thing to comment on the motivations for, if you see what I mean.

I told you that after graduating from Harvard she was hired a top international law firm. She’s had other positions as well. — praxis

Of course; I am aware. That isn't what Kirk, or I was talking about. Man. This is getting tough.

Right, it’s an example of the “Newman effect.” — praxis

No. That is a purposeful activity. Something done directly to Kirk, including throughout your posts. Again, getting tough lol.

So you’re as callous as Kirk. — praxis

No. You just have an opinion derived from false understandings of what's been said, ignorance of my actual experience (which I've laid out) and ignorance of the views of plenty of trans people (the wrong kind of trans? LOL).

I think probably this has run it's course but thank you for remaining entirely civil these last few exchanges. Appreciate it.

So you’re as callous as Kirk.
— praxis

No. — AmadeusD

The following sounds rather callous to me.

I simply couldn't give a shit. — AmadeusD

Yes, to you. And I understand that. It doesn't sound like anything particularly interesting to me. I also explained myself with reference to psychology, personal experience and the general set of values I would apply to the situation. We simply differ on those.

You don't care about plenty of things I find extremely important. I don't find those situations to be you expressing callousness - I find we have different values and operate along different sets of information which largely, isn't our faults.

Calling someone a name (an actual name, not an epithet) they don't like/want to be called is trivial. You disagree. That's fine.

Charlie Kirk deadnamed deliberately and in a demeaning way and it functioned socially like an epithet. His audience loved it though and cheered appreciatively.

You don't give a shit – that's why we've been arguing this for weeks. :lol:

I extremely disagree, but that is also why we've been arguing for weeks.

This is why i said I think it's run its course. You seem to finally admit that I am not defending maliciousness, but could simply be wrong, and I'm understanding that you see things in ways I cannot fault, but I think are wrong. Can't see us getting further.

You seem to finally admit that I am not defending maliciousness — AmadeusD

I don't know what you're doing, so many of your statements are contradictory. The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks.

Kirk catered to his audience, and they enjoyed him deadnaming and claiming that Thomas was an abomination to God. Like you, I imagine that Kirk also didn't give a shit. He was being their culture warrior and putting bread and butter on the table.

The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks. — praxis

Because you continually made something of it which was erroneous, and asked me, continually, to explain myself. This isn't something I picked up on as important. I responded to your sticking on it for so long. I saw the comment as i currently see it, more or less when I first saw the clip. Never seemed interesting. There's no contradiction in my responding to you banging on about a single thing he said one time which you misinterpreted.

As to the remainder, you've literally just done it again. I've addressed all of this, extremely clearly, and it is now pretty much unavoidable to conclude that you're just wanting to pain people certain ways, facts be damned. Again, thank you for remaining civil.

Facts be damned? What facts have I damned?

Speaking of facts…

The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks.
— praxis

Because you continually made something of it which was erroneous, and asked me, continually, to explain myself. — AmadeusD

I just reviewed our posts in this thread. A month ago I posted the disgusting Kirk quote—not responding to you but someone else—and you rushed in to defend it, like you did in another topic. If it’s trivial then why bother to defend it so earnestly for weeeeeeks?

I suggest you skip to the final, bolded line and really put your adult pants on and think hard on that question.

*sigh* mate, you're asking me to re-state things stated several times, as they've come up. That is not any of fair, reasonable or good faith. One example is your claim that Kirk and his followers personally wanted trans people to cease existing. I proved you wrong. Yo ignored it. There are more, and if you've reviewed the thread, then you know what im talking about.

you rushed in to defend it, like you did in another topic. If it’s trivial then why bother to defend it so earnestly for weeeeeeks? — praxis

I didn't call it trivial - your response to it, hanging your entire thesis on it after being proven wrong in multiple other avenues and your absolute refusal to admit hte reality of it became central to my attempt to have you respond honestly about someone you didn't know, and refuse completely to engage with in anything close to good faith.

It is trivial in a larger, mature conversation. You don't seem able. I have tried to close this off on civil comments several times, and you are incapable. I am happy to respond to you as long as you are saying things that can be coherently replied to, but I will suggest, again, that this has run its course. You sincerely believe what you believe, despite this thread. You probably think the same.

Explain to me the worth of continuing?

Explain to me the worth of continuing? — AmadeusD

Frankly, entertainment.

One example is your claim that Kirk and his followers personally wanted trans people to cease existing. — AmadeusD

To call something an abomination is to suggest it should be rejected, erased, or undone, not merely regulated or punished. Something that is believed to be so wrong, corrupt, or unnatural that its existence itself is offensive. Not just “bad” or “harmful,” but ought-not-be.

That's a fact.

It is trivial in a larger, mature conversation. — AmadeusD

Ah, I see. It is apparently extremely significant when conversing with me though. It's odd that you take immature conversation so seriously. I think I'm the other way around, taking mature conversations seriously and usually find immature conversations trivial.

Like watching a chessmaster playing a toddler.

Frankly, entertainment. — praxis

So, trolling. So be it. I did suggest similar things time and time again. This is unbecoming.

That's a fact. — praxis

You are forgetting the entirety of hte exchange and reverting back to default mode where you were proved factually wrong, lied about something you said you didn't say and then plum ignored both instances while continuing to press on his use of abomination in a specific context in which he was not giving his personal view. This is quite simple: You are not being serious anymore.

It is apparently extremely significant when conversing with me though. — praxis

You kept talking about it. This is twilight zone stuff buddy. You're lying about what can be plainly read in the thread you're in.

taking mature conversations seriously and usually find immature conversations trivial. — praxis

You may think this, but your behaviour throughout this thread has been to avoid admitting where you were wrong, poisoning wells, making sweeping claims about other people's minds, refusing to look at long-form examples of hte person you're lambasting and - it seems - actively trolling.

You don't come across like you're a very serious person, and it's not all that surprising. It would have just been easier for you to say you found this entertaining a long time ago, rather than being blatantly dishonest for pages.

I see Mikie found his way back into following me around, and it's not surprising. Both yourself and Questioner seem to have his same pattern of posting.

Frankly, entertainment.
— praxis

So, trolling. — AmadeusD

Being entertained by a discussion doesn't imply trolling, obviously.

You are forgetting the entirety of hte exchange and reverting back to default mode where you were proved factually wrong, lied about something you said you didn't say and then plum ignored both instances while continuing to press on his use of abomination in a specific context in which he was not giving his personal view. This is quite simple: You are not being serious anymore. — AmadeusD

What is that supposed to mean, that he wasn't giving his personal view? I don't think that I ever claimed he was expressing his personal view. He said:

"You hear that William Thomas [deadnaming Lia Thomas]? You're an abomination to God."
–– Charlie Kirk

He is apparently giving God's point of view. Though it should probably be taken into consideration that he was a follower of God, and being so inclined to adopt God's point of view. But as we've discussed, like you, I imagine he didn't really "give a shit" and he was simply catering to his audiences appetites ––being their culture warrior –– and making a tidy income in that role.

This is twilight zone stuff buddy. — AmadeusD

Indeed, I've always thought that show was quite entertaining.

You're lying about what can be plainly read in the thread you're in. — AmadeusD

You admit it's "twilight zone stuff," which means that you don't know what's going on. I suggest that your belief about my dishonesty is mistaken.

refusing to look at long-form examples of hte person you're lambasting — AmadeusD

How many times do I need to watch that ridiculous Williams video? :lol:

Kirk was clearly a smart guy, but I didn't realize how uneducated he was or how little religious training he seems to have had. I saw a video of him speaking with Jordan Peterson where he said how he vigorously studied business and economics. That tracks.

It would have just been easier for you to say you found this entertaining a long time ago, rather than being blatantly dishonest for pages. — AmadeusD

I claimed somewhere that it wasn't entertaining?

... following me around, and it's not surprising. Both yourself and Questioner seem to have his same pattern of posting. — AmadeusD

Huh? You jumped in to defend Kirk in this topic. If anything you followed me here.

And are you suggesting that I'm Questioner? Hey @Questioner are you me?